[LARTC] Re: LARTC Digest, Vol 5, Issue 6

[Andre Heider <a.heider@gmail.com>]

thanks for your reply, but the reason for imq on my setup would be to
shape incoming traffic with dst_ip=router_ip AND the traffic that gets
routed to the nat'ed boxes.

eg.
router 40% ceil 100%
lan 60% ceil 100%

i'm not 100% sure on this but without imq that would be only ingress
'dropping' i could do, right? and i couldnt split the traffic nicely as
my example shows.

of course this is just my understanding of how tc works using a linux
kernel. if i'm wrong or missed some solution that's nicer/easier i'm all
ears ;)

oh and thanks for your script. nicely done

regards

Edward Smith wrote:
> I'm not an expert, but I can tell you that when traffic shaping on a
> router, you can just shape egress both ways and not mess with imq.  My
> script is at
> 
> http://www.stardotstar.org/?page_idc 
> 
> The basis are the following 2 lines where UPDEV is ppp0 and DOWNDEV is
> eth0 in your case.
> 
> tc qdisc add dev ${UPDEV} root handle 1: htb default 100 r2q 1
> tc qdisc add dev ${DOWNDEV} root handle 1: htb default 100 r2q 1
> 
> Edward
> 
> 
> 
>>Message: 2
>>Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 12:40:11 +0200
>>From: Andre Heider <a.heider@gmail.com>
> 
> 
>>seems like imq is the only solution to me. my idea on imq0 was something
>>like this:
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc