* [LARTC] imq or ingress+htb? @ 2004-03-02 17:33 Patrick Petersen 2004-03-02 19:53 ` Stef Coene 2004-03-02 20:48 ` Roy 0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Patrick Petersen @ 2004-03-02 17:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: lartc Todays quick question: Ive had problems with imq and getting my setup to work as planned. Im thinking that a better solution for shaping incoming traffic would be to put a little limit in the outer interface of the router box with ingress, and the shape traffic on the inner interface with htb. Would that be better than using imq? -- Patrick Petersen <lartc@schmakk.dk> _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [LARTC] imq or ingress+htb? 2004-03-02 17:33 [LARTC] imq or ingress+htb? Patrick Petersen @ 2004-03-02 19:53 ` Stef Coene 2004-03-02 20:48 ` Roy 1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Stef Coene @ 2004-03-02 19:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: lartc On Tuesday 02 March 2004 18:33, Patrick Petersen wrote: > Todays quick question: > > Ive had problems with imq and getting my setup to work as planned. Im > thinking that a better solution for shaping incoming traffic would be to > put a little limit in the outer interface of the router box with ingress, > and the shape traffic on the inner interface with htb. Would that be > better than using imq? Yes. Stef -- stef.coene@docum.org "Using Linux as bandwidth manager" http://www.docum.org/ #lartc @ irc.openprojects.net _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [LARTC] imq or ingress+htb? 2004-03-02 17:33 [LARTC] imq or ingress+htb? Patrick Petersen 2004-03-02 19:53 ` Stef Coene @ 2004-03-02 20:48 ` Roy 1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Roy @ 2004-03-02 20:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: lartc If you only need independent trafic classes then ingress is good option, but there is no way to prioritize trafic. Imq is quite stable now, if your kernel is 2.4.22 and later you can easily try compile this imq version as module. http://pupa.da.ru/imq ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Petersen" <lartc@schmakk.dk> To: <lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 7:33 PM Subject: [LARTC] imq or ingress+htb? > Todays quick question: > > Ive had problems with imq and getting my setup to work as planned. Im > thinking that a better solution for shaping incoming traffic would be to > put a little limit in the outer interface of the router box with ingress, > and the shape traffic on the inner interface with htb. Would that be > better than using imq? > -- > Patrick Petersen <lartc@schmakk.dk> > > _______________________________________________ > LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/ > _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-03-02 20:48 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2004-03-02 17:33 [LARTC] imq or ingress+htb? Patrick Petersen 2004-03-02 19:53 ` Stef Coene 2004-03-02 20:48 ` Roy
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox