From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: iproute2 action/policer question
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:44:18 +0200
Message-ID: <20090615164417.GB9469@ami.dom.local>
References: <20090615111927.GA12316@ff.dom.local> <1245072728.3948.14.camel@dogo.mojatatu.com> <20090615145222.GA2767@ami.dom.local> <4A367255.5050604@itcare.pl> <20090615163706.GA9469@ami.dom.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Cc: jamal <hadi@cyberus.ca>,
	Linux Network Development list <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
To: =?iso-8859-2?Q?Pawe=B3?= Staszewski <pstaszewski@itcare.pl>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-bw0-f213.google.com ([209.85.218.213]:58964 "EHLO
	mail-bw0-f213.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1757928AbZFOQo4 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Mon, 15 Jun 2009 12:44:56 -0400
Received: by bwz9 with SMTP id 9so3468306bwz.37
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:44:56 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090615163706.GA9469@ami.dom.local>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 06:37:06PM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 06:09:57PM +0200, Pawe=B3 Staszewski wrote:
> > Jarek Poplawski pisze:
> >> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 09:32:08AM -0400, jamal wrote:
> >>  =20
> >>> On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 11:19 +0000, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> >>>
> >>>    =20
> >>>>> This is only a sample but is not working
> >>>>>        =20
> >>> It does seem to be working!
> >>> How did you reach conclusion it wasnt working?
> >>>
> >>>    =20
> >>>>>         Action statistics:
> >>>>>         Sent 42351 bytes 110 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 32 requ=
eues 0)
> >>>>>         rate 0bit 0pps backlog 0b 0p requeues 0
> >>>>>        =20
> >>> 32 packets hit the policer - double check your parameters please =
to make
> >>> sure they are correct.
> >>>    =20
> >>
> >>  =20
> > Yes. packets hits policer but second action dont drop packets.
>=20
> I guess Jamal meant 'hit the policer' =3D=3D 'dropped' (and 110 - 32
> passed). So the question is how did you checked it's otherwise.

Hmm... Not that we don't believe you, but some other (tc -s qdisc ?)
stats with this would be appreciated before checking the code.;-)

Jarek P.