From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Furniss Subject: Re: IMQ / new Dummy device post. Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 22:31:35 +0100 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <4082F3B7.8000408@dsl.pipex.com> References: <407E5905.9070108@dsl.pipex.com> <1082031313.1039.13.camel@jzny.localdomain> <407EE3E5.8060200@dsl.pipex.com> <1082087553.1035.287.camel@jzny.localdomain> <4080356F.4020609@dsl.pipex.com> <1082145341.1026.125.camel@jzny.localdomain> <40810957.6030209@dsl.pipex.com> <1082203795.1043.18.camel@jzny.localdomain> <4081A824.5020107@dsl.pipex.com> <1082298480.1041.94.camel@jzny.localdomain> <4082AE45.7030101@dsl.pipex.com> <4082E66D.2020707@dsl.pipex.com> <1082322448.1041.329.camel@jzny.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: hadi@cyberus.ca In-Reply-To: <1082322448.1041.329.camel@jzny.localdomain> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org jamal wrote: > On Sun, 2004-04-18 at 16:34, Andy Furniss wrote: > > > >>Hmm second thoughts - if I can route packets to dummy after demasquerade >>then I don't need to mark - I can use u32 as I do now to seperate per >>IP. Am I missing something here? > > > The problem is dummy had some speacial reason for existence in the old > days of slip/ppp dummy acts as blackhole; > some apps insist(ed) on getting a static IP address > on primary interface when you are offline. So people would typically > setup routes to the dummy device where packets just get swalloed. > > I have a feeling there are people who still use this functionality > somewhere in the globe (sorry i am from .ca dont know what that means > anymore;->). And i dont want to break this functionality. > So what i was thinking is i will have dummy spare any fwmarked packets > and reinject them back. I think this would still be a solution for me - I allready mark everything coming in on ppp0 in prerouting filter (pre demasquerade) into three classes - interactive, new and bulk. I then use u32 to further share bulk per dst IP post demasquerade on the HTB/IMQ. So as long as I can route to dummy post demasquerade I don't need IMQ. This would be alot better than messing around with connmark. Andy. > Another alternative is to just fsck this backward compatibility mode > because people could use blackhole routes today. > Yet another alternative is to create a brand new device and call it > something like imq2. For such little code, this may be overkill. > > cheers, > jamal