[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090615164417.GB9469@ami.dom.local>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:44:18 +0200
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To: Paweł Staszewski <pstaszewski@...are.pl>
Cc: jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>,
Linux Network Development list <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: iproute2 action/policer question
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 06:37:06PM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 06:09:57PM +0200, Paweł Staszewski wrote:
> > Jarek Poplawski pisze:
> >> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 09:32:08AM -0400, jamal wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 11:19 +0000, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> This is only a sample but is not working
> >>>>>
> >>> It does seem to be working!
> >>> How did you reach conclusion it wasnt working?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> Action statistics:
> >>>>> Sent 42351 bytes 110 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 32 requeues 0)
> >>>>> rate 0bit 0pps backlog 0b 0p requeues 0
> >>>>>
> >>> 32 packets hit the policer - double check your parameters please to make
> >>> sure they are correct.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> > Yes. packets hits policer but second action dont drop packets.
>
> I guess Jamal meant 'hit the policer' == '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.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists