netdev - Re: IFB and bridges

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1323593906.4016.42.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date:	Sun, 11 Dec 2011 09:58:26 +0100
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	"John A. Sullivan III" <jsullivan@...nsourcedevel.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: IFB and bridges

Le samedi 10 décembre 2011 à 20:15 -0500, John A. Sullivan III a écrit :
> Hello, all.  This is more an "out of curiosity" question.  I'm starting
> to build a test environment for all I've learned about Linux traffic
> shaping over the last week.  One of the devices happens to be configured
> as a bridge.  It quickly became apparent that I needed to do shaping on
> the individual ports and not the bridge port.
> 
> This would be a real pain if I have lots of ports - 8 or 10 or 20
> identical configurations.  Would this be an ideal use for IFB? That is,
> to redirect all ports to IFB and apply one set qdiscs/classes? Thanks -

I have no idea what your problem is.

You want to shape either egress or ingress, for different reasons (most
people shape egress), but on proxies an ingress and egress combination
is welcomed.

But having to use ingress on the same machine in place of egress, I dont
see why.

--
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