On Wed, 2005-27-07 at 10:06 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Hi, > > I'm interested in doing more complex stuff on inbound packets than what > is currently possible with ing_filter (I understand ingress doesn't > allow child classes , and can only drop/pass packets, not store one to > send it later). >
No, thats not true. You can write a tc action that will steal packets from that path and later reinject them. But that may not be necessary if you use the patched dummy device since you could redirect packets to it and run whatever qdisc you want on it. > While this is understandable because it would conflict with the benefits > of NAPI by queueing and dropping packets much later, it prevents me from > using Linux instead of FreeBSD's Dummynet (I'm working on network > emulation-related stuff). > > What would be the disadvantages of moving the call to ing_filter earlier > in netif_receive_skb, allow queueing in ingress, and re-inject packets > inside netif_receive_skb ? Does it look do-able at least ? I'm not sure > I see all the problems it implies. > > I know there's a solution to my problem using IMQ or dummy, but it > doesn't look like a very clean solution. > I am not sure why you say it's unclean. If you can give the packets to dummy and run any qdisc on it such as netem - why would that be a problem? cheers, jamal - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
