On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 08:59:56AM -0400, jamal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
Any example/mail thread I could read about this ? > 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. > > [...] > > 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? I'm concerned about the overhead of redirecting the packets to a dummy/imq device and then re-inject them, compared to doing all the processing inside ing_filter. However, I don't know enough linux internals to really evaluate it. Any idea ? -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | - 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
