linux-2.4.22, iptables-1.2.9, imq

linux-2.4.22, iptables-1.2.9, imq

[Josh Howlett]

Hi,

I am trying to get IMQ working with Linux 2.4.22 and iptables-1.2.9.

I have patched the kernel with the IMQ patch. No problem.

I then patched the latest patch-o-matic with the IMQ patch. No problem.

I then ran P-o-M against my kernel tree, and selected IMQ. No problem.

I then selected the IMQ target (module) and device (module) options in
the kernel configuration and compiled it. No problem.

I then compiled iptables against the kernel (statically). No problem.

When I run iptables I get: "Couldn't find target `IMQ'".

I assume that the IMQ stuff isn't getting linked into iptables. Where
have I gone wrong? I don't seem to have patched anything directly
against the iptables source...

many thanks, josh.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
Josh Howlett, Networking & Digital Communications,
Information Systems & Computing, University of Bristol, U.K.
'phone: 0117 928 7850 email: josh.howlett@bris.ac.uk
------------------------------------------------------------

Re: linux-2.4.22, iptables-1.2.9, imq

[Vigil]

Did you reboot? :-D

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Josh Howlett josh.howlett-at-bristol.ac.uk |Netfilter Mailing List| wrote:

>I assume that the IMQ stuff isn't getting linked into iptables. Where have I
>gone wrong? I don't seem to have patched anything directly against the iptables
>source...

-- 

.

IMQ Replacement

[Peter Frischknecht]

I have been using IMQ with great success for the last few months.  The
particular network where this is used has 400+ nodes, and IMQ performs
flawlessly.

As anyone who uses IMQ will tell you, the only alternatives are:
1 - Install another router, just to perform NAT
2 - Install 2 additional NICs in the Linux gateway with a Xover cable
between them

Is there another piece of software that performs the job of IMQ?
It is great being able to shape traffic AND masquerade packets in one
box.  How else can it be done?

We shape traffic individually for each client.  Generic traffic shapping
rules that regulate the entire pipe would not work for us.

The fact that IMQ is unmaintained is nerve wrecking.  It is difficult
enough to install the thing with the sources and documentation
available.  It will only become more difficult as the kernel evolves and
we move to 2.6.x.

I don't think I have the knowledge to mainatin the source code.  But I
believe in the concept so much that I might just take up the code
maintenance.  Hoepefully some other folks will join in.  Maybe we can
convince enough folks to incorporate it into 2.6.x.

Any help, comments or even flames will be appreciated.  It is time for a
solution to this problem.

Peter

Re: IMQ Replacement

[Andre Correa]

I've being using IMQ with 2.4.23 here with no probs too. I've already 
tried to discuss this topic here and in other lists but got no answer. 
Writting to the last maintainner didn't helped much...

Some time ago there was a posting, maybe in LARTC, about a guy that 
started a parallell IMQ project, but I've never heard about hin anymore...

I would like to contribute/coordinate in an effort to put IMQ back on 
its track. It is an important feature that is being left behind.

Peter, maybe we should join, put a new site up with documentation 
updates, maintain 2.4.x patchs and later think what to do with 2.6. We 
may find other people interrested in coding and helping...

Anybody else care about it?

let us know...

cheers

Andre



Peter Frischknecht wrote:
> I have been using IMQ with great success for the last few months.  The
> particular network where this is used has 400+ nodes, and IMQ performs
> flawlessly.
> 
> As anyone who uses IMQ will tell you, the only alternatives are:
> 1 - Install another router, just to perform NAT
> 2 - Install 2 additional NICs in the Linux gateway with a Xover cable
> between them
> 
> Is there another piece of software that performs the job of IMQ?
> It is great being able to shape traffic AND masquerade packets in one
> box.  How else can it be done?
> 
> We shape traffic individually for each client.  Generic traffic shapping
> rules that regulate the entire pipe would not work for us.
> 
> The fact that IMQ is unmaintained is nerve wrecking.  It is difficult
> enough to install the thing with the sources and documentation
> available.  It will only become more difficult as the kernel evolves and
> we move to 2.6.x.
> 
> I don't think I have the knowledge to mainatin the source code.  But I
> believe in the concept so much that I might just take up the code
> maintenance.  Hoepefully some other folks will join in.  Maybe we can
> convince enough folks to incorporate it into 2.6.x.
> 
> Any help, comments or even flames will be appreciated.  It is time for a
> solution to this problem.
> 
> Peter
> 
> 
> 

Re: IMQ Replacement

[Rio Martin]

As the network getting bigger, i think IMQ is the good solution to manage 
traffic from all internal and outside network.
Could someone point me direction to get IMQ patch for 2.4.24 ?

Thank you.

Regards,
Rio Martin.


On Monday 19 January 2004 20:33, Andre Correa wrote:
> I've being using IMQ with 2.4.23 here with no probs too. I've already
> tried to discuss this topic here and in other lists but got no answer.
> Writting to the last maintainner didn't helped much...
> Some time ago there was a posting, maybe in LARTC, about a guy that
> started a parallell IMQ project, but I've never heard about hin anymore...
> I would like to contribute/coordinate in an effort to put IMQ back on
> its track. It is an important feature that is being left behind.
> Peter, maybe we should join, put a new site up with documentation
> updates, maintain 2.4.x patchs and later think what to do with 2.6. We
> may find other people interrested in coding and helping...
> Anybody else care about it?
> let us know...
> cheers
> Andre
>
> Peter Frischknecht wrote:
> > I have been using IMQ with great success for the last few months.  The
> > particular network where this is used has 400+ nodes, and IMQ performs
> > flawlessly.
> >
> > As anyone who uses IMQ will tell you, the only alternatives are:
> > 1 - Install another router, just to perform NAT
> > 2 - Install 2 additional NICs in the Linux gateway with a Xover cable
> > between them
> >
> > Is there another piece of software that performs the job of IMQ?
> > It is great being able to shape traffic AND masquerade packets in one
> > box.  How else can it be done?
> >
> > We shape traffic individually for each client.  Generic traffic shapping
> > rules that regulate the entire pipe would not work for us.
> >
> > The fact that IMQ is unmaintained is nerve wrecking.  It is difficult
> > enough to install the thing with the sources and documentation
> > available.  It will only become more difficult as the kernel evolves and
> > we move to 2.6.x.
> >
> > I don't think I have the knowledge to mainatin the source code.  But I
> > believe in the concept so much that I might just take up the code
> > maintenance.  Hoepefully some other folks will join in.  Maybe we can
> > convince enough folks to incorporate it into 2.6.x.
> >
> > Any help, comments or even flames will be appreciated.  It is time for a
> > solution to this problem.
> >
> > Peter

Re: IMQ Replacement

[Remus]

Hi folks,



I care about it as well.



IMQ is great and have to be maintained, but myself I'm not strong with
programming.

But I can help with testing. If somebody can take care about IMQ (or new
project of it) would be very nice.

I prefer to have everything on one box - traffic shaping (ingress and
outgress), NAT and firewall.



So guys can anybody can maintain/update IMQ (specially for 2.6 kernel),
please?





Thanks



Remus





----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andre Correa" <andre.correa@pobox.com>
To: <peter@empoweringsolutions.com>
Cc: "Netfilter Mailing List" <netfilter@lists.netfilter.org>
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: IMQ Replacement


>
> I've being using IMQ with 2.4.23 here with no probs too. I've already
> tried to discuss this topic here and in other lists but got no answer.
> Writting to the last maintainner didn't helped much...
>
> Some time ago there was a posting, maybe in LARTC, about a guy that
> started a parallell IMQ project, but I've never heard about hin anymore...
>
> I would like to contribute/coordinate in an effort to put IMQ back on
> its track. It is an important feature that is being left behind.
>
> Peter, maybe we should join, put a new site up with documentation
> updates, maintain 2.4.x patchs and later think what to do with 2.6. We
> may find other people interrested in coding and helping...
>
> Anybody else care about it?
>
> let us know...
>
> cheers
>
> Andre
>
>
>
> Peter Frischknecht wrote:
> > I have been using IMQ with great success for the last few months.  The
> > particular network where this is used has 400+ nodes, and IMQ performs
> > flawlessly.
> >
> > As anyone who uses IMQ will tell you, the only alternatives are:
> > 1 - Install another router, just to perform NAT
> > 2 - Install 2 additional NICs in the Linux gateway with a Xover cable
> > between them
> >
> > Is there another piece of software that performs the job of IMQ?
> > It is great being able to shape traffic AND masquerade packets in one
> > box.  How else can it be done?
> >
> > We shape traffic individually for each client.  Generic traffic shapping
> > rules that regulate the entire pipe would not work for us.
> >
> > The fact that IMQ is unmaintained is nerve wrecking.  It is difficult
> > enough to install the thing with the sources and documentation
> > available.  It will only become more difficult as the kernel evolves and
> > we move to 2.6.x.
> >
> > I don't think I have the knowledge to mainatin the source code.  But I
> > believe in the concept so much that I might just take up the code
> > maintenance.  Hoepefully some other folks will join in.  Maybe we can
> > convince enough folks to incorporate it into 2.6.x.
> >
> > Any help, comments or even flames will be appreciated.  It is time for a
> > solution to this problem.
> >
> > Peter
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Re: IMQ Replacement

[Krystian]

I'm also looking forward to it. In around month time I should have enogh 
time to help(if i can), although i'm not familiar to linux programing(my 
C is ok :D) :)

Krystian

Re: IMQ Replacement

[Alex Satrapa]

Remus wrote:
> IMQ is great and have to be maintained, but myself I'm not strong with
> programming.
> 
> But I can help with testing. If somebody can take care about IMQ (or new
> project of it) would be very nice.

Add me to the list of people happy to be testers!

Re: IMQ Replacement

[Andre Correa]

OK guys, so there are some people interrested in it... I'll try again to 
contact the last IMQ maintainer and see if he answers... If nothing 
happens I think the best way to start is to setup a mailling list to 
discuss it...

Does anybody know who is the contact at Linux Kernel development for us 
to double check if there is nobody else working on it?

later

Andre

Re: IMQ Replacement

[Andre Correa]

Hi guys, Andy F. pointed out that Alexander Clouter and other guys 
ported IMQ to 2.6. The URL to their port is:

http://www.digriz.org.uk/jdg-qos-script/#qos-2.6

I had no time or resources to test it so far...

I've got no answer from the last IMQ maintainer so I'll start a list for 
us to discuss what we'll gonna do about it. I'll let you know later today.

I'm sorry if this thread is disturbing somebody in this list. I'll just 
post 1 or 2 e-mails about it and we'll be out...

Meanwhile, anybody interrested in joining us to work with IMQ please 
contact me privately.

tks...

Andre

Re: IMQ Replacement

[Sven Schuster]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1262 bytes --]


Hi Andre,

maybe interessting for you: Marcel Sebek recently started a thread
on netdev about this topic. He has ported the IMQ device to 2.6
and asked if this might be accepted. Davem contacted Patrick
McHardy, the original author, who said that the IMQ device was
buggy.
This thread still continues, take a look at netdev ml archives for
more information.

HTH

Sven

On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 10:16:55AM -0200, Andre Correa told us:
> 
> Hi guys, Andy F. pointed out that Alexander Clouter and other guys 
> ported IMQ to 2.6. The URL to their port is:
> 
> http://www.digriz.org.uk/jdg-qos-script/#qos-2.6
> 
> I had no time or resources to test it so far...
> 
> I've got no answer from the last IMQ maintainer so I'll start a list for 
> us to discuss what we'll gonna do about it. I'll let you know later today.
> 
> I'm sorry if this thread is disturbing somebody in this list. I'll just 
> post 1 or 2 e-mails about it and we'll be out...
> 
> Meanwhile, anybody interrested in joining us to work with IMQ please 
> contact me privately.
> 
> tks...
> 
> Andre

-- 
Linux zion 2.6.1 #2 Mon Jan 12 14:25:44 CET 2004 i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux
 15:38:04  up 13 days, 21:10,  5 users,  load average: 0.23, 0.12, 0.04

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: IMQ Replacement

[Andy Furniss]

Sven Schuster wrote:
> Hi Andre,
> 
> maybe interessting for you: Marcel Sebek recently started a thread
> on netdev about this topic. He has ported the IMQ device to 2.6
> and asked if this might be accepted. Davem contacted Patrick
> McHardy, the original author, who said that the IMQ device was
> buggy.
> This thread still continues, take a look at netdev ml archives for
> more information.

There is also discussion on the LARTC list at the moment - someone 
called roy has rewritten IMQ but still sees crashes. He thinks they are 
related to locally generated traffic, so IMQ for ingress should be OK.

Personally I have used IMQ for locally generated traffic (> a gig/day up 
with bittorrent running on a P200 gateway) without problems, but I only 
have 256kbit/s up and shutdown everything at night.

Andy.


> 
> HTH
> 
> Sven
> 
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 10:16:55AM -0200, Andre Correa told us:
> 
>>Hi guys, Andy F. pointed out that Alexander Clouter and other guys 
>>ported IMQ to 2.6. The URL to their port is:
>>
>>http://www.digriz.org.uk/jdg-qos-script/#qos-2.6
>>
>>I had no time or resources to test it so far...
>>
>>I've got no answer from the last IMQ maintainer so I'll start a list for 
>>us to discuss what we'll gonna do about it. I'll let you know later today.
>>
>>I'm sorry if this thread is disturbing somebody in this list. I'll just 
>>post 1 or 2 e-mails about it and we'll be out...
>>
>>Meanwhile, anybody interrested in joining us to work with IMQ please 
>>contact me privately.
>>
>>tks...
>>
>>Andre
> 
> 

Re: IMQ Replacement

[Andy Furniss]

Andy Furniss wrote:

> There is also discussion on the LARTC list at the moment - someone 
> called roy has rewritten IMQ but still sees crashes. He thinks they are 
> related to locally generated traffic, so IMQ for ingress should be OK.

He just posted this, thought it may be of interest.


Finaly I made imq driver stable it did not crashed for all 5 hours under
high load, soo looks stable.
(old one was crashing after 1-5 min for me)

no need to patch anything just compile and insmod, should work with any
kernel probably must be > than 2.4.20

This is completely diferent code than old imq.
you can find it on my server http://pupa.da.ru
please tell how it works for you and how stable it is.

Re: IMQ Replacement

[Remus]

Hi Andre,

I'm already using this IMQ port and it seems to be very stable for ingres.

> Hi guys, Andy F. pointed out that Alexander Clouter and other guys 
> ported IMQ to 2.6. The URL to their port is:
> 
> http://www.digriz.org.uk/jdg-qos-script/#qos-2.6
> 
> I had no time or resources to test it so far...
> 


Regards

Remus

Re: IMQ Replacement

[Andy Furniss]

Andy Furniss wrote:
> Andy Furniss wrote:
> 
>> There is also discussion on the LARTC list at the moment - someone 
>> called roy has rewritten IMQ but still sees crashes. He thinks they 
>> are related to locally generated traffic, so IMQ for ingress should be 
>> OK.
> 
> 
> He just posted this, thought it may be of interest.
> 
> 
> Finaly I made imq driver stable it did not crashed for all 5 hours under
> high load, soo looks stable.
> (old one was crashing after 1-5 min for me)
> 
> no need to patch anything just compile and insmod, should work with any
> kernel probably must be > than 2.4.20
> 
> This is completely diferent code than old imq.
> you can find it on my server http://pupa.da.ru
> please tell how it works for you and how stable it is.

He has since posted that it crashes on locally generated traffic, 
apparently the kernel resends what gets dropped and at 100mbs this uses 
too many resources.

Andy.