[LARTC] Broken filters?

[Andy Furniss]

Pan'ko Alexzender wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2005 23:39:35 +0100
> Andy Furniss <andy.furniss at dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Pan'ko Alexzender wrote:
>>
>>>Hi!
>>>By iptables I set marking (-j MARK) just before -j IMQ.
>>>There are only three marks. Exectly all of them are ditected to 1:20
>>
>>What are the rules.
> 
> 
> There was three tables. At the end of each placed such rules:
> 
> iptables -t mangle -A IMQ_MARK1 -j MARK --set-mark 106
> iptables -t mangle -A IMQ_MARK1 -j IMQ --todev 0
> 
> iptables -t mangle -A IMQ_MARK2 -j MARK --set-mark 107
> iptables -t mangle -A IMQ_MARK2 -j IMQ --todev 0
> 
> iptables -t mangle -A IMQ_MARK2 -j MARK --set-mark 108
> iptables -t mangle -A IMQ_MARK2 -j IMQ --todev 0
> 
>>>Why I see 3 pkts in default 1:30? 
>>>How explain it?
>>
>>Maybe there was traffic flowing when you ran the script.
> 
> 
> No. Than it rizes.

Ahh OK

> 
> 
> I recive too answears from:
> 
> gypsy <gypsy at iswest.com>
> "Most likeley the packets in 1:30 are not TCP.  They are probably UDP or
> ARP or ICMP."
> 
> Marcin Ka_u_a <mk at sekretarka.no-ip.org>
> "These are ARP packets. See Andy's reply to my question from 03 May in the 
> archives"

In the case of imq the arp going to default doesn't happen because 
traffic is sent from iptables and iptables doesn't see arp packets.

> 
> I think they are right. But now I have mach more bigger problems, that makes me forgot this :).
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is problems of new kernel 2.6.11. There are configuration that makes karnel panic.
> And IMQ not realy shapting (rate is not limited realy)... Now I testing this all...
> 
> Now I am wating for kernel pathes and trying lastest normal and test relises.

Maybe this is it - I have seen other reports of IMQ + 2.6.11.x being 
unstable.

Andy.