Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RFC\]\s+nfmark\s+modify\s+extension\s+to\s+classifiers\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RFC\]\s+nfmark\s+modify\s+extension\s+to\s+classifiers\s*$/: 10 ]

Total 10 documents matching your query.

1. [RFC] nfmark modify extension to classifiers (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 02:26:19 +0200; The netfilter mark field is heavly used nowadays to communicate between tc, netfilter and ip rule. Classifiers are not yet capable of modifying the nfmark field. However it would make sense, especia; /archives/netdev/2003-10/msg00134.html (10,880 bytes)
2. Re: [RFC] nfmark modify extension to classifiers (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: 06 Oct 2003 18:39:47 -0400; Hi there, This is a bad idea. Please consider using the tc action extensions. I was going to write a generic metadata modifier action (classid, tcindex, nfmark etc). Maybe you can beat me to it. chee; /archives/netdev/2003-10/msg00153.html (9,535 bytes)
3. Re: [RFC] nfmark modify extension to classifiers (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 03:28:59 +0200; You mean TC_POLICE_NFMARK? This was actually my initial idea but I wanted to avoid a dependency mess. I also thought about that, more specificly: Extend tcf_result and set nfmark/tcindex in tc_class; /archives/netdev/2003-10/msg00157.html (8,356 bytes)
4. Re: [RFC] nfmark modify extension to classifiers (score: 1): Author: .hen@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: 12 Oct 2003 16:52:32 -0400; sorry, setting nfmark already works by virtue that the target for doing it exists; i.e "action ipt -j mark --set-mark xxx" cheers, jamal; /archives/netdev/2003-10/msg00335.html (9,363 bytes)
5. Re: [RFC] nfmark modify extension to classifiers (score: 1): Author: unlap@xxxxxxxx>; Date: 12 Oct 2003 16:00:58 -0400; I meant this: http://www.cyberus.ca/~hadi/patches/action/README so you can do: tc filter add dev lo parent ffff: protocol ip prio 10 u32 match ip src \ 127.0.0.1/32 flowid 1:1 .... action metaset cla; /archives/netdev/2003-10/msg00338.html (8,819 bytes)
6. [RFC] nfmark modify extension to classifiers (score: 1): Author: Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 02:26:19 +0200; Hello The netfilter mark field is heavly used nowadays to communicate between tc, netfilter and ip rule. Classifiers are not yet capable of modifying the nfmark field. However it would make sense, es; /archives/netdev/2003-10/msg00876.html (10,880 bytes)
7. Re: [RFC] nfmark modify extension to classifiers (score: 1): Author: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 06 Oct 2003 18:39:47 -0400; Hi there, This is a bad idea. Please consider using the tc action extensions. I was going to write a generic metadata modifier action (classid, tcindex, nfmark etc). Maybe you can beat me to it. chee; /archives/netdev/2003-10/msg00895.html (9,595 bytes)
8. Re: [RFC] nfmark modify extension to classifiers (score: 1): Author: Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 03:28:59 +0200; Hello You mean TC_POLICE_NFMARK? This was actually my initial idea but I wanted to avoid a dependency mess. I also thought about that, more specificly: Extend tcf_result and set nfmark/tcindex in tc_; /archives/netdev/2003-10/msg00899.html (8,448 bytes)
9. Re: [RFC] nfmark modify extension to classifiers (score: 1): Author: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 12 Oct 2003 16:52:32 -0400; sorry, setting nfmark already works by virtue that the target for doing it exists; i.e "action ipt -j mark --set-mark xxx" cheers, jamal; /archives/netdev/2003-10/msg01077.html (9,533 bytes)
10. Re: [RFC] nfmark modify extension to classifiers (score: 1): Author: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 12 Oct 2003 16:00:58 -0400; I meant this: http://www.cyberus.ca/~hadi/patches/action/README so you can do: tc filter add dev lo parent ffff: protocol ip prio 10 u32 match ip src \ 127.0.0.1/32 flowid 1:1 .... action metaset cla; /archives/netdev/2003-10/msg01080.html (8,955 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 10
Page: [1]