[Cake] Fwd: Cake on elements of a bridge

[Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1725 bytes --]

Dear All,

again I sent privately what should have been on the list. Now, this does not add much to Toke's response, but since Georgios referenced it it seems doubly awkward to keep it off-list...

Best Regards
	Sebastian


> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
> Subject: Re: [Cake] Cake on elements of a bridge
> Date: September 4, 2018 at 12:31:15 GMT+2
> To: Georgios Amanakis <gamanakis@gmail.com>
> 
> Hi Georgios,
> 
> I believe this should work, it is also easy to test ;) 
> 
> I would note that in this situation you do not need to employ an ifb device, you can shape on each interfaces egress side to achieve the same effect with a little less computation. Nat will not work as it needs access to data structures only available in the host that actually performs the masquerading. I believe almost everything else should work.... Since you are behind the NAT router, even the dual-xxxhost options should just work...
> 
> Best Regards
> 	Sebastian
> 
> 
>> On Sep 4, 2018, at 12:19, Georgios Amanakis <gamanakis@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> I was giving a transparent firewall a try, and wondered whether cake can be applied on the interfaces of a bridge. I want to put an extra router in-line between clients and the ISP-modem-router. It will have two interfaces (eth0 facing wan, eth1 facing lan), bridged together as br0. 
>> 
>> Can I fearlessly apply cake on eth0 and eth1? Would this be compatible with features like ingress, ack-filter or even nat?
>> 
>> Georgios
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cake mailing list
>> Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
> 


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4296 bytes --]