Hi Sunil,
On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 12:04:56PM +0530, Sunil Kovvuri wrote:
> For setting up simple per-port ratelimit, instead of TBF isn't "egress
> matchall" suitable here ?
"matchall" is a filter. What would be the associated action for a
port-level shaper?
On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 3:13 PM Vladimir Oltean <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Sunil,
>
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 12:04:56PM +0530, Sunil Kovvuri wrote:
> > For setting up simple per-port ratelimit, instead of TBF isn't "egress
> > matchall" suitable here ?
>
> "matchall" is a filter. What would be the associated action for a
> port-level shaper?
As Alexis mentioned I was referring to "matchall + policer".
Thanks,
Sunil.
On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 11:53:06PM +0530, Sunil Kovvuri wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 3:13 PM Vladimir Oltean <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Sunil,
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 12:04:56PM +0530, Sunil Kovvuri wrote:
> > > For setting up simple per-port ratelimit, instead of TBF isn't "egress
> > > matchall" suitable here ?
> >
> > "matchall" is a filter. What would be the associated action for a
> > port-level shaper?
>
> As Alexis mentioned I was referring to "matchall + policer".
The idea would be to pick a software representation which matches the
hardware behavior. A policer drops excess packets, a shaper queues them.
This hardware supports some sort of egress rate shaping.