Have anyone experience hox to use click in kernel mode with the Linux kernel version 2.6.31.14-generic (ubuntu 9.10? Is a compilation of the kernel needed? If yes, witch patch is convenient? Is a simple compilation of click is suffisant? Thanks
Howdy - A few months ago there was an email to the list concerning (in part) the fact that simple_action always operates on input port 0 (when pulling) and output port 0 (when pushing): http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/pipermail/click/2010-March/008810.html Eddie pointed out that there were very few existing N-to-N elements where packets entering on port i exit only on port i, and since these are essentially the only kinds of elements that would benefit from the proposed change to simple action, the code would be left as-is. At the time this logic seemed reasonable to me, but now I am beginning to think that maybe simple_action *should* be changed as proposed (namely, input and output ports should match). AND a number of existing elements could be changed to N-to-N in order to make use of this. For example: all of the Counter elements can be used to count the sum of multiple independent packet flows many of the Timestamp and TCP/IP Measurement elements can be used to monitor multiple independent packet flows many modification elements (e.g. RandomBitErrors, EtherEncap, IPsecEncap, Paint, etc.) can be used to modify multiple packet flows - although you can of course do this with 1 element per flow, the advantage to using a single element is that it can simplify code,(Continue reading)
Hi Ian, I originally came across this issue trying to support something similar to your first two examples (uniform behavior over multiple classes of traffic). I never considered the impact of having to write handlers (as I wasnt using them) or the benefit that other elements might get from a similar change - thanks for considering the option further. To address your example of the Counter element there could be a similar AggregateCounter element (or an AGGREGATE argument). Although, the impact depends on the number of elements that would need this change and I have an admittedly limited view into the most used elements overall. Jesse Ian Rose wrote: > Howdy - > > A few months ago there was an email to the list concerning (in part) the > fact that simple_action always operates on input port 0 (when pulling) > and output port 0 (when pushing): > > http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/pipermail/click/2010-March/008810.html > > Eddie pointed out that there were very few existing N-to-N elements > where packets entering on port i exit only on port i, and since these > are essentially the only kinds of elements that would benefit from the > proposed change to simple action, the code would be left as-is. > > At the time this logic seemed reasonable to me, but now I am beginning(Continue reading)
Have anyone experience hox to use click in kernel mode with the Linux kernel version 2.6.31.14-generic (ubuntu 9.10? Is a compilation of the kernel needed? If yes, witch patch is convenient? Is a simple compilation of click is suffisant? Thanks
I use without proble a router with my own element. ./click myrouter.click works fine. After a make install, .ko and executable seems to be correctky generated. But click-instal myrouter.click generate errors saying unknow element class for my own elements. During the make-install process these elements appears in the linuxmodule directory (.o) What appends? Help will be appreciated Rémi
Added information Sources for my own elements have capital letters: FT_encap_802.1q (.cc,.hh) FT_MarkIPCE (.cc,.hh) It's in relation with the problem? Other information : I use click-1.7 Thanks for help Remi -----Message d'origine----- De : click-bounces <at> pdos.csail.mit.edu [mailto:click-bounces <at> pdos.csail.mit.edu] De la part de remi.clavier <at> orange-ftgroup.com Envoyé : mercredi 5 mai 2010 11:37 À : click <at> pdos.csail.mit.edu Objet : [Click] Strange Unknow element I use without proble a router with my own element. ./click myrouter.click works fine. After a make install, .ko and executable seems to be correctky generated. But click-instal myrouter.click generate errors saying unknow element class for my own elements. During the make-install process these elements appears in the linuxmodule directory (.o) What appends? Help will be appreciated(Continue reading)
Dear R&D team: I am a graduate sudent form Republic of China, Dong Hwa University. I need some examples for creating element class to click and this element can use GNU radio to work. I am poor for operating click.Can send some real cases for it?Then I can follow this to build my own elements. By the way,whether click has any interface to operate GNU Radio? If it has,can you send me a list about relevance of click and GNU radio? thanks a lot Best Regards Yu-Chuan Lin _________________________________________________________________ 除了電子信箱，還有許多有用的功能。快來使用免費的 Windows Live Hotmail。 https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969 _______________________________________________ click mailing list click <at> amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu https://amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/click
Try which click-install so you make sure that you're using the right click-install binary. Then try click-install -u myrouter.click to make sure that you replace any running version of the click module with the one you just installed. Eddie On 5/5/10 2:37 AM, remi.clavier <at> orange-ftgroup.com wrote: > I use without proble a router with my own element. > ./click myrouter.click works fine. > After a make install, .ko and executable seems to be correctky generated. > But click-instal myrouter.click generate errors saying unknow element class for my own elements. > > During the make-install process these elements appears in the linuxmodule directory (.o) > > What appends? > > > Help will be appreciated > > > Rémi(Continue reading)
Hi - I think I have found a bug in the Queue element, although this would surprise me considering how often this element is used by people... line 126 of fullnotequeue.hh (in the push_failure method) kills the packet regardless instead of calling "checked_output_push(1, p)" like the other queue implementations do (e.g. line 165 of simpleeueue.cc). Am I missing something? - Ian Here is a config that demonstrates the problem (sorry about the weirdness with the Unqueue elements - I'm not sure if there is a simpler way to make this happen): InfiniteSource(\<0800>, LIMIT 20) -> Unqueue -> q::Queue(10) -> Unqueue(ACTIVE false) -> Discard; q[1] -> Script(TYPE PACKET, print "I see a drop", return 0) -> Discard; If you run this you should ONLY see "q :: Queue: overflow", but if you change q to a SimpleQueue instead, then you should see: q :: SimpleQueue: overflow I see a drop I see a drop I see a drop I see a drop I see a drop I see a drop(Continue reading)
RSS Feed7 | |
|---|---|
16 | |
28 | |
13 | |
58 | |
4 | |
18 | |
18 | |
8 | |
17 | |
36 | |
31 | |
25 | |
18 | |
17 | |
70 | |
127 | |
74 | |
75 | |
93 | |
63 | |
66 | |
90 | |
64 | |
144 | |
54 | |
78 | |
143 | |
153 | |
39 | |
69 | |
108 | |
62 | |
56 | |
70 | |
20 | |
33 | |
50 | |
124 | |
171 | |
84 | |
72 | |
110 | |
59 | |
27 | |
13 | |
27 | |
36 | |
2 | |
17 | |
91 | |
68 | |
9 | |
10 | |
60 | |
89 | |
112 | |
93 | |
84 | |
51 | |
41 | |
83 | |
53 | |
73 | |
72 | |
64 | |
68 | |
93 | |
155 | |
130 | |
128 | |
93 | |
90 | |
53 | |
64 | |
99 | |
157 | |
78 | |
75 | |
69 | |
90 | |
37 | |
41 | |
91 | |
82 | |
121 | |
154 | |
88 | |
36 | |
48 | |
69 | |
88 | |
65 | |
56 | |
82 | |
82 | |
106 | |
111 | |
130 | |
114 | |
88 | |
45 | |
64 | |
135 | |
76 | |
49 | |
179 | |
107 | |
82 | |
72 | |
90 | |
51 | |
29 | |
60 | |
55 | |
37 | |
54 | |
99 | |
24 |
