[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  "Chris Bagnall" <m0n0wall at minotaur dot cc>
 To:  <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  Theory behind Magic Shaper?
 Date:  Wed, 1 Dec 2004 17:31:53 -0000
I've been playing around with the default magic shaper config this
afternoon, and wondering if anyone can shed light on some of the following:

1) Why the 3 different "high priority upload" queues?

2) Looking at the "m_Small Pkt Upload" rule, it seems that this would
completely include the "m_TCP ACK Upload" rule, since the former appears
higher in the list (hence making the separate TCP ACK rule redundant).

3) I did some connection monitoring on a machine running BitTorrent, and I
noticed that a good 50% of the connections from it aren't on the standard
6881-6999 port range. Given that I'm not trying to prohibit BitTorrent, but
merely prevent it from slowing down other network connections unreasonably,
I'm trying to find a reliable way of doing so.

If I know the machine that's responsible for the BitTorrent traffic, can I
define rules as follows:
If                 | Proto | Source | Destination | Target
WAN (out) |   *      | Cronus |      *            |  P2P Upload
WAN (in)   |   *       |  *          |  Cronus     | P2P Download

(sorry, I suck at ascii art, but you get the idea)
If I'm on the right track, that *should* mean any traffic into/out of Cronus
should go into the lowest priority queue? 

Given high priority up/download are mainly for VPN, so let's assume only
catch all and hated are in use: if a queue is completely unused, how is
traffic distributed?

Default magic shaper config for those is as follows:
Upstream weights: catch-all (4), hated (1)
Downstream weights: catch-all (40), hated (10)

So, am I right in saying that given none of the high-priority queues are in
use, for every 4 packets of "ordinary" traffic, one packet of "hated"
traffic is allowed? If so, that means that 20% of outgoing traffic should be
"hated". Is there any mileage in changing this by reducing the priority of
the "high priority" queues in favour of increasing the priority of the
general queue?

i.e. High priority is redefined as weight=50, general has a weight=49, and
hated has a weight=1.
If my calculations are correct, that should mean that only 2% of outgoing
traffic would be P2P.

Regards,

Chris
-- 
C.M. Bagnall, Partner, Minotaur
Tel: (07010) 710715   Mobile: (07811) 332969   ICQ: 13350579
AIM: MinotaurUK   MSN: minotauruk at hotmail dot com   Y!: Minotaur_Chris
This email is made from 100% recycled electrons