|
||||||||
I run an Asterisk server through m0n0wall. It's not a matter of how many pipes. It's a matter of setting up the rules and assigning them to the properly weighted ques. I've uploaded a screen shot of my router here TrafficShaper copy.png (111614 bytes => https://www.onlinefilefolder.com/index.php?action=landsharedfile&user=mg raves&hash=04ccd99ff81cbf2c89fa6e9c2dfad560 Michael Graves On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:09:44 -0700, Aaron wrote: >I understand about the pipes and used the Magicshaper wizard to create >most of it. That already works fine and I do not need help with that. >The issue is that no matter what I do with just 2 pipes, I will have >issues with viop. The upstream p2p traffic will always fill whatever >size pipe is available. > >So the easy solution seems to shape the upstream traffic down more. >Nope, because when I do that, it reduces the total amount of >bandwidth...including to the machine running voip and things get even >worse. > >My idea was to give general traffic a small upstream pipe, but give the >device doing voip, a much larger, separate pipe. Sure it reduces the >outbound potential for most people, but that is not the biggest issue. >I would much rather have VOIP working well than allow people to send >large amounts of data. > >So is it not possible to have more than 2 pipes? > >On Apr 12, 2005, at 5:57 PM, John . wrote: > >> You need to create 2 pipes - 1 for inbound data and 1 for outbound. >> Each should be about 95% of your total bandwidth in that direction (to >> leave some slop for TCP overhead.) >> >> You need to create queues inside these 2 pipes - 1 for your VoIP in >> (in the inbound pipe) and 1 for VoIP out (in the outbound pipe) each >> with weight 100. >> >> You need to create appropriate queues in the 2 pipes for your other >> traffic types. (normal, bulk etc.) Each should have an appropriate >> weight. >> >> You need rules to make the traffic go the right places. >> >> I think your problem is you have too many pipes. You really only want >> 2 - 1 inbound and 1 outbound. >> >> On 4/12/05, Aaron <lists at mycommunitynet dot net> wrote: >>> VOIP Traffic Shaping. Can't I specify certain pipes? >>> >>> Hello all. Sorry for the length. >>> >>> I have read through the archives and there is a lot of information in >>> there about VOIP. However I have found that giving voip stuff priority >>> does not seem to fight audio issues well enough.Outgoing traffic at >>> more than 175Kbps causes serious issues on the far end of the call and >>> I can't seem to reduce the m_total_upload pipe and send voip out >>> another pipe that I create. This is on a Soekris Net4501 100mHz/32MB >>> with m0n0 v1.1 (It works GREAT BTW. hundreds of days of uptime with no >>> issues). >>> >>> Here is what I have. I have an ADSL connection with actual throughput >>> of about 550Kbps upstream and 2800 downstream. There are up to 30 >>> people using the network at any one time. It all runs through m0n0wall >>> and all addresses are private. Traffic shaping is turned on and I have >>> P2P set to lowest priority. I have an asterisk box at 192.168.100.90 >>> that works with my VOIP provider Broadvoice. I am using 1:1 nat to >>> give >>> me connectivity to the asterisk box outside my LAN at a WAN IP of >>> x.y.z.90 . >>> >>> This all works, but outgoing traffic (P2P, FTP, HTTP) begins to cause >>> issues with VOIP. I test this by calling a landline that I still have >>> and playing the radio into the voip line and listening on the PSTN >>> side >>> while I do different things such as using P2P, FTP etc). Downstream >>> has >>> little effect on it. >>> >>> Things I have tried: >>> 1) Create a voip queue with a priority of 100 using pipe >>> m_Total_upload. Rules to send all traffic from 192.168.100.90 to the >>> VOIP queue. This didn't really do anything. I also tried to prioritize >>> all traffic destined for the ip of sip.bradvoice.com. >>> >>> 2) Create 3rd pipe 400Kbps, Changed VOIP queue to use pipe3 as its >>> target and priority of 100, and a rule sending all traffic from >>> 192.168.100.90 through the voip queue (which is supposed to be using >>> pipe 3). I also tried directing all traffic, UDP traffic and traffic >>> to >>> sip.broadvoice.com through this pipe. >>> >>> This didn't work. When I shrunk the m_Total Upload pipe down, it >>> would cause issues for voip, so it seems voip traffic was going >>> through >>> it rather than the voip pipe. Was the rule was not catching the >>> traffic? I even tried sending ALL udp traffic from any >>> source/destination through the voip queue. Still no change as when I >>> would shrink the m_total Upload down, it would cause voip issues. >>> >>> Does anyone have something that works well to control upstream traffic >>> while still allowing voip access to more bandwidth? >>> >>> Rules - http://www.scs.wsu.edu/~arobinso/tmp/SafariScreenSnapz010.jpg >>> >>> Pipes - http://www.scs.wsu.edu/~arobinso/tmp/SafariScreenSnapz012.jpg >>> >>> Queues- http://www.scs.wsu.edu/~arobinso/tmp/SafariScreenSnapz011.jpg >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch >>> For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch >>> >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch >> For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch >> > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch >For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch > > > -- Michael Graves mgraves at pixelpower dot com Sr. Product Specialist www.pixelpower.com Pixel Power Inc. mgraves at mstvp dot com o713-861-4005 o800-905-6412 c713-201-1262 |