[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  "Martin Holst" <mail at martinh dot dk>
 To:  <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  RE: Traffic Shaper
 Date:  Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:53:21 +0100
I've thought of the same thing.
Queue weight could be used for prioritizing traffic - something several
people have asked for.

AFAIK you can also use the same "rule order" system as the firewall uses -
so that no further shaping occurs when a matching rule is met.

Example (don't mind the syntax):
1 http max 50 kb/s
2 All other max 200 kb/s

If a packet matches http-rule there is no need for it to be capped (and
delayed) by yet another rule.
At least not if rule ordering is used correctly ;o)

/Martin


-----Original Message-----
From: Instigater [mailto:bloo at sveiks dot lv] 
Sent: 31. december 2003 11:02
To: M0n0wall
Subject: [m0n0wall] Traffic Shaper

Hi,
I have some idea. Queue weight should be added to trafiic shaper if it's
based on dymmynet. How do you like this idea? A little harder but also might
be possible to make tree-like queuing. This should give ability for normal
operation of interactive services during peak hours.
Example:

Queue 1 bandwidht 2Mbit
| port SSH priority 1
| port IRC priority  2
| port 80 priority 3
| port other priority 4
= Queue 2 bandwidth 256 kbit for each host
  |  host 1
  |  host 2
  |  ....
  |  host 20


Instigater