[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  "Christopher M. Iarocci" <iarocci at eastendsc dot com>
 To:  Brandon Holland <brandon at cookssaw dot com>
 Cc:  'Manuel Kasper' <mk at neon1 dot net>, m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] IP Phone / Traffic Shaping Question
 Date:  Wed, 07 Jan 2004 10:24:33 -0500
Brandon Holland wrote:

>That is GREAT Manuel.  I'll definitely use it. THANKS!
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Manuel Kasper [mailto:mk at neon1 dot net] 
>Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 1:43 PM
>To: Michael Iedema
>Cc: m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
>Subject: Re: [m0n0wall] IP Phone / Traffic Shaping Question
>
>On 06.01.2004, at 20:17, Michael Iedema wrote:
>
>  
>
>>will probably go to crap.  now m0n0wall has a traffic shaper that can
>>fix this, but my question is can a traffic shaper rule be 
>>demand-based?  can
>>90k of upstream traffic be reserved only when a phone call is 
>>happening and
>>not fulltime?  just wondering.
>>    
>>
>
>A new release of m0n0wall with a completely revamped traffic shaper 
>that makes most of the power of dummynet available through the webGUI 
>will be released later this week. The shaper has been split up to 
>provide separate lists for rules, pipes and queues, where each rule can 
>be associated with either a pipe or a queue.
>
>I guess you could solve this problem for the upstream by making two 
>queues linked to the same pipe (and set the pipe's bandwidth to 
>something slightly below the effective upstream throughput to bring the 
>queue into m0n0wall instead of the router), but with different weights, 
>and then have traffic from that IP phone go to the queue with the 
>higher weight, while everything else goes to the other queue. That 
>doesn't work very well with downstream traffic, though, as you have no 
>control over the order in which packets come in from your ISP.
>
>- Manuel
>
>
>  
>

Awesome, I 3rd that.  I will definitely use this too.

Chris