Brandon Holland wrote:
>That is GREAT Manuel. I'll definitely use it. THANKS!
>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
>>90k of upstream traffic be reserved only when a phone call is
>>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.
Awesome, I 3rd that. I will definitely use this too.