what I  do is have 2 pipes (in-pipe, out-pipe - like you do)

then separate queues for incoming voice and outgoing voice.
so 4 queues  ->  in-voice, out-voice, 'in-others', 'out-others'
'in-voice' goes to 'in-pipe', 'out-voice' to 'out-pipe'

give the voice queues priority over the others

The point about your rules being all wrong still stands.

sai

On 10/19/05, YARICK <yarick at yarick dot com> wrote:
> SAI,
> Thank you for your reponce.
> After I separate incoming and outgoing VOIP packets by creating a separate
> rule for each.
> What priority do I give them ?
> Separate PIPE for each ?
> Bandwidth is not an issue here, we are on the fiber network.
>
> Here are the screenshots of the current rules:
> http://www2.tjwv.com/listing/Yarick/MONOWALL.JPG
>
>
>
> On 10/19/05, sai <sonicsai at gmail dot com> wrote:
> >
> > On 10/17/05, YARICK <yarickmirskiy at gmail dot com> wrote:
> > > Here are my rules.
> > > It seems to be working great.
> > > Any feedback is welcome.
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Its a bit difficult to read the rules (because of the hyperlinks coming
> > in) but
> > [1] it seems that you dont have separate queues for voip. You need
> > separate queues for incoming voip and outgoing voip. These queues
> > will have higher weighting than other queues to maintain voice
> > quality.
> >
> > [2] rules like
> > LAN TCP * Port: 443 (HTTPS) * Port: 443 (HTTPS) Pipe 2
> > are incorrect. If you are trying to prioritise HTTPS traffic from the
> > LAN network then the source port will also be * (not 443). Same goes
> > for all other protocols.
> >
> > I've seen voip networks perform much better when there is a mono
> > there. Even before traffic shaping is used. Throughput / perfomance is
> > just great!
> >
> > sai
> >
>
>