[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  Aaron <lists at mycommunitynet dot net>
 To:  m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] Re: Traffic Shaping question (Pipe within pipe?)
 Date:  Tue, 2 May 2006 10:13:45 -0700
On May 1, 2006, at 11:11 PM, Jeppe Oland wrote:

>> No, you cannot have pipes within pipes. You can have a queu
>> within a pipe and if you can identify 'hated' traffic then
>> just direct it to a 'hated' queue.  That should do what you want.
>
> It doesn't do what I want.
>
> Let's say I have a 1.5 Mbit line.
> I create a pipe with something like 1.4 Mbit available downstream.
>
> Now when P2P is going on, lots of external machines will start  
> bombarding me
> with as much data as they think I can handle. This means they will
> continuously send a little too much - then back off - then up again.
> If a sufficient number of machines are doing this, the full line  
> bandwith
> will be consumed, and there's nothing the Shaper can do to prevent it.
>
> This is why I would like 2 pipes. If I could create a 1.4 Mbit pipe  
> for
> regular traffic, and a 1 Mbit pipe for P2P traffic *within* the 1.4  
> Mbit
> main pipe, then the line would have more room to deal with lots and  
> lots of
> incoming traffic.

Since you can't have a pipe within a pipe, what about having 2 pipes?  
Create one that is a low throughput "hated" pipe and another that is  
for the rest of the traffic with their total equaling 95% or so of  
your actual throughput.  Then you can have your rules direct the p2p  
traffic into the low throughput pipe and the other traffic into a  
less restrictive queues/pipe.

Would that work? I know 2 separate pipes  would limit the maximium  
"global" throughput and be less flexible, but if you are trying to  
keep your connection usable for the majority, it might work for you.