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
> 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
> regular traffic, and a 1 Mbit pipe for P2P traffic *within* the 1.4
> 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.