[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 From:  David W. Hess <dwhess at banishedsouls dot org>
 To:  "Bob Young" <bob at lavamail dot net>
 Cc:  <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] VoIP voice quality surprise
 Date:  Sun, 06 Aug 2006 16:17:00 -0500
On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 14:55:26 -0400, you wrote:

>I went to my VoIP outgoing traffic shaping rule and made LAN the interface;
>rather then WAN as I had it.  And I changed the direction to "in" rather
>then "out", which I used for the WAN interface.
>And I had control over my outgoing VoIP BW there also.
>Gee. which interface is best to use?  WAN or LAN?  To me it would seem to be
>more efficient to control the BW of my VoIP at the interface where it enters
>my Monowall.

It would be nice if all the rules could be referenced to one interface for
controlling both outgoing and incoming traffic but the nature of how the traffic
shaper is currently designed does not permit it.  There are good reasons for
this and in most applications the current simplicity outweighs any
disadvantages.  Just get used to having incoming rules reference the WAN
interface and outgoing rules reference the LAN interface.

The way I did it was to make two sets of rules.  One set used the LAN interface
and controlled outgoing traffic.  This is normally the more critical one because
the physical upload throughput tends to be relatively low and it is much easier
to control since the packets originate on your side.  The other set used the WAN
interface to control incoming traffic.  Note that since you do not have direct
control over incoming traffic (it is sent and traverses your DSL connection
before you can delay or drop it) it is necessarily less effective.  I found it
still worth doing though.

For the lowest latency you will need two separate sets of queues but VoIP may
work fine with just one.  I never tested it enough to know before switching to
pfsense which I did for other reasons.