Michael,

 From my testing, I seem to get slightly better results if I add a  
pipe #4 for my voip downstream... the same size as my voip upstream,  
reducing my pipe #2 (total download) by the size of the new pipe #4.   
Of course, your downstream voip rule is edited to point to pipe #4  
instead of the high priority download queue.

My theory is that pipes without queues have less jitter and latency,  
good for voip.

Lonnie

On Aug 19, 2006, at 5:18 PM, Michael Graves wrote:

> Lonnie,
>
> It's really just my poor math. However, the process isn't as strict as
> it might be.
>
> In actuality, my 600 kbps should be broken  into 216k and 384k. Since
> the measured upstream 600 k is worst case there is a little latitude.
>
> As far as I can tell there is now ability to "squeeze"....meaning that
> there's no elasticity to the traffic shaper. If you cap something at
> 384k then that's all it ever gets.
>
> Since my Asterisk server handles my office and home lines I rarely  
> have
> more than three calls at one time. Using G.711 that would be around
> 320k outbound in total (3 x 64k + IP overhead)
>
> A few months back I installed G.729 codecs on my server and made those
> the prefered codecs. Using them each call consumes only 32k each leg.
> This has given me some latitude in my tweaks. However, I used several
> termination providers, a couple of which won't terminate G729 calls.
> Thus I've not tried to recover any of the bandwidth assigned to the
> voip side for general use.
>
> After hours if I have a large upload to run, perhaps over the weekend,
> I'll sometimes defeat the traffic shaper entirely and allow the data
> side to use all the available bandwidth.
>
> It's curious to note that Skype calls are not dealt with at all in my
> scheme. I run Skype on my primary desktop, which is also the source of
> most of the uploads that I run. So I can't manage based upon IP
> address. Skype uses various port so port based traffic management is
> not an option. Occasionally, when I'm very busy Skype calls are
> actually worse that calls placed through the Asterisk server. A sweet
> irony.
>
> Michael
>
>
> On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 12:24:20 -0500, Lonnie Abelbeck wrote:
>
>> Michael,
>>
>> I was studying your traffic shaping rules.
>>
>> You specified an upstream speed of 600 kb/s, that would result in a
>> 540 kb/s bandwidth for pipe #1.
>>
>> You then added pipe #3 with 256 kb/s.
>>
>> You then reduced pipe #1 from 540 to 384 kb/s.
>>
>> Question: Shouldn't the reduced value for pipe #1 be 284? not 384 as
>> you show. (256 + 284 = 540)
>>
>> Or, does this let you 'squeeze' your pipe #3 smaller if pipe #1
>> demands it?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Lonnie
>>
>> On Aug 17, 2006, at 11:39 AM, Lonnie Abelbeck wrote:
>>
>>> Michael,
>>>
>>>> Since this question has come up several times recently I've made
>>>> screen
>>>> shots of my m0n0 traffic shaper settings available via the  
>>>> following
>>>> links.
>>>
>>> A most excellent sharing of information.
>>>
>>> Thanks you... very much appreciated.
>>>
>>> Lonnie
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Michael Graves                           mgraves at pixelpower dot com
> Sr. Product Specialist                          www.pixelpower.com
> Pixel Power Inc.                                 mgraves at mstvp dot com
>
> o713-861-4005
> o800-905-6412
> c713-201-1262
> fwd 54245
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
>
>