[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  Adam Nellemann <adam at nellemann dot nu>
 Cc:  m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] Re: m0n0 - traffic_shaper
 Date:  Thu, 29 Apr 2004 05:29:49 +0200
Hi,

Didier: Thanks for the added info! I'll take a thorough look at your 
examples (with the DummyNet manual at my side) and see if I can grok 
what you are doing :)

Others: Anyone know if the examples Didier gives here (and in his 
previous post) can be implemented through the m0n0wall webGUI? If not, 
anyone who would venture an example of how to do stuff like this 
through the config.xml? (Assuming these things can be done using the 
recently added feature that allow shell commands in the config.xml to 
be executed at bootup?)

Regards,

Adam.


Didier Lebrun wrote:

> At 02:38 29/04/2004 +0200, Adam wrote:
> 
>>Hi Didier,
>>
>>OK, fair enough, so it does make sense to do inbound bandwidth managment 
>>IF you have several users on the same WAN line. I was assuming one / a few 
>>users, since this seemed to be the situation of the original poster (any 
>>myself as well!)
>>
>>Am I correct in assuming that it is still not very efficient to limit 
>>inbound bandwidth in a case where only a single or a few PCs are using the 
>>WAN line, and you want to limit one kind of traffic in relation to another 
>>(such as keeping HTTP/IMAP/VoIP responsive in preference over P2P/FTP/... 
>>and such) rather than simply ensuring "fair" sharing of the WAN line?
> 
> 
> It's another kind of problem, but the logic is similar. In your case, it's 
> a question of sharing unevenly between several kinds of ports instead of 
> sharing evenly between several IP addresses. Here's a variant for this 
> specific problem:
> 
> """
> pipe_up_size="24Kbytes" # adapt to your link
> pipe_down_size="96Kbytes" # ...
> queue_up_size="24Kbytes" # same as pipe
> queue_down_size="96Kbytes" # same as pipe
> ports_high_weight="1-1000,2401,3306,8000,8080" # adapt to your taste
> up_high_weight=10 # adapt to your taste
> up_low_weight=1 # ...
> down_high_weight=10 # ...
> down_low_weight=1 # ...
> 
> ${fwcmd} add pipe 1 all from ${iip} to any out xmit ${oif}
> ${fwcmd} add pipe 2 all from any to ${iip} in recv ${oif}
> ${fwcmd} pipe 1 config queue ${pipe_up_size}
> ${fwcmd} pipe 2 config queue ${pipe_down_size}
> 
> ${fwcmd} add queue 1 all from ${iip} to any ${ports_high_weight} out xmit 
> ${oif}
> ${fwcmd} add queue 2 all from any ${ports_high_weight} to ${iip} in recv ${oif}
> ${fwcmd} add queue 3 all from ${iip} to any not ${ports_high_weight} out 
> xmit ${oif}
> ${fwcmd} add queue 4 all from any not ${ports_high_weight} to ${iip} in 
> recv ${oif}
> 
> ${fwcmd} queue 1 config pipe 1 weight ${up_high_weight} queue ${queue_up_size}
> ${fwcmd} queue 2 config pipe 2 weight ${down_high_weight} queue 
> ${queue_down_size}
> ${fwcmd} queue 3 config pipe 1 weight ${up_low_weight} queue ${queue_up_size}
> ${fwcmd} queue 4 config pipe 2 weight ${down_low_weight} queue 
> ${queue_down_size}
> """
> 
> With such a config, higher priority ports would be served faster than lower 
> priority ones, whenever they are competing for bandwidth use (10 times 
> faster in the example case). The important thing to understand is how to 
> shape the traffic by just delaying the ACKs and the relation between the 
> queue size and the TCP window size.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>I'm not sure I follow your (rather complex) DummyNet configuration 
>>examples, but in case I can wrap my mind around these, am I correct in 
>>assuming some of this can't currently be done from the m0n0wall traffic 
>>shaper GUI? (That is, without using exec.php cmds.)
> 
> 
> I haven't hacked m0n0wall GUI enough to tell precisely, since I am not a 
> m0n0wall user, but an admirer using it as a source of inspiration. For 
> practical use, I prefer to have a fully featured FreeBSD system and deal 
> directly with the raw configuration files rather than via some GUI.
> 
> As far as I know, I don't see any fundamental reason why it couldn't be 
> done with m0n0wall since you don't rely on IP adresses before NAT. What I 
> don't know is how easy/difficult it is to implement it using the GUI.
> 
> PS: there was a typo in my previous mail, making it rather confusing:
> """
> ...
> ${fwcmd} pipe 1 config queue ${pipe_up_size}
> ${fwcmd} pipe 2 config queue ${pipe_down_size}
> """           ^
> 
> Didier
> 
> --
> Didier Lebrun
> Le bourg - 81140 - Vaour (France)

> mailto:dl at vaour dot net (MIME, ISO latin 1)
> http://didier.quartier-rural.org/
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>