[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  Tony Pitman <tony at shatalmic dot com>
 To:  m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Fwd: Re: [m0n0wall] bandwidth limiting
 Date:  Mon, 10 May 2004 19:47:54 -0600
Eric,

Thanks for the reply. As it turns out I want to limit the users because it 
will encourage them to purchase more bandwidth. I will charge my users more 
based on the bandwidth that they require. I don't want them to get more 
than I give them unless they pay more for it.

I am still a little unclear about the rule part....do I need to create a 
rule for EACH IP address (i.e. user) or can I create a single rule that 
includes all of the IP addresses (i.e. all my users) and each one will 
still get their OWN 128k slice?

Tony

>From: "Eric Shorkey" <eshorkey at commonpointservices dot com>
>To: <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>, "Tony Pitman" <tony at shatalmic dot com>
>Subject: Re: [m0n0wall] bandwidth limiting
>Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 21:46:32 -0400
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
>
>All you need to do is create one pipe with a 128k limit. Within the pipe
>configuration, set the mask to source or destination. (If you're limiting
>incoming bandwith, set it to destination. If you're limiting outgoing, set
>it to source.)
>Then create the rule(s) that use the appropriate pipe. m0n0wall will then
>limit each user's bandwidth individually, based on the pipe mask. So 100
>users each get their own 128k slice of bandwidth, and are never allowed to
>use more.
>
>With T1's and a bunch of users, your best bet is probably not using pipes,
>but using queues instead. A queue allows you to prioritize your available
>bandwidth, rather than simply capping it. So if only a single user is using
>the bandwidth at any time, they get the whole pipe to themselves. As users
>start using up the available bandwidth, the queue will ensure that every
>user gets their share of time based on the weights you give. If everyone
>gets the same slice of time, then you only need 1 queue, and you just set
>it's weight to 1, or whatever the default is. Queues let you prioritize the
>traffic of particular users. In your case, you probably don't care about
>that feature, but the benefit of letting each user have as much bandwidth as
>is available is probably a good idea. Overall, your users will get more done
>as files will transfer as fast as possible, but only when there is enough
>bandwidth to go around.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Tony Pitman" <tony at shatalmic dot com>
>To: <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
>Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 9:18 PM
>Subject: [m0n0wall] bandwidth limiting
>
>
> > I am not totally clear on the Traffic Shaper in m0n0wall. I searched the
> > archive and didn't really get an answer to my question so here goes:
> >
> > I have a T1 that m0n0wall is managing.
> >
> > I have over 100 users on the ethernet sharing the T1.
> >
> > I would like to limit the MAX amount of bandwidth that a single user can
> > use to be 128k FOR EACH USER.
> >
> > I don't want to have to create a pipe for EACH user (based on IP address).
> >
> > Can I simply set up one pipe and then make a rule for the sub class of IP
> > addresses and point them all to the same pipe?
> >
> > My understanding of most bandwidth products is that if you point more than
> > one IP address to a single pipe, they share the pipe (so 10 users all
>using
> > the same 128k pipe at the same time would each only get 12.8k)
> >
> > This is hard to explain. I hope I am making sense.
> >
> > Here is an example:
> >
> > If I assign all 100 user to be limited to 128k and only 2 of them are
>using
> > the T1 I want them BOTH to each get their own 128k.
> >
> > If I create a single pipe with a bandwidth of 128k do I:
> >
> > A) create a 2 pipe each with 128k and then create 2 rules, one for each IP
> > address and pointing to its OWN pipe?
> >
> > B) create a single pipe with 128k and then create a single rule with a sub
> > net that includes both IP address?
> >
> > C) create a single pipe with 128k and then create 2 rules BOTH pointing to
> > the SAME pipe?
> >
> > D) some other configuration?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> >
> > Tony Pitman
> > Shatalmic Company
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
> >
> >

Tony Pitman
Shatalmic Company