|
||||||||
Hi, Dinesh Nair wrote: > On Mon, 10 May 2004, Tony Pitman wrote: > > >>Well, it is the incoming traffic that is going to be the big problem. I >>need to be able to limit how much bandwidth someone can use for >>downloading and web browsing. Please expand (without rehashing too much >>as you indicated) on what you mean. > > > incoming traffic reaches your m0n0wall before it can be shaped. if it's > reached your m0n0wall, it's already put a load on your incoming T1, thus > serving no useful purpose in reality. While this is true, some time ago there were some posts to the contrary (by someone apparantly with a great deal of knowledge about these things). It would appear that inbound shaping can have some effect, due to packets being dropped, which will apparantly cause most servers to slow down transmission of new packets or something along those lines? > however, since you have dual interfaces, you can set outbound traffic > shaping on your wan link and outbound shaping on your lan link. the > outbound on your lan should be equivalent to the inbound on your wan, and > under your control. While I'm not sure, I should think it would have (nearly) the same effect if the inbound shaping is done on the WAN interface, at least if a queue is used, as m0n0wall should then accept the packages and hold them in it's own queue, rather than simply dropping them. But as mentioned, it would appear that sometimes it is preferable that packets are dropped, so..? = = = I guess the issue here is to provide a static "cap" on the inbound bandwidth of 128K, so a given user only gets what has been paid for. The issue of optimal WAN line usage shouldn't be that important (after all it is a T1 line!) and as mentioned there is a good chance that it will actually result in rather good line usage even so. I would certainly try shaping both directions (possibly experimenting a bit to see if inbound should be done on the WAN or the LAN IF), only if this seem to cause some kind of problem would I consider removing the inbound shaping (in which case I'd try to do some clever outbound ACK shaping and such instead). Regards, Adam. |