Yeah, it is. I can't recall exactly why I did that, but it doesn't seem to make sense now.But isn't that where it would be if I did nothing to it? Only the really bad traffic gets put in 1:30, right? BTW, the middle class is 1:20, correct?
Oh, yes I can. I have other filters setup for TOS bits, and wanted to make sure that no matter what TOS bits the ipsec packets had, they were going into 1:20.
I guess it depends on whether or not you want delays. I try to keep my ceil values just a little bit below the max they could hit.Nope. Haven't changed those values. Do I want to? I basically want any traffic of lower priority to be able to take all the bandwidth as long as there is no traffic of a higher priority around, but have it give way to higher priority traffic when present.
although I guess it's probabaly not really noticable.
| which means they get set to the rate value, and unless you've changed | the way it calculates it's percentage rate values, the sum of the leaf | rates can exceed the parent. | which i believe can lead to weird and/or bad behaviour.
Hmm. Guess I'll have to look into this more.
yeah, check out "What if sum of child rates is greater than parent rate ?" on http://luxik.cdi.cz/~devik/qos/htb/htbfaq.htm
regards
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Damion de Soto - Software Engineer email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SnapGear - A CyberGuard Company --- ph: +61 7 3435 2809 | Custom Embedded Solutions fax: +61 7 3891 3630 | and Security Appliances web: http://www.snapgear.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --- Free Embedded Linux Distro at http://www.snapgear.org ---
_______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
