>Try protocol 8021q or whatever its number is - if there are other 
>protocol filters you will need a different prio or you will get an error.

I'll try that. I hav just seem some older stuff on the VLAN mailing list which 
might do what I want. I'm still investigating.

>Are these wireless customers?

Nup. Well, not directly. This is  going on our backbone, so I'm not taking 
traffic straight off the wireless. Ultimately, it will be delivered to a 
customer over a wireless link, but there's lots of ethernet between the QOS box 
and the wireless. 
By the way, wireless != 802.11, there's plenty of other flavours which all 
taste just like ethernet.

> I wonder if htb tweaked/untweaked/hfsc/policers could be better than cbq 

At this point I'm not locked into any particular discipline, but cbq looked 
like it would do what I wanted. I'll look a little further into the other 
possibilities.

Regards,
             Leigh
 
Leigh Sharpe
Network Systems Engineer
Pacific Wireless
Ph +61 3 9584 8966
Mob 0408 009 502
Helpdesk 1300 300 616
email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web www.pacificwireless.com.au

-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Furniss [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 12:33 PM
To: Leigh Sharpe
Cc: lartc
Subject: Re: [LARTC] RE: IFB setup was no subject

Leigh Sharpe wrote:

> Seems that the example I gave actually works, but not the way I'm using it.
> I am bridging VLAN tagged packets,

Try protocol 8021q or whatever its number is - if there are other 
protocol filters you will need a different prio or you will get an error.




but for some reason they are not being subjected to the rate limit. If I 
pass normal, untagged packets through this setup, it behaves as 
expected. However, once I put tagged packets through the bridge, it 
fails to shape traffic.
>  I don't want to have to use VLAN sub-interfaces, because the VLAN code 
> strips the 802.1q tag from packets before they can be examined, which causes 
> me problems in other areas.

Are these wireless customers?

I've never shaped wireless - do you get alot of extra loss from link 
layer, what's the bandwidth, single duplex or is it round robin type?

I wonder if htb tweaked/untweaked/hfsc/policers could be better than cbq 
- you may be able to get things better for link latyer, tcpdumps will 
show you how bursty things are for users.

Andy.

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Reply via email to