Re: Traffic shaping - current best practice?
> I recall seeing in the man page that DUMMYNET has RED and GRED > algorithms built in - I don't know any more detail than that though... It also Has W2FQ+ (or something like that) fair queueing, although I havn't tried to set it up in a while, last time I used it, it worked great. Ken To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Re: Traffic shaping - current best practice?
From: "Fernando Gleiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > You need a "fair sharing" queueing discipline, something like CBQ. I don't > know if you can do that with dummynet. I know for sure ALTQ works great for > this. It supports a bunch of queueing disciplines (CBQ, RED, WFQ and > others). I recall seeing in the man page that DUMMYNET has RED and GRED algorithms built in - I don't know any more detail than that though... --- Regards, Patrick O'Reilly. ______ / _ )__ __ (_)_ __ ___ _/ / __ / __/ -_) _) / ~ ) -_), ,-/ -_) _) /_/ \__/_//_/_/~/_/\__/ \__/\__/_/ http://www.perimeter.co.za To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Re: Traffic shaping - current best practice?
On 18 Sep 2002, Kirk Strauser wrote: > > I'm looking for a solution that would allow the non-paying hosts to have > full use of the bandwidth as long as the paying hosts are idle, but which > would ensure that the paying customers have their full bandwidth available > any time they need it. You need a "fair sharing" queueing discipline, something like CBQ. I don't know if you can do that with dummynet. I know for sure ALTQ works great for this. It supports a bunch of queueing disciplines (CBQ, RED, WFQ and others). you can download it at http://www.csl.sony.co.jp/person/kjc/kjc/software.html There is an effort to integrate it into -CURRENT, but I don't remember the URL. > > I've used both ipfw and ipfilter. I have no particular preference, although > a solution that supports bridging would be a bonus (which I think will limit > me to ipfw, but I'm not certain). No if you use ALTQ. ALTQ is firewall-agnostic =0). Hope this helps. Fer > > Any suggestions? > -- > Kirk Strauser > The Strauser Group - http://www.strausergroup.com/ > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Re: Traffic shaping - current best practice?
At 2002-09-18T20:08:23Z, Byron Schlemmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Best practice? Well I'm not sure what that would be but to accomplish most > of this see 'man dummynet'. Very easy to setup and highly > configurable. The only problem I see is that I know you can use dummynet to limit a connection, but I don't know that it can be used to guarantee bandwidth availability. I'm looking for something closer to a quality-of-service configuration, but I'm not sure how to do that. > Also /usr/share/doc/en/articles/filtering-bridges and > /usr/share/doc/en/books/handbook/bridging.html might prove insightful. > Hope that helps some. It does - thanks. -- Kirk Strauser The Strauser Group - http://www.strausergroup.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Re: Traffic shaping - current best practice?
On 18 Sep 2002, Kirk Strauser wrote: > I know that someone asks this question every now and then, but it's the kind > of thing that can change over time, so I ask again: > > I want to use a FreeBSD firewall to provide bandwidth guarantees to > customers. Specifically, several hosts will be sharing a 512Kbps pipe. > Some of those hosts are no-cost (read: no service commitment on my part), > but I may be taking on clients who would be paying for a guaranteed rate > (said rate being substantially less than 512Kbps). > > I'm looking for a solution that would allow the non-paying hosts to have > full use of the bandwidth as long as the paying hosts are idle, but which > would ensure that the paying customers have their full bandwidth available > any time they need it. > > I've used both ipfw and ipfilter. I have no particular preference, although > a solution that supports bridging would be a bonus (which I think will limit > me to ipfw, but I'm not certain). > > Any suggestions? Best practice? Well I'm not sure what that would be but to accomplish most of this see 'man dummynet'. Very easy to setup and highly configurable. Also /usr/share/doc/en/articles/filtering-bridges and /usr/share/doc/en/books/handbook/bridging.html might prove insightful. Hope that helps some. - byron To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Traffic shaping - current best practice?
I know that someone asks this question every now and then, but it's the kind of thing that can change over time, so I ask again: I want to use a FreeBSD firewall to provide bandwidth guarantees to customers. Specifically, several hosts will be sharing a 512Kbps pipe. Some of those hosts are no-cost (read: no service commitment on my part), but I may be taking on clients who would be paying for a guaranteed rate (said rate being substantially less than 512Kbps). I'm looking for a solution that would allow the non-paying hosts to have full use of the bandwidth as long as the paying hosts are idle, but which would ensure that the paying customers have their full bandwidth available any time they need it. I've used both ipfw and ipfilter. I have no particular preference, although a solution that supports bridging would be a bonus (which I think will limit me to ipfw, but I'm not certain). Any suggestions? -- Kirk Strauser The Strauser Group - http://www.strausergroup.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
