At Fri, 17 Jun 2005 03:11:35 +0200,
Tobias Diedrich wrote:
Hi
> 1)
> I don't think the kernel patch is needed as you can fold that
> information into the rate table AFAICS (See the patch at the end
> of this mail). Then again, depending on the overhead value you'd
> of course have a slight inaccuracy (in case the overhead is not
> divisible by 2^cell_log). Thus in my patch I just assume the
> worst.
I do not remember the details (is my office mate's thesis and not
mine), but from what I remember it will actually more than slightly
inaccurate. The thing is that the rate table is off-by-one with
respect to 2^cell_log - see section 6.1.2 of the thesis.
If you use the patch in the thesis, the calculations will be 100%
accurate.
> 2)
> AFAICS you only looked at upstream shaping, right?
Its the focus of my office mates thesis, but there is also a chapter
that looks at posible downstream problems.
> At least from my experience I can say that for my ADSL link
> (3456kbit down / 448kbit up raw ATM speed, shared by 5 users)
> it is quite easy to saturate the downstream with a bittorrent
> download. So some sort of downstream shaping is needed too.
From what I have seen in different places it is actually normally not
a problem. But 4/8Mbps/768kbps ADSL's are also very common here i
DK. The problem always seem the be the upstream capacity and the
extreme usage P2P programs.
> Unfortunately the IMQ patch seems to panic the kernel when it
> starts dropping packets. I am currently using a shellscript
There is actually no need to use IMQ, or there are at least other
ways. Several places I have just setup the queue disciplines on the
interface towards the LAN. If you need communication between the LAN
and the router, you can make a special HTB leaf for that, and map
packages with iptables.
---
Yours
Per Marker Mortensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
___
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
