Re: [LARTC] shaping by packet count rather than bytes ?
Peter V. Saveliev wrote: Simple packet drop works for ordinary tcp congestion algorithms as a channel overload, and tcp decreases speed. So works RED policing filters and so on. Well...red isn't exactly 'simple' packet drop :) In fact, if I could combine packet-rate-limit with red or sfq I'd be very happy. Beside of this, iptables can _accept_ a packet :) You can try to mark and queue the excess packets. Hmm...need more coffee... ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Re: [LARTC] shaping by packet count rather than bytes ?
В сообщении от Saturday 06 October 2007 05:16:38 David Boreham написал(а): > David Boreham wrote: > >> iptables: limit, hashlimit, dstlimit work on pps basis. > > > > ! yes, I'd thought about that stuff but somehow > > discounted it as 'not worthy' for traffic shaping. > > Actually, I remember now why iptables doesn't work : > > All it does is drop the excess packets over the limit. > Simple packet drop works for ordinary tcp congestion algorithms as a channel overload, and tcp decreases speed. So works RED policing filters and so on. Beside of this, iptables can _accept_ a packet :) You can try to mark and queue the excess packets. -- Peter V. Saveliev ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Re: [LARTC] shaping by packet count rather than bytes ?
David Boreham wrote: iptables: limit, hashlimit, dstlimit work on pps basis. ! yes, I'd thought about that stuff but somehow discounted it as 'not worthy' for traffic shaping. Actually, I remember now why iptables doesn't work : All it does is drop the excess packets over the limit. That's not what I need. Rather , I want something like a tbf that operates on packet count rather than byte count. Thus, packets will be send at the configured rate, and queued up if they arrive at a rate in excess of the limit. iptables will simply drop the excess, which I'm sure will lead to poor throughput and of course means that there's no queue to manage to achieve a given QoS policy. Rewriting tbf or htb to operate on packets not bytes _seems_ like it'd do the trick. I'm a bit surprised that nobody has made this their masters thesis ;) ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Re: [LARTC] shaping by packet count rather than bytes ?
Peter V. Saveliev wrote: Has anyone done any work on packet-rate shaping ? iptables: limit, hashlimit, dstlimit work on pps basis. ! yes, I'd thought about that stuff but somehow discounted it as 'not worthy' for traffic shaping. Thanks. ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Re: [LARTC] shaping by packet count rather than bytes ?
> Has anyone done any work on packet-rate shaping ? > iptables: limit, hashlimit, dstlimit work on pps basis. -- Peter V. Saveliev ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Re: [LARTC] shaping by packet count rather than bytes ?
On 5 Okt 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In wireless networks it can be handy to shape by packet rate > rather than bytes/s (because capacity is packet-rate-limited). > > Has anyone done any work on packet-rate shaping ? Don't know any wireless details. But I guess in the end it is very similar to the ATM fixed cell size. Maybe the tcatm patch [1] might give some hints. Greetings Jens [1] http://ace-host.stuart.id.au/russell/files/tc/tc-atm/ ___ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
