Re: [LARTC] time window in CBQ

On Friday 05 September 2003 09:22, Andreani Luca wrote: > Dear list, > > I have two linux boxes acting as VoIP Gateway in the following > configuration: > > > IP Phone --+ +--+ > +--+ + IP Phone > >

TR: [LARTC] Statistics

Hello, We are several hundreds in the list and I have allready 5 answers, thank you. I leave for the week-end so plese answer me. I need a lot of answers to make interesting statistical (is it correct english?) I promise this is only for my study and not for any business of any kind ! And if y

[LARTC] Routing problem

Internet | | | | | | Cisco 2600| | | IP: 208.53.98.254 |___| |

Re: [LARTC] where is "equalize" kernel patch?

Martin A. Brown wrote: I believe this is one of Patrick McHardy's patches: http://trash.net/~kaber/ It's actually not written by my but by Guus Sliepen. I just ported it to 2.4.18 and fixed some bugs. Regards, Patrick -Martin ___ LARTC mailing lis

Re: [LARTC] where is "equalize" kernel patch?

Jihoon Chung wrote: > > I found following paragraph in the man page of iproute2. > > equalize > > allow packet by packet randomization on multipath routes. > Without this modifier, the route will be frozen to one selected > nexthop, so that load splitting will only occur on per-flow

Re: [LARTC] where is "equalize" kernel patch?

Jihoon, [ snip ] : Now, where can I find : this patch ? : (I'm using kernel 2.4.21) I believe this is one of Patrick McHardy's patches: http://trash.net/~kaber/ -Martin -- Martin A. Brown --- SecurePipe, Inc. --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ LARTC m

Re: [LARTC] CBQ Rate

> And different prio's in the filter statement will not change much. It only > determines the order the filters are checked. But wasn't there a bug in 'tc' that would delete all your filters that had the same prio, when you only wanted to delete one of them? -- Damjan Georgievski jabberID: [E

R: R: [LARTC] time window in CBQ

Title: R: R: [LARTC] time window in CBQ Ok, but what about my iproute/tc script for VoiP priorization? Any suggestion? -Messaggio originale- Da: John McCain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Inviato: venerdì 5 settembre 2003 15.44 A: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oggetto: Re: R: [LARTC] time window in

Re: [LARTC] port forwarding to different servers with nat

Trepo: If you will read my post again, you will note that one webserver is reachable via the normal port 80, and the other by the less-normal port 8080. Some services work well this way, http and ssh are good examples. On Thu, 2003-09-04 at 18:35, trepo wrote: > If you are in control of th

Re: R: [LARTC] time window in CBQ

I must recommend against using G723 unless you are in a very bandwidth starved but high reliability situation. VOIP is extremely time sensitive, and the latency involved in compression greatly reduces your margin for error. G711 uses more bandwidth (64k per call is a reasonable figure, but it

[LARTC] DSMARK & TC_INDEX

Hi Leo (may I ?) and the others, I am reading your howto. Very clear too. But there is one point I don't understand. I thought that DS said : "one PHB for one DSCP" an we have a table for it I mean if DSCP=0x30 this is AF12 So why should tc_index do that thing ( skb->tc_index & p.mask ) >> p.shif

Re: R: [LARTC] time window in CBQ

On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 21:54, Andreani Luca wrote: > with codec G.729 the bandidth is 8kbps, plus the overhead it reachs > about 27 kbps. I can make two calls on that link, and I made it... thanks for that. I am surprised. /steve ___ LARTC mailing l

Re: R: [LARTC] time window in CBQ

On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 22:03, Catalin BOIE wrote: > On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, Andreani Luca wrote: > > > is 64kbit/sec enough for VoIP ? I would have thought not.. but I do not > > have VoIP... > > Steve, what voip codec do you use? > If you can select, use G723 (6.3 kbit/s) ahh, but I do not have Vo

Re: R: [LARTC] time window in CBQ

Hi Steve, > > is 64kbit/sec enough for VoIP ? I would have thought not.. but I do not > > have VoIP... > > Steve, what voip codec do you use? > If you can select, use G723 (6.3 kbit/s) yep, 64kBit is fine with GnomeMeeting. You should use Speex8k though, as there's a huge protocol overhead that

Re: R: [LARTC] time window in CBQ

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, Andreani Luca wrote: > is 64kbit/sec enough for VoIP ? I would have thought not.. but I do not > have VoIP... Steve, what voip codec do you use? If you can select, use G723 (6.3 kbit/s) > > > /steve > > --- Catalin(ux) BOIE [EMAIL PROTECTED]

R: [LARTC] time window in CBQ

Title: R: [LARTC] time window in CBQ -Messaggio originale- Da: Steve Wright [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Inviato: venerdì 5 settembre 2003 11.31 A: Andreani Luca Oggetto: Re: [LARTC] time window in CBQ On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 19:22, Andreani Luca wrote: > Dear list, > > I have two li

[LARTC] where is "equalize" kernel patch?

I found following paragraph in the man page of iproute2. equalize allow packet by packet randomization on multipath routes. Without this modifier, the route will be frozen to one selected nexthop, so that load splitting will only occur on per-flow base. equalize only works if the

[LARTC] time window in CBQ

Title: time window in CBQ Dear list, I have two linux boxes acting as VoIP Gateway in the following configuration:     IP Phone --+ +--+  +--+  + IP Phone    

Re: [LARTC] port forwarding to different servers with nat

On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 03:28, Ben wrote: > Okay. So let's say it's fred and wilma, sharing the external dns name > "external". So I would forward to fred and wilma like so: > > iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -d external -p tcp --dport 80 -j DNAT --to fred > iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -d external