Re: [LARTC] wondershaper and dmzs

2007-03-29 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 12:16:20 -0400, seph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Can I do this with tc, or is the entire interface shaped? It seems > like I might be able to create a more explicate filter, but I'm having > trouble getting it to work. You can filter on the destination ip address. ___

Re: [LARTC] Wondershaper Errors

2006-09-16 Thread gypsy
Gianluca \"acid_burn\" D'Andrea wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi all! > > when I activate wondershaper on my dsl connection (pppoa vc mux), i get > three errors: > > # sh -x /usr/sbin/wshaper ppp0 > + /usr/sbin/xmlstarter setenv tc_downlink > + DOWNLINK= > + /u

Re: [LARTC] Wondershaper and DSCP

2006-01-08 Thread Andy Furniss
Keith Mitchell wrote: Did anyone ever answer this one? THIS is what I am trying to do: [LARTC] cbq+sfq and DSCP marking I haven't used dscp but it looks like you need to add cbq below dsmark and then filter with tcindex see http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.adv-qdisc.dsmark.html Andy. __

RE: [LARTC] wondershaper....

2005-10-13 Thread Eliot, Wireless and Server Administrator, Great Lakes Internet
Title: RE: [LARTC] wondershaper Well, the way I see it, if you are trying to load balance over two T1 lines in your own network, using multipath routing or something similar is not an issue. However, when you are trying to load balance over two T1 lines provided by seperate ISPs, you

Re: [LARTC] wondershaper query

2005-07-31 Thread Ow Mun Heng
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 15:00 -0400, Payal Rathod wrote: > Hello, > I am trying wondershaper-1.1a on a friend's pppoe connection on her > Linux box. > There are a few things I don't understand. > 1. She has pppoe connection so should DEV=eth0 or DEV=ppp0 ? Frankly I can't remember. My home box is n

Re: [LARTC] wondershaper tweaking

2005-05-09 Thread Andreas Klauer
On Monday 09 May 2005 10:29, Anthony Letchet wrote: > Im still reading the howtos on how to write my own rules but since the > wondershaper script is doing exactly what i want i had hoped that > someone would know the commands to implement this now :) I did such a modification to wondershaper once

Re: [LARTC] wondershaper tweaking

2005-05-09 Thread Robert Denier
Well as near as I can tell you have at least a few options. 1) You could take a look at the shaping how to that I think is somewhere linked off the gentoo.org documentation. That way you could create/modify a script that would handle it. 2) Change your topology so all your equipment is connected

Re: [LARTC] wondershaper with ssh on a non-standard port

2005-01-11 Thread simms
mornin' all, i still haven't found the right solution for my situation, but after some digging, i realized that the free PuTTY SSH client (commonly used to access remote systems from under Windows) does NOT set the TOS bit in a way that would let the default wondershaper script identify its p

Re: [LARTC] wondershaper with ssh on a non-standard port

2005-01-10 Thread Ed Wildgoose
Hi, having read the docs and the wondershaper script itself, it occurred to me that the documentation promises an immediate drop in interactive app latency, specifically mentioning SSH as a big winner. however, looking through the script i can't really tell just *how* wondershaper figures out w

Re: [LARTC] Wondershaper in internal network

2004-08-22 Thread gypsy
Johan Lindqvist wrote: > This is my setup: > DSL modem > 4 port internet router > 1. Winxp computer >> 2. Linux computer >> 3. Linux computer (thin client to computer no 2) > > Every computer has one NIC. I know that the inte

Re: [LARTC] Wondershaper in internal network

2004-08-22 Thread gypsy
nix4me wrote: > > gypsy wrote: > >You might be able to set up a modified Wonder such that the default / > >bulk does 100Mbit (assuming your internal NW is 100) by setting RATE = > >CEIL = 100Mb and then shape everything where the IP matches your DSL IP > >so that internet stuff never gets into the

Re: [LARTC] Wondershaper in internal network

2004-08-22 Thread Johan Lindqvist
gypsy wrote: Johan Lindqvist wrote: I've gotten wondershaper to work in my linux box, which is part of a 3 computer network that shares the same dsl connection. The linuxbox handles most bulk down and uploading, and the other 2 are mainly for surfing and such. What I need from wiondershaper is t

Re: [LARTC] Wondershaper in internal network

2004-08-21 Thread nix4me
gypsy wrote: Johan Lindqvist wrote: I've gotten wondershaper to work in my linux box, which is part of a 3 computer network that shares the same dsl connection. The linuxbox handles most bulk down and uploading, and the other 2 are mainly for surfing and such. What I need from wiondershaper is t

Re: [LARTC] Wondershaper in internal network

2004-08-21 Thread gypsy
Johan Lindqvist wrote: > > I've gotten wondershaper to work in my linux box, which is part of a 3 > computer network that shares the same dsl connection. The linuxbox > handles most bulk down and uploading, and the other 2 are mainly for > surfing and such. > What I need from wiondershaper is tha

Re: [LARTC] wondershaper under Debian

2004-06-08 Thread Fernando Favero
! :) Fernando Favero - Original Message - From: Sebastian A. Aresca To: Fernando Favero Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 1:45 AM Subject: Re: [LARTC] wondershaper under Debian Fernando: mira la verdad ni idea de lo que puede llegar a ser. Yo estoy usando un debian

Re: [LARTC] Wondershaper - question

2004-05-31 Thread Mr Ivan Hawkes
Matthias Lendholt wrote: Those are port lists, not the line speed. They should be more like NOPRIOPORTDST="53 21 22" or similar. Check the docs for more help on it. Hi, I have a question conercing wondershaper. I'm using the Clarkconnect linux distribution for my linux router and I tried to use won

Re: [LARTC] Wondershaper stops limiting outbound traffic

2004-04-30 Thread Andy Furniss
Richard wrote: I have wondershaper to limit my upload at 400kilobits (my line is 600kbps). I do a lot of torrent seeding and I dont want my pings killed when I'm uploading so I set low prority source ports as follows (by the way, I have bittornet to only use ports 6881-6910): That means BT will l

Re: [LARTC] wondershaper, host *exclusion*?

2004-04-22 Thread Marc Reichman
I added, changing eth0 to the dev variable. I'll have to find out when i get home if it's going to work right for local stuff. Thanks for your help. -Marc Simon Oosthoek wrote: Marc Reichman wrote: I have no real interest in doing anything with specific remote hosts, I just want to bypass t

Re: [LARTC] wondershaper, host *exclusion*?

2004-04-22 Thread Simon Oosthoek
Marc Reichman wrote: I have no real interest in doing anything with specific remote hosts, I just want to bypass the limiting for the certain IP range. I imagine I'd do this by adding something referencing 192.168.0.0/24 to an existing line in the script? Have an idea of which? tc filter add d

Re: [LARTC] wondershaper, host *exclusion*?

2004-04-22 Thread Marc Reichman
I have no real interest in doing anything with specific remote hosts, I just want to bypass the limiting for the certain IP range. I imagine I'd do this by adding something referencing 192.168.0.0/24 to an existing line in the script? Have an idea of which? -Marc Simon Oosthoek wrote: Marc Re

Re: [LARTC] wondershaper, host *exclusion*?

2004-04-22 Thread Simon Oosthoek
Marc Reichman wrote: Hi, I really like the wondershaper script, it works very well for me. My question is this. Is there a way to get certain remote hosts to be excluded from the shaping? I ask because I don't have my box connected directly through the net. It sits behind a nat device, and has po

Re: [LARTC] wondershaper, host *exclusion*?

2004-04-22 Thread Simon Oosthoek
Marc Reichman wrote: I will research in the howto, but I must say a lot of the terminology goes over my head. To summarize, my steps are: 1. create a queue with no bw limitations 2. create a filter for the 192.168.0.0/24 and point it at that queue. Correct? yes, however, now I think about it som

Re: [LARTC] wondershaper, host *exclusion*?

2004-04-22 Thread Marc Reichman
I will research in the howto, but I must say a lot of the terminology goes over my head. To summarize, my steps are: 1. create a queue with no bw limitations 2. create a filter for the 192.168.0.0/24 and point it at that queue. Correct? -Marc Simon Oosthoek wrote: Marc Reichman wrote: Hi, I

Re: [LARTC] wondershaper question

2004-04-02 Thread Corey Hickey
gypsy wrote: > Also > remember YOU DO NOT SHAPE DOWNLOADS! HTB can only "police" D/L, not > "shape". You must use iptables or IMQ to "shape" D/L; I use iptables -m > limit --limit ##/second -j ACCEPT > iptables -j DROP > and make sure that these 2 lines preceed any RELATED, ESTABLISHED > acce

Re: [LARTC] wondershaper question

2004-04-02 Thread gypsy
gypsy wrote: AFTERTHOUGHT: I should have been more precise: > Yes, but be careful with NAT; finding 192.168.1.# can be tough. Also > remember YOU DO NOT SHAPE DOWNLOADS! HTB can only "police" D/L, not > "shape". You must use iptables or IMQ to "shape" D/L; I use iptables -m > limit --limit ##

Re: [LARTC] wondershaper question

2004-04-02 Thread gypsy
> Chris Winfield-Blum wrote: > > Hi I am very unclear about the wonder shaper and a bit of a novice > with Unix all together > > I have a question for you and I hope you can answer > > Basically my office is getting a couple of people slowing down the > network so ive been looking around and fou

Re: [LARTC] wondershaper question

2004-04-01 Thread Corey Hickey
Chris Winfield-Blum wrote: > Maybe there is another solution to this problem? > > The problem is that I have had a couple of users on the network hogging > the bandwidth and while we do have a policy implemented sometimes the > downloads are genuinely work related (eg downloaded a new version of a

RE: [LARTC] wondershaper question

2004-04-01 Thread Chris Winfield-Blum
Maybe there is another solution to this problem? The problem is that I have had a couple of users on the network hogging the bandwidth and while we do have a policy implemented sometimes the downloads are genuinely work related (eg downloaded a new version of an application we use for development)

Re: [LARTC] wondershaper question

2004-04-01 Thread Jason Boxman
On Thursday 01 April 2004 21:03, Chris Winfield-Blum wrote: > Hi I am very unclear about the wonder shaper and a bit of a novice > with Unix all together > > I have a question for you and I hope you can answer > > Basically my office is getting a couple of people slowing down the I would seriously

Re: [LARTC] Wondershaper breaks IPSec tunnels

2004-03-14 Thread Damion de Soto
Hi Jason, But isn't that where it would be if I did nothing to it? Only the really bad traffic gets put in 1:30, right? BTW, the middle class is 1:20, correct? Yeah, it is. I can't recall exactly why I did that, but it doesn't seem to make sense now. Oh, yes I can. I have other filters setup f

Re: [LARTC] Wondershaper breaks IPSec tunnels

2004-03-12 Thread Jason A. Pattie
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Damion de Soto wrote: | Hi Jason, | |> Am I silently being told that this is the wrong question to ask of this |> list? :) | | | Probably. I'll reply but I think it'll only be of statistic interest. First of all, thanks for replying. |> | I now have

Re: [LARTC] Wondershaper breaks IPSec tunnels

2004-03-11 Thread Damion de Soto
Hi Jason, Am I silently being told that this is the wrong question to ask of this list? :) Probably. I'll reply but I think it'll only be of statistic interest. | I now have a situation where I get to use traffic shaping for a client. | ~ We implemented the WonderShaper script on our own firew

Re: [LARTC] Wondershaper breaks IPSec tunnels

2004-03-11 Thread Jason A. Pattie
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am I silently being told that this is the wrong question to ask of this list? :) Jason A. Pattie wrote: | Hello, been awhile since I've written. | | I now have a situation where I get to use traffic shaping for a client. | ~ We implemented the WonderSh

Re: [LARTC] wondershaper htb + multiple ports

2004-02-08 Thread Corey Hickey
mark ryan wrote: > If i use the following tc command, where do i set the speed limit for > the outbound ftp traffic? > > Mark > > On Sun, 2004-02-08 at 02:35, Corey Hickey wrote: > >>mark ryan wrote: >> >>>Is there a way to apply wondershaper w/ htb to a port range? >>> >>>I have a ftp server o

Re: [LARTC] wondershaper

2004-02-04 Thread Damion de Soto
Mark, I am using wondershaper with htb to shape my network. I want to limit only outbound ftp traffic (me uploading) from 192.168.1.101. I am using port 21 for ftp with passive ports 50,000-60,000. That's a large range of ports to shape, and other programs might be using them - that's a problem wi

Re: [LARTC] wondershaper

2004-02-03 Thread Damion de Soto
Hi Mark, I have wondershaper running on my firewall/router. It has 2 ethernet cards (eth0 and eth1). Eth1 connects to a cablemodem (2mbit down, 384kbit up) and eth0 connects to a switch. I run a ftp server on a machine connected to the swicth. I want to be able to keep my ftp server from affecti

Re: [LARTC] Wondershaper modifications

2003-10-09 Thread Stef Coene
On Thursday 09 October 2003 10:42, Thomas Kirk wrote: > Hep Dear Listmembers and Stef! > > Setup > > Internet > eth0 > > > - > > eth1 eth2 eth3 eth4 <--- Lan .10/24 .11/24 etc > > > All Lans are natted to eth0 > > Now i use wondershaper (1.1a) on eth0 to shap interact

Re: [LARTC] WonderShaper on spesific ports?

2003-07-28 Thread Stef Coene
On Thursday 24 July 2003 14:54, Wizzcat wrote: > Hi! > > I've just tried out this program and it works amazingly, throttling uploads > at whatever speed I like it to. It works great for what I want it for, > throttling emule which has a tendency to hose the entire network and > grinding everything

Re: [LARTC] WonderShaper on spesific ports?

2003-07-24 Thread Damion de Soto
Wizzcat wrote: --snip--- wondering if there is a way to limit uploads speeds on only certain ports so I could limit only p2p programs from going overboard and let the rest of the computer continue uploading at full bandwith. it should be fairly simple the emule ports are listed here: http://www.e

Re: [LARTC] Wondershaper working, but not quite as expected

2003-07-13 Thread Michael Frotscher
Hallo, Trevor > Maybe we can help you out much better if you could space out the > sentences below. They seem to be a jigsaw puzzle. Sorry, you are right - I think my word-wrapping is messing this up. I'll post it again, disregarding line lengths. This is the verbose output when the script star

Re: [LARTC] Wondershaper working, but not quite as expected

2003-07-12 Thread Trevor Warren
Michael, Maybe we can help you out much better if you could space out the sentences below. They seem to be a jigsaw puzzle. Trevor On Sat, 2003-07-12 at 20:12, Michael Frotscher wrote: > Hello, LARTC-List > > I try to get my traffic-shaping done with Wondershaper 1.1a. When I run > the script

Re: [LARTC] wondershaper htb P2P downloads

2003-05-28 Thread S. Mohan
Believe L7 filtering matches kaaza. http://l7.sourceforge.net. Mohan >On Wednesday 28 May 2003 04:07, Paul Suela wrote: >> Sir, >> >> Thanks for the wondershaper utility! >> >> It has improved the response time for my ssh connections to my home >> server whenever i need to access it from the Inter

Re: [LARTC] wondershaper htb P2P downloads

2003-05-28 Thread Stef Coene
On Wednesday 28 May 2003 04:07, Paul Suela wrote: > Sir, > > Thanks for the wondershaper utility! > > It has improved the response time for my ssh connections to my home > server whenever i need to access it from the Internet. > > However, is there a way to setup a bandwidth, say 10kbits/sec (i onl

Re: [LARTC] wondershaper script making connection worst.

2003-04-12 Thread Linux RedHat
> i have the prob with my cable modem where the upload gets messed up with the > download. So I donwload and tried the wondershaper script, but it seems to make my > connection worst. If I start a download, and I'll get 180+K/s, then with a upload > going it'll go down to about 50-60K/s. When I run

RE: [LARTC] Wondershaper updates.

2003-03-31 Thread Martin A. Brown
Giles, : I think I'll use htbinit, seems the most understandable. Seems a waste : that people with lots of experience who are very into this stuff don't : compile all the findings into a generic script(s) with parameters that : any newbie can configure and benefit from. The problem is a compl

RE: [LARTC] Wondershaper updates.

2003-03-31 Thread lartc
e- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin A. Brown > Sent: 31 March 2003 20:59 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [LARTC] Wondershaper updates. > > > If you want a more general configuration interfac

Re: [LARTC] Wondershaper updates.

2003-03-31 Thread Martin A. Brown
If you want a more general configuration interface to HTB, you can use htb.init, which allows an arbitrary configuration of traffic control: http://sourceforge.net/projects/htbinit Or, if you prefer a more fully featured language for describing traffic, tcng: http://tcng.sourceforge.net/ Se

Re: [LARTC] wondershaper + htb prio + qdisc prio

2002-12-31 Thread sufcrusher
e. - Thus higher priorities rules (lower MARK numbers) should go first in your script, otherwise they might be overruled by later rules. Jannes Faber - Original Message - From: "Ciprian Niculescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Tornado" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAI

Re: [LARTC] wondershaper + htb prio + qdisc prio

2002-12-30 Thread Ciprian Niculescu
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 22:22:28 +0100, "Tornado" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > > > this is what i try, beacouse i dont realy play the game, i generate > > trafic to saturate the link, and ping from shell from an externat host > > In which case, you should check if your downstream is not chocking. E

Re: [LARTC] wondershaper + htb prio + qdisc prio

2002-12-30 Thread Tornado
> > > > Is it the ICMP ping (generated by the 'ping' tool), or do you mean when > > you > > play Counter-Strike, and you look at the players tab, that shows you're > > lagged with 300ms? > > by ping i meen the real ping program with icmp, i see that i could not > specify counterstrike to don't crea

Re: [LARTC] wondershaper + htb prio + qdisc prio

2002-12-30 Thread Ciprian Niculescu
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 11:49:58 +0100, "Tornado" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Hey there, > > Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, maybe not - but what exactly do you mean > by > "the ping from the server is always 300ms"? > > Is it the ICMP ping (generated by the 'ping' tool), or do you mean when > you >

Re: [LARTC] wondershaper + htb prio + qdisc prio

2002-12-30 Thread Tornado
Hey there, > hello, > > a friend of mine have this configuration: > > 10 x PC -- router/linux/rh8 -- ADSL Modem -- ISP > > let's say that the bandwidth is: 5M and 800K > > he does dc++ and counter-strike, so let's say the UP is full, and the > ping from the counter server is 300ms, the server cut

Re: [LARTC] wondershaper + htb prio + qdisc prio

2002-12-29 Thread Andre Meij
Hi,(Sorry for the repost last post was screwed up by my emailclient)I think that imcp is not the solution. I've tested with mohaa and that game uses an own sort of ping on a udp port (so via tcp and not imcp)Maby u should check if counterstrike does that too.Regards,Andre> hello,> > a friend of min

Re: [LARTC] wondershaper + htb prio + qdisc prio

2002-12-29 Thread AHM
Hi,I think that imcp is not the solution. I've tested with mohaa and that game uses an own sort of ping on a udp port (so via tcp and not imcp)Maby u should check if counterstrike does that too.Regards,Andre> hello,> > a friend of mine have this configuration:> > 10 x PC -- router/linux/rh8 -- ADSL

Re: [LARTC] WonderShaper on LAN link kills to-host speed

2002-12-19 Thread Stef Coene
On Wednesday 18 December 2002 23:22, Kenneth Porter wrote: > --On Wednesday, December 18, 2002 10:43 PM +0100 Stef Coene > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm not sure, but the policer can calculate the rate in the class in 2 > > ways. And maybe your CPU can't handle the calculations. What CPU

Re: [LARTC] WonderShaper on LAN link kills to-host speed

2002-12-18 Thread Kenneth Porter
--On Wednesday, December 18, 2002 10:53 PM +0100 Jose Luis Domingo Lopez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As far as I know, inbound traffic (ingress) can only police packets, > that is, discard traffic on excess hoping the other end will notice it > and slow down a bit. If you want to classify incomin

Re: [LARTC] WonderShaper on LAN link kills to-host speed

2002-12-18 Thread Kenneth Porter
--On Wednesday, December 18, 2002 10:43 PM +0100 Stef Coene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not sure, but the policer can calculate the rate in the class in 2 > ways. And maybe your CPU can't handle the calculations. What CPU do > you have and what's the load on the sstem? It's a P2-233 with

Re: [LARTC] WonderShaper on LAN link kills to-host speed

2002-12-18 Thread Jose Luis Domingo Lopez
On Tuesday, 17 December 2002, at 14:15:39 -0800, Kenneth Porter wrote: > What about the ingress policer would do that? > As far as I know, inbound traffic (ingress) can only police packets, that is, discard traffic on excess hoping the other end will notice it and slow down a bit. If you want to

Re: [LARTC] WonderShaper on LAN link kills to-host speed

2002-12-18 Thread Stef Coene
On Tuesday 17 December 2002 23:15, Kenneth Porter wrote: > I tried installing the WonderShaper on my internal link, mostly to get the > SFQ installed. I set uplink and downlink to 10 to match the link speed > and changed the bandwidth on the cbq line to 100mbit. This killed transfer > speed *to

Re: [LARTC] wondershaper

2002-11-24 Thread Kenneth Porter
--On Monday, November 25, 2002 12:16 AM +0100 Mario Ohnewald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I started an upload to see if it worked, but i still had a ping >1000 > It didnt really change anything. > The output of wondershaper was fine, no errors came up. What did "wshaper status" say after the simu

Re: [LARTC] wondershaper

2002-11-20 Thread David Koski
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 20:09:23 +0100 Stef Coene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 20 November 2002 19:46, K Sambaiah wrote: > > Hi, > > I am newbie to the list. I am using the wondershaper on RH Linux > > 7.3 machine. wondershaper version is 1.1a. I set it up as > > upload speed xkbps and

Re: [LARTC] wondershaper

2002-11-20 Thread Stef Coene
On Wednesday 20 November 2002 19:46, K Sambaiah wrote: > Hi, > I am newbie to the list. I am using the wondershaper on RH Linux > 7.3 machine. wondershaper version is 1.1a. I set it up as > upload speed xkbps and download speed y kbps. I needed to setup > total speed as x+y kbps but dynamically a

Re: [LARTC] Wondershaper and favoring UDP traffic

2002-11-04 Thread Stef Coene
On Monday 04 November 2002 11:11, Kenneth Porter wrote: > I'd like to put all UDP traffic from ports 28000-28099 into the > high-priority queue that WonderShaper creates. (This is game traffic, so > it's highly sensitive to latency and dropping. Alas, the game authors > didn't mark the packets for

Re: [LARTC] wondershaper problem

2002-09-24 Thread Stef Coene
On Monday 23 September 2002 01:16, Kristoffer Ottosson wrote: > Hi > > I have two lucent wlancards and one 3com ethernet card running on my box. > I'm running routing tables with iproute2 in order to route all the packets > correctly ... Now I wonder, I should be able to use wondershaper on top of

Re: [LARTC] Wondershaper

2002-09-18 Thread Adi Nugroho
On Wednesday 18 September 2002 12:42, Justin Morea wrote: > How can I tell if wondershaper is running correctly tc qdisc sh dev $dev tc class sh dev $dev tc -s -d qdisc show dev $dev tc -s -d class show dev $dev > Can anyone recommend a good program to log bandwidth > usage? I would recommend

Re: [LARTC] Wondershaper

2002-09-17 Thread Stef Coene
On Wednesday 18 September 2002 06:42, Justin Morea wrote: > I think I've gotten everything up and running but I'm > not sure. > > How can I tell if wondershaper is running correctly (I > just put the command /wondershaper/wshaper in my > /etc/rc.local)? > > Can anyone recommend a good program to l

Re: [LARTC] Wondershaper

2002-09-09 Thread Stef Coene
On Friday 06 September 2002 13:47, Sebastian Bleikamp wrote: > Stef Coene schrieb: > > Try efsq. It's SFQ (so each "flow" gets an equal chance to send > > something). But efsq uses only dst/src addres and not dst/src > > address/port like sfq. Ideal to kill download managers because all > > traff

Re: [LARTC] Wondershaper

2002-09-06 Thread Sebastian Bleikamp
Stef Coene schrieb: > Try efsq. It's SFQ (so each "flow" gets an equal chance to send something). > But efsq uses only dst/src addres and not dst/src address/port like sfq. > Ideal to kill download managers because all traffic form/to the same hosts is > considered as one stream. > I have

Re: [LARTC] Wondershaper

2002-09-06 Thread Stef Coene
On Friday 06 September 2002 10:52, Sebastian Bleikamp wrote: > Hi ! > > I´ve been using the wonderful wondershaper from chapter 15.8 of the > LARTC Howto for some time. It´s really wonderful. That's exactly why it's called the wondershaper :) > Actually, I use the version from > http://freshmeat.

Re: [LARTC] wondershaper HTB thoughts

2002-06-21 Thread Stef Coene
On Thursday 20 June 2002 23:54, Adrian Bridgett wrote: > Hi, > > I've just started using wondershaper (HTB version) and I had a few thoughts > (probably mostly as I'm new to this): > > a) there is a filter to add stuff into the 1:20 class, however that's the > default so surely this is pointless.