On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 07:20 -0700, Tom Eastep wrote:
> Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> 
> > For most home, or other small use situations, isn't it easier to just
> > specify priorities of traffic, i.e.
> > 
> > Type                                Priority
> > VOIP                                1
> > Interactive (i.e. ssh)              2
> > All other                   3
> 
> Sure. But Shorewall was never targeted at that market. It's predecessor 
> Seawall was targeted at SOHO users and I originally developed Shorewall to 
> provide a product that took over where Seawall left off.

SOHO.  That's for the most part the situation I'm talking about.  I'm
talking about a small enough user base that guaranteeing bandwidth for
certain use cases is overkill and all that is necessary is prioritizing.

> The simple commodity firewall routers typically use a scheme like you 
> advocate. But then I've never understood why a home user would choose 
> Shorewall over one of those little devices anyway.

For mom, perhaps, but for a hacker, they don't do near enough.  In fact
they don't even do enough for mom.  VPN technology is sorely lacking
from (almost?) all of them, just for starters.

> Then I urge you to develop such a traffic shaper as an alternative to the 
> one built into Shorewall. If it turns out to be wildly popular, we can 
> integrate it into Shorewall just like we did with Arne Bernin's 
> 'tc4shorewall' which is the current Shorewall builtin TC.

Probably not worth it if HTB can emulate the "prioritize only, not
guarantee bandwidth" given the work that's already present to support
it.

> > #INTERFACE      MARK    RATE       CEIL   PRIORITY    OPTIONS
> > ppp0            1       full       full       1       
> > tcp-ack,tos-minimize-delay
> > ppp0            2       full       full       2       default
> > ppp0            3       full       full       2
                                                  ^
this last one should have been priority 3---------+

> Not really. HTB works badly when the sum of the RATEs exceeds the 
> OUT-BANDWIDTH.
> 
> Something more like this should work though:
> 
> #INTERFACE  MARK  RATE        CEIL   PRIORITY    OPTIONS
> ppp0        1     full*98/100 full       1       tcp-ack,tos-minimize-delay
> ppp0        2     full/100    full       2       default
> ppp0        3     full/100    full       2

So is class "1" limited to 98% bandwidth or full?  It seems it would be
full (otherwise what's the point of the CIEL?).  If class "1" is unused
can class 2 get 100% of the bandwidth?  If both class 2 and 3 are
over-saturating, does class 2 get 100% of the bandwidth because of it's
priority?

b.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php
_______________________________________________
Shorewall-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users

Reply via email to