From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jason Boxman <jasonb@edseek.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 16:54:56 +0000
Subject: Re: [LARTC] QoS for Voip.
Message-Id: <200407161254.56216.jasonb@edseek.com>
List-Id: <lartc.vger.kernel.org>
References: <40F7F21E.7020305@opservices.com.br>
In-Reply-To: <40F7F21E.7020305@opservices.com.br>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: lartc@vger.kernel.org

On Friday 16 July 2004 11:53, Andreas Klauer wrote:
<snip>
> At home, I have a different approach. There's just fair sharing between
> custumers (err, flatmates). Each person gets his HTB class, all HTB
> classes have the same priorities and rates, so everyone gets the same
> amount of bandwidth no matter what it's used for (p2p, www, voip, gaming).
> Prioritizing interactive over http over p2p traffic is then also done on a
> per-user basis. This way it doesn't matter to a single user what kind of
> traffic other users generates... the only guarantee there is that each
> user can get the same amount of bandwidth.

But how well does that scale?

# Default: Put stuff in class 2.

    $BIN_TC filter add dev $UC_DEV parent 1:$UC_MARK prio 100 \
                   protocol ip handle $UC_MARK fw flowid 1:$(($UC_MARK+2))

Would you want to do per user classifications to give SSH for each user a 
higher priority if you had, say, 230 users, for example?  Or would each user 
merely need to find for himself with his slice?

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/