Re: [LARTC] Prioritizing forwarded traffic over locally generated

[kraquen <kraquen@kraquen.com>]

Sounds to me like he's trying to match via source IP.. which would catch 
everything just fine..

Niel,
I do something very similar, its fairly simple..

you want to mark packets in your prerouting, then match against them in 
your qdiscs..

i use an htb.. my upload link can handle about 85 kilobytes / sec.

I have several classes that match with various rates, the cieling for 
all of them is ~80

Then i have a class that matches the mark that i use for that specific IP.

That mark goes into a class with a rate of 2 KB/s and a cieling of 75

that class gets 75 when nothing else is running, and 2 if other classes 
are filling it up.

Hope this helps,
Jason
Jason Boxman wrote:

>On Thursday 23 September 2004 18:09, Neil Greatorex wrote:
>  
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I'm a complete newbie at this traffic shaping / QoS stuff so please excuse
>>me if this is a silly question. I've searched and searched on Google and I
>>just end up confusing myself even more, so I thought I'd post my question
>>to this list and see whether someone can help me!
>>    
>>
>
>Sure.
>
>  
>
>>Basically, I am running a Linux box as a NAT router on my home network
>>(machine name marvin). I want to use mldonkey on the router box for P2P
>>downloads. What I wish to do, is to have any traffic that originates on the
>>internal LAN take priority over traffic that is generated from mldonkey on
>>marvin. I don't wish to restrict the maximum bandwidth for the P2P
>>downloads on a permanent basis if I can help it - so that all the bandwidth
>>is used all of the time.
>>    
>>
>
>So you'd like to classify p2p traffic from mldonkey (Overnet/Kad/eDonkey) such 
>that it is granted a lower priority than other traffic?  Not a problem.  
>However, because those three protocols use random ports, you cannot classify 
>'edonkey' traffic based on port.  You can use either ipp2p or L7-Filter to 
>match these flows based on layer 7 pattern matching, though.
>
>  
>
>>My plan was to use the PREROUTING and OUTPUT chains of the mangle table to
>>mark the packets, and then use some form of qdisc/class structure that will
>>prioritise one over the other.
>>    
>>
>
>I believe you can use the POSTROUTING chain of the mangle table and nab all 
>traffic.  L7-Filter has a nice graphic[1] available.
>
>[1] http://l7-filter.sourceforge.net/PacketFlow.png
>
>  
>
>>The aim of this is to have an upload that would normally take say 20
>>seconds from a machine on the LAN still take 20 seconds when mldonkey is
>>uploading - so the NAT traffic will take all the bandwidth away from
>>mldonkey. The closer to this aim I can get the better!
>>    
>>
>
>That makes sense, although the time interval is relative to the data size and 
>protocol being used, so it isn't a useful measure for the rest of us.  What's 
>the link size?  What's the file / data size?
>
>  
>
>>To test implementations, I am using SFTP to upload a file from both a
>>machine on my internal network (named slartibartfast), and marvin (the
>>router machine) simultaneously. The perfect behaviour would be for the
>>upload on slartibartfast to take 20 seconds, and the upload on marvin to
>>take 40.
>>    
>>
>
>Which implementations have you tried to use?  I'd imagine Wondershaper?  
>Others?
>
>  
>
>>I have tried various setups of qdiscs and classes, using various examples
>>from all over the web (including the LARTC FAQ/cookbook) but I haven't been
>>able to get anywhere near my aim. All of the attempts I've made have led to
>>both uploads taking near enough 40 seconds, as they are both running at 50%
>>of the available bandwidth. I would like it to give almost all the
>>bandwidth to slartibartfast for the first 20 seconds, and then all the
>>bandwidth to marvin for the remaining time.
>>    
>>
>
>The problem is likely that you cannot effectively match p2p flows that use the 
>'edonkey' protocols.  (Actually, the latest L7-Filter pattern matches do not 
>yet match eMule's new Kad network, so you'll still need to either disable 
>support for that in mldonkey or deal with latency issues that arise.)
>
>  
>
>>I would really appreciate it if someone could tell me whether:
>>a) This setup is actually possible!
>>    
>>
>
>Absolutely!
>
>  
>
>>b) If using the mangle table chains is correct for this
>>    
>>
>
>I believe so.
>
>  
>
>>c) If it is, the easiest/best/fastest way to implement it. Just some hints
>>for the right direction would be fine!
>>    
>>
>
>You might explore my guide[2].  I have a setup quite similar to the one you 
>wish to implement, except on my router does not generate any traffic.  (I 
>have mldonkey running on an internal machine instead.)
>
>[2] http://trekweb.com/~jasonb/articles/traffic_shaping/
>
>  
>
>>Many thanks in advance,
>>Neil Greatorex
>>
>>    
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
>http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
>  
>

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