From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rick Marshall Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 22:42:45 +0000 Subject: Re: [LARTC] SEPARATING VOIP AND SURFING Message-Id: <41A50E65.6040107@zenucom.com> MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------020607040201050307020008" List-Id: References: <20041109175203.11372.qmail@web41524.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20041109175203.11372.qmail@web41524.mail.yahoo.com> To: lartc@vger.kernel.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020607040201050307020008 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable i know this will sound a bit flippant - it's not meant to be. why not get rid of the cisco routers - i haven't found a need for them=20 yet..... my networks work much better without them ;) rick Ricardo Soria wrote: >Dear Chris: > >Thanks for your sugestion. But my situation is really >more complicated than that. What I am really doing is >this: I have 2 cisco routers, a 1601, that gives me >connection to Internet, and ahother, a 827, that gives >me a connection to my other (remote) subnet. My linux >box is in the middle of both ciscos. So, the ciscos, >and my linux box have an IP address each, this IPs >belong to the same subnet. What the linux box does is >to receive the traffic from the cisco 1600, shape and >filter this traffic, and forward the packages destined >to the remote subnet, to the cisco 827. So, an >additional ethernet card wouldn't be so much aid, >would it ?? > >Very thanks. > >Ricardo. > > --- Chris Bennett escribi=F3:=20 > =20 > >>I struggled with this sort of thing for a while.=20 >>Then I realized it was=20 >>easier to just buy another ethernet card for $10. I >>suggest you do that. >> >>----- Original Message -----=20 >>From: "Ricardo Soria" >>To: "Andy Furniss" >>Cc: >>Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 1:08 PM >>Subject: Re: [LARTC] SEPARATING VOIP AND SURFING >> >> >> =20 >> >>>Well, as I promised, here I am again :-) >>> >>>I have not got ESFQ yet, but what I think really >>>helped was shorting bandwidth capacity to its 88%. >>>But here I have a new problem again: there are >>>certain moments when I am really running out of >>>bandwidth. The scenario now is as follows: >>> >>>I am using my linux box as a router; forwarding >>>packages from on subnet to another. But, since I >>> =20 >>> >>have >> =20 >> >>>only one interface (eth0) for this purpose, both >>>incoming and outgoing traffic passes for this >>>interface. So, I though it was correct to >>> =20 >>> >>duplicate >> =20 >> >>>bandwidth capacity (512kbit * 88% =3D 450kbit * 2 =3D >>>900kbit), considering that I have 512kbit for >>> =20 >>> >>uplink >> =20 >> >>>and 512 for downlink. So, I am now considering a >>>rate/ceil of 900kbit for eth0 on my script. >>>Everything appeared to be OK, But, since I did >>> =20 >>> >>this >> =20 >> >>>change, there are certain moments that I run out >>> =20 >>> >>of >> =20 >> >>>downlink bandwidth, so, I think the script is >>> =20 >>> >>trying >> =20 >> >>>to take more thank the total 512 of downlink I >>> =20 >>> >>have. >> =20 >> >>>So, my question would be, how to 'divide' or >>>'recognize' incoming and outgoing traffic, and to >>>treat it as different channels?? I was thinking >>> =20 >>> >>about >> =20 >> >>>using a IMQ device for incoming traffic, but this >>>apperas to be a 'little bit' more complicated that >>>what I expected. So, may it be a way to do this >>>without installing IMQ ?? >>> >>>Very thanks in advance. >>> >>>Best regards. >>> >>>Ricardo. >>> >>>--- Andy Furniss >>>escribi=F3: >>> =20 >>> >>>>Ricardo Soria wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> =20 >>>> >>>>>1. So, starting at 80% of total 512kbit >>>>> =20 >>>>> >>bandwidth >> =20 >> >>>>>(410kbit), there would be a waste of 102kbit.=20 >>>>> =20 >>>>> >>Is >> =20 >> >>>>this >>>> =20 >>>> >>>>>completely necessary?? I think this is to >>>>> =20 >>>>> >>ensure >> =20 >> >>>>I >>>> =20 >>>> >>>>>have the queue on my side, and the queue is not >>>>> =20 >>>>> >>on >> =20 >> >>>>the >>>> =20 >>>> >>>>>side of the ISP. But, I fell tempted to think >>>>> =20 >>>>> >>>>that >>>> =20 >>>> >>>>>102kbit is too much for this purpose, >>>>> =20 >>>>> >>considering >> =20 >> >>>>that >>>> =20 >>>> >>>>>I really have 512kbit all time. What would you >>>>>finally recommend ?? >>>>> =20 >>>>> >>>>It depends how much you care about latency & what >>>>the people on your LAN >>>>do/use. >>>> >>>>I don't know what's acceptable latency and jitter >>>>for VOIP. >>>> >>>> >>>> =20 >>>> >>>>>2. Could you please tell me a secure and >>>>> =20 >>>>> >>>>trustworthy >>>> =20 >>>> >>>>>way to know if I am having queued packets under >>>>> =20 >>>>> >>>>this >>>> =20 >>>> >>>>>class?? >>>>> =20 >>>>> >>>>Again how much you have to do depends on the >>>> =20 >>>> >>usage >> =20 >> >>>>of your network. You >>>>can explicitly mark each type of interavtive you >>>>want to priorotise. >>>> >>>>If you have 20 hackers using P2P 24/7 then life >>>> =20 >>>> >>is >> =20 >> >>>>going to be harder - >>>>if they just browse and email It's probably not >>>>worth trying too hard. >>>> >>>> =20 >>>> >>>>>3. I am creating 2 different htb classes, one >>>>> =20 >>>>> >>for >> =20 >> >>>>>interactive, and another for bulk, and also, 2 >>>>>different sfq inferior classes, one for each >>>>> =20 >>>>> >>>>service. >>>> =20 >>>> >>>>>What else can I do to avoid sending a "mix of >>>>> =20 >>>>> >>>>traffic" >>>> =20 >>>> >>>>>?? >>>>> =20 >>>>> >>>>If you have one queue for bulk it would need to >>>> =20 >>>> >>be >> =20 >> >>>>esfq if you want per >>>>IP fairness. If you'd rather not patch then your >>>>origional queue for >>>>each user is OK - but you should change SFQ's >>>> =20 >>>> >>queue >> =20 >> >>>>length. >>>> >>>> =20 >>>> >>>>>4. If you still have a copy of my script, you >>>>> =20 >>>>> >>can >> =20 >> >>>>see >>>> =20 >>>> >>>>>I am giving "prio 0" to interactive classes, >>>>> =20 >>>>> >>and >> =20 >> >>>>"prio >>>> =20 >>>> >>>>>1" to bulk classes. I also tested giving prio >>>>> =20 >>>>> >>0 >> =20 >> >>>>and >>>> =20 >>>> >>>>>prio 1 at filters setup (and also, prio 1 to >>>>>everybody, I am not so sure what worked >>>>> =20 >>>>> >>better). >> =20 >> >>>>What >>>> =20 >>>> >>>>>else can I do to emphasize interactive traffic >>>>>priority?? >>>>> >>>>> =20 >>>>> >>>>The prio is most important, other things I do are >>>> =20 >>>> >>- >> =20 >> >>>>make sure >>>>interactive has large burst and bulk none. Rather >>>>than mess with r2q I >>>>set quantum to my MTU for HTB and SFQ. HTB can be >>>>tweaked to be more >>>>accurate - but you may not need to bother. I also >>>>set a rate for my >>>>interactive larger than I ever expect to be used, >>>>this is probably >>>>unneccesary, but then I count game traffic a top >>>>prio - and I was using >>>>upto 20K bytes/sec incoming while on a 64 player >>>>enemy territory server >>>>recently. >>>> >>>> =20 >>>> >>>>>Sorry for the annoyances, very thanks in >>>>> =20 >>>>> >>advance. >> =20 >> >>>>That's OK - It would help to know what the users >>>> =20 >>>> >>do >> =20 >> >>>>and how many are >>>>active at once etc. >>>> >>>>Andy. >>>> >>>> >>>> =20 >>>> >>> =20 >>> >_________________________________________________________ > =20 > >>>Do You Yahoo!? >>>Informaci=F3n de Estados Unidos y Am=E9rica Latina, en >>> =20 >>> >>Yahoo! Noticias. >> =20 >> >>>Vis=EDtanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com >>>_______________________________________________ >>>LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl >>>http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc >>> =20 >>> >>HOWTO: http://lartc.org/ >> =20 >> >>=20 >> =20 >> > >_________________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Informaci=F3n de Estados Unidos y Am=E9rica Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias. >Vis=EDtanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com >_______________________________________________ >LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl >http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/ > =20 > --------------020607040201050307020008 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf8; name="rjm.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="rjm.vcf" begin:vcard fn:Rick Marshall n:Marshall;Rick email;internet:rjm@zenucom.com tel;cell:+61 411 287 530 x-mozilla-html:TRUE version:2.1 end:vcard --------------020607040201050307020008-- _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/