[LARTC] Inaccurate results without natting the traffic.

* [LARTC] Inaccurate results without natting the traffic.
@ 2005-10-11 20:05 Alvaro Motta
  2005-10-11 20:17 ` Corey Hickey
                   ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Alvaro Motta @ 2005-10-11 20:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: lartc

Hi folks.

For quite a while, I tried to use linux (cbq and htb) to control
bandwidth in order to replace a cisco equipment used to play this role
on our network.

After trying here and there, with a bunch of different distros,
different versions, different compilations, ... the closest I could
get was as follows:

(using htb.init and cbq.init)

Desired BW => Achieved BW

128k => 404.78 KB/s
64k => 337.9 KB/s
16k => 68.86 KB/s
8k => 31.12 KB/s
1k => 3.77 KB/s

No matter what I'd do, the results were always the same, i.e, control
out of control.

I tried to get some help from a few mailing lists, including this one.

Anyway, one thing I noticed was that all the documentation regarding
the matter, and most of the messages on the mailing lists would
mention firewalling the box along with the traffic control.

I asked if the firewall was a mandatory piece on this puzzle, and got
no as answer. Without giving up, I stayed playing (actually it has
been a fight ....) in the lab installing and configuring a linux box
to replace our cisco bbsm. Very frustrating task, since I was like
running after the tail.... Iptables were configured in a bunch of
ways, .... no result.

Until the day, for no particular reason, I decided to masquerade the
traffic. Oh men, I got so desperated and mad when I saw the box
controlling the traffic as it should.....

The reason for such a reaction has a simple answer: I cannot
masquerade the traffic..... :o(((((

I managed to find a company that sells a solution (built on top of
conectiva) that does control the traffic without using masquerade. I
even played with the solution and saw that it does not nat the traffic
...... but the guys did not disclose to me what was the trick... and
since we buried a lot of money on cisco's solution, no one here is
willing to spend money to replace it. This decision is out of my
hands.

Now I come to you guys again, with the question: How to make cbq or
htb work without masquerading the traffic?

Any help is very appreciated.

Cheers,

AL
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread