[LARTC] Shaping of pppoe clients

[LARTC] Shaping of pppoe clients

[Kenneth Kalmer]

Guys

After reading through the archives I found some insightful ways to be
able to shape traffic to pppoe clients from the server. I have two
questions on the topic of setting up a pppoe server however...

1. The clients will all be connected to each other using a normal
ethernet network, the segments connected with managed switches. The
capacity is roughly 500 nodes. Will these pppoe sessions interfere
with each other or not?

2. I'd like to know if anyone has tried to shape pppoe client traffic
by placing a transparent bridge between the servers and clients, and
shaping on this bridge. I'm just testing the water here, after what I
read in other threads it will be easier to just use a set of carefully
crafted ip-up & ip-down scripts with pppd rather than the bridge. But
nonetheless, opinions are always needed.

Thanks guys

-- 

Kenneth Kalmer
kenneth.kalmer@gmail.com

Folding@home stats
http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=userpage&username=kenneth%2Ekalmer
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Re: [LARTC] Shaping of pppoe clients

[Georgi Alexandrov]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1356 bytes --]

Kenneth Kalmer wrote:
> Guys
>
> After reading through the archives I found some insightful ways to be
> able to shape traffic to pppoe clients from the server. I have two
> questions on the topic of setting up a pppoe server however...
>
> 1. The clients will all be connected to each other using a normal
> ethernet network, the segments connected with managed switches. The
> capacity is roughly 500 nodes. Will these pppoe sessions interfere
> with each other or not?
What do you mean by 'interfere' here?
>
> 2. I'd like to know if anyone has tried to shape pppoe client traffic
> by placing a transparent bridge between the servers and clients, and
> shaping on this bridge. I'm just testing the water here, after what I
> read in other threads it will be easier to just use a set of carefully
> crafted ip-up & ip-down scripts with pppd rather than the bridge. But
> nonetheless, opinions are always needed.
I use the ip-up and ip-down scripts, and a radius exec attribute so probably
I can help with them.
I'm planning on segmenting such a network with linux bridges for better
filtering and QoS control. But that's yet to come ;-)

> Thanks guys
>


-- 
regards,
Georgi Alexandrov

key server - http://pgp.mit.edu/ :: key id - 0x37B4B3EE
key fingerprint - E429 BF93 FA67 44E9 B7D4  F89E F990 01C1 37B4 B3EE




[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 143 bytes --]

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

Re: [LARTC] Shaping of pppoe clients

[Kenneth Kalmer]

On 5/23/06, Georgi Alexandrov <georgi.alexandrov@gmail.com> wrote:
> Kenneth Kalmer wrote:
> > Guys
> >
> >
> > 1. The clients will all be connected to each other using a normal
> > ethernet network, the segments connected with managed switches. The
> > capacity is roughly 500 nodes. Will these pppoe sessions interfere
> > with each other or not?
> What do you mean by 'interfere' here?

A colleague of mine thought that these sessions might interfere with
one another. On second thought, I'm not even going to explain this...

> > 2. I'd like to know if anyone has tried to shape pppoe client traffic
> > by placing a transparent bridge between the servers and clients, and
> > shaping on this bridge. I'm just testing the water here, after what I
> > read in other threads it will be easier to just use a set of carefully
> > crafted ip-up & ip-down scripts with pppd rather than the bridge. But
> > nonetheless, opinions are always needed.
> I use the ip-up and ip-down scripts, and a radius exec attribute so probably
> I can help with them.

I assume that the exec attribute is in essence similair to what ip-up
is, executing an arbitrary command under certain circumstances. Will
look into it, thanks...

> I'm planning on segmenting such a network with linux bridges for better
> filtering and QoS control. But that's yet to come ;-)

The keyword here is "better", and that was my argument for using a
bridge in the first place. It would appear to be easier to shape &
filter away from the messy scripts of pppd & radius servers, but this
raises the next issue. For the bridge, is the pppoe sessions
identifiable using say source & destination ips, as opposed to pppoe
traffic... I know if I perform a tcpdump on the interface that I
connect to my adsl modem I only see the traffic as pppoe... Logic
tells me that the bridge would suffer the same consequenses...

> > Thanks guys
> >
>
>
> --
> regards,
> Georgi Alexandrov
>
> key server - http://pgp.mit.edu/ :: key id - 0x37B4B3EE
> key fingerprint - E429 BF93 FA67 44E9 B7D4  F89E F990 01C1 37B4 B3EE



-- 

Kenneth Kalmer
kenneth.kalmer@gmail.com

Folding@home stats
http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=userpage&username=kenneth%2Ekalmer
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Re: [LARTC] Shaping of pppoe clients

[Georgi Alexandrov]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 936 bytes --]

Kenneth Kalmer wrote:
> The keyword here is "better", and that was my argument for using a
> bridge in the first place. It would appear to be easier to shape &
> filter away from the messy scripts of pppd & radius servers, but this
> raises the next issue. For the bridge, is the pppoe sessions
> identifiable using say source & destination ips, as opposed to pppoe
> traffic... I know if I perform a tcpdump on the interface that I
> connect to my adsl modem I only see the traffic as pppoe... Logic
> tells me that the bridge would suffer the same consequenses...
Yes, that was my concern too. Maybe someone else on the list that has
already
went trought this may share the experience.
I will test it as soon as I get my hands on a spare machine ;-)

-- 
regards,
Georgi Alexandrov

key server - http://pgp.mit.edu/ :: key id - 0x37B4B3EE
key fingerprint - E429 BF93 FA67 44E9 B7D4  F89E F990 01C1 37B4 B3EE




[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 143 bytes --]

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

Re: [LARTC] Shaping of pppoe clients

[Andy Furniss]

Georgi Alexandrov wrote:
> Kenneth Kalmer wrote:
> 
>>The keyword here is "better", and that was my argument for using a
>>bridge in the first place. It would appear to be easier to shape &
>>filter away from the messy scripts of pppd & radius servers, but this
>>raises the next issue. For the bridge, is the pppoe sessions
>>identifiable using say source & destination ips, as opposed to pppoe
>>traffic... I know if I perform a tcpdump on the interface that I
>>connect to my adsl modem I only see the traffic as pppoe... Logic
>>tells me that the bridge would suffer the same consequenses...
> 
> Yes, that was my concern too. Maybe someone else on the list that has
> already
> went trought this may share the experience.
> I will test it as soon as I get my hands on a spare machine ;-)

I would have thought you can do it with u32 on ip or mac address.

Look up ethertype(s) for pppoe and then give it as the protocol number 
for the tc filter - I assume ipheader will start 8 bytes after eth 
payload - never played with pppoe, though.

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