Re: Egress bandwidth limiting not working?

[Sebastian Arcus <shop@open-t.co.uk>]

On 08/05/13 18:24, Andrew Beverley wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 08:03 +0100, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
>>> Are you just trying to achieve simple policing of the interface, or
>>> something more advanced?
>>>
>>
>> Thanks Andrew. I'm only trying to achieve bandwidth limitation and QoS
>> priority for some VoIP traffic.
>
> Yeah, I would just try HTB then. It's not the easiest either, but follow
> some examples and you should be fine.

I have tried the HTB example here: 
http://www.lartc.org/howto/lartc.cookbook.ultimate-tc.html and it seems 
to work fine - it certainly limits the bandwidth in both directions. 
Thanks again for that.

The one thing to watch out for is
> that the sum of the bandwidth for all the leaf classes should add up to
> the bandwidth of the root class.

In that case is the HTB example in the LARTC cookbook 
(http://www.lartc.org/howto/lartc.cookbook.ultimate-tc.html) wrong? It 
assigns to the first leaf class 100% of parent bandwidth, and to the 
second 90% of it.

>
> My example is at:
>
> http://andybev.com/index.php/Fair_traffic_shaping_an_ADSL_line_for_a_local_network_using_Linux
>
> [...]
>
>> and the HTB section hints to the need to patch the kernel - which put
>> me off at the time.
>
> It's now in the vanilla kernel, so a lot easier :)

It seems that HTB was added to the kernel in 2.4.20! - so it would be 
nice if somebody with access to LARTC.org would amend the mention about 
kernel patching on the page above. Also, it would be useful if the same 
page would mention that HTB is preferable and simpler than CBQ.