Re: [LARTC] Can't keep up with all these file sharing programs!

[Werner Almesberger <wa@almesberger.net>]

Jason Tackaberry wrote:
> In theory, this scheme works pretty good.  The problem is that every day
> some of these p2p programs are using different ports,

So why don't you just turn the classification around and put
everything you know to be "good" in the guaranteed class and
all the rest in the junk class ?

> Now it would be _really_ nice if there was some ability to examine
> packets at layer 7 to determine what class a particular session belongs
> in (like, for instance, the way Packeteer's Packet Shaper works).  I'm
> assuming I can't get this functionality (unless I write it myself),

I suppose something along the lines of a transparent proxy would
work, but I don't know where you'd find a program that implements
the kind of classification you need.

> adjustment I can make?  Or, perhaps I should try a different approach,
> and give each IP a guaranteed rate?  The only drawback I see with this
> is that with 50 users, I could only guarantee each user 5kbps. :)

You could give them equal (RR) shares per IP, with CBQ or HTB.
That won't help against distributed downloads (e.g. one
downloader using several people's PCs), but it should buy you
some time for implementing the L7 solution :-)

- Werner

-- 
  _________________________________________________________________________
 / Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina         wa@almesberger.net /
/_http://www.almesberger.net/____________________________________________/
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/