On 2014/09/05 03:49, Abel Abraham Camarillo Ojeda wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > 1. Don't use different _in and _out names, use syntax like "queue foo on
> > em0"
> > and "queue foo on em1". That way you assign packets to the correct queues on
> > both interf
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> 1. Don't use different _in and _out names, use syntax like "queue foo on em0"
> and "queue foo on em1". That way you assign packets to the correct queues on
> both interfaces in one step with something like "match to port 53 queue fast".
>
Daniel Melameth melameth.com> writes:
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Stuart Henderson
spacehopper.org> wrote:
> > In my (admittedly very limited) testing with the new queueing system,
> > it hasn't done very well with low bandwidth queues (ADSL type speeds) that
> > used to work OK with al
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> In my (admittedly very limited) testing with the new queueing system,
> it hasn't done very well with low bandwidth queues (ADSL type speeds) that
> used to work OK with altq (symptom, packets being assigned to queues as
> expected, but rat
On 2014-08-04, Eric Dilmore wrote:
> I just set up a new OpenBSD 5.5 gateway for a small nonprofit. The
> gateway has one external interface and one internal, with the internal
> network split into several VLANs: one for secure traffic, one for
> guests, one for internal phones, and one for our ex
On 06-08-2014 05:34, Henning Brauer wrote:
> Your preferences are your preferences, you're free to do that - just
> like you're free to stab a knife in your eye.
Not sure I'd go with this analogy. Here in my country things are a
little different. Not always the networks are correctly configured.
Sp
Am Dienstag, den 05.08.2014, 17:05 +0100 schrieb Andy:
> Considering all this, there should never be a good reason to apply
> queues to the VLAN interfaces at all?
Well, there may be. For example a VLAN may indeed just represent a port
on a switch elsewhere. Where a certain policy applies (e.g.
* Giancarlo Razzolini [2014-08-05 18:36]:
> On 05-08-2014 03:36, Henning Brauer wrote:
> > the 90s are over.
> Yep, I know Henning. Vlan's are pretty secure. But they add complexity
> and if you use physical separation you can mitigate problems caused by
> misconfiguration. Either on OpenBSD itsel
* Andy [2014-08-05 18:06]:
> Correct me if I'm wrong here Henning, but we have always used the approach
> of only ever assigning queues to the physical interface (whether it has
> VLANs or not), as this means that both the physical interfaces untagged
> network, plus all the tagged networks on tha
On 05-08-2014 03:36, Henning Brauer wrote:
> the 90s are over.
Yep, I know Henning. Vlan's are pretty secure. But they add complexity
and if you use physical separation you can mitigate problems caused by
misconfiguration. Either on OpenBSD itself or on the switches. As I
said, my personal preferen
On 05/08/14 10:23, Henning Brauer wrote:
* David Dahlberg [2014-08-05 10:17]:
Am Dienstag, den 05.08.2014, 08:36 +0200 schrieb Henning Brauer:
queueing on vlan is pretty meaningless.
however, classification can happen anywhere, so assign queues on your
vlan interface and create them on the ph
* David Dahlberg [2014-08-05 10:17]:
> Am Dienstag, den 05.08.2014, 08:36 +0200 schrieb Henning Brauer:
>
> > queueing on vlan is pretty meaningless.
>
> > however, classification can happen anywhere, so assign queues on your
> > vlan interface and create them on the physical one, things will Ju
Am Dienstag, den 05.08.2014, 08:36 +0200 schrieb Henning Brauer:
> queueing on vlan is pretty meaningless.
> however, classification can happen anywhere, so assign queues on your
> vlan interface and create them on the physical one, things will Just
> Work (tm).
Strangely, the following (simplif
On 2014 Aug 04 (Mon) at 19:01:06 -0300 (-0300), Giancarlo Razzolini wrote:
:On 04-08-2014 18:09, Eric Dilmore wrote:
:> I just set up a new OpenBSD 5.5 gateway for a small nonprofit. The
:> gateway has one external interface and one internal, with the internal
:> network split into several VLANs: o
* Giancarlo Razzolini [2014-08-05 00:02]:
> On 04-08-2014 18:09, Eric Dilmore wrote:
> > I just set up a new OpenBSD 5.5 gateway for a small nonprofit. The
> > gateway has one external interface and one internal, with the internal
> > network split into several VLANs: one for secure traffic, one f
On 04-08-2014 19:17, Eric Dilmore wrote:
> prio sounds great on paper, but I'm pretty sure they are a per-interface
> priority queue. Could it still prioritize packets from the Asterisk vlan
> above those from other vlans?
Yes, it is per-interface. But the prio is applied on the dequeuing. You
can
Eric Dilmore [ericdilm...@gmail.com] wrote:
> Thank you for the reply, Giancarlo. There are some things I'm not quite
> sure about from your response, however.
>
> prio sounds great on paper, but I'm pretty sure they are a per-interface
> priority queue. Could it still prioritize packets from the
Thank you for the reply, Giancarlo. There are some things I'm not quite
sure about from your response, however.
prio sounds great on paper, but I'm pretty sure they are a per-interface
priority queue. Could it still prioritize packets from the Asterisk vlan
above those from other vlans?
Also, I w
On 04-08-2014 18:09, Eric Dilmore wrote:
> I just set up a new OpenBSD 5.5 gateway for a small nonprofit. The
> gateway has one external interface and one internal, with the internal
> network split into several VLANs: one for secure traffic, one for
> guests, one for internal phones, and one for o
I just set up a new OpenBSD 5.5 gateway for a small nonprofit. The
gateway has one external interface and one internal, with the internal
network split into several VLANs: one for secure traffic, one for
guests, one for internal phones, and one for our external Asterisk phone
server.
I'm trying to
20 matches
Mail list logo
