Brian J. Murrell wrote:
On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 07:20 -0700, Tom Eastep wrote:
Brian J. Murrell wrote:

For most home, or other small use situations, isn't it easier to just
specify priorities of traffic, i.e.

Type                            Priority
VOIP                            1
Interactive (i.e. ssh)          2
All other                       3
Sure. But Shorewall was never targeted at that market. It's predecessor Seawall was targeted at SOHO users and I originally developed Shorewall to provide a product that took over where Seawall left off.

SOHO.  That's for the most part the situation I'm talking about.  I'm
talking about a small enough user base that guaranteeing bandwidth for
certain use cases is overkill and all that is necessary is prioritizing.

The simple commodity firewall routers typically use a scheme like you advocate. But then I've never understood why a home user would choose Shorewall over one of those little devices anyway.

For mom, perhaps, but for a hacker, they don't do near enough.  In fact
they don't even do enough for mom.  VPN technology is sorely lacking
from (almost?) all of them, just for starters.

Then I urge you to develop such a traffic shaper as an alternative to the one built into Shorewall. If it turns out to be wildly popular, we can integrate it into Shorewall just like we did with Arne Bernin's 'tc4shorewall' which is the current Shorewall builtin TC.

Probably not worth it if HTB can emulate the "prioritize only, not
guarantee bandwidth" given the work that's already present to support
it.

#INTERFACE      MARK    RATE       CEIL   PRIORITY    OPTIONS
ppp0            1       full       full       1       tcp-ack,tos-minimize-delay
ppp0            2       full       full       2       default
ppp0            3       full       full       2
                                                  ^
this last one should have been priority 3---------+

Not really. HTB works badly when the sum of the RATEs exceeds the OUT-BANDWIDTH.

Something more like this should work though:

#INTERFACE  MARK  RATE        CEIL   PRIORITY    OPTIONS
ppp0        1     full*98/100 full       1       tcp-ack,tos-minimize-delay
ppp0        2     full/100    full       2       default
ppp0        3     full/100    full       2

So is class "1" limited to 98% bandwidth or full?

Hint: CEIL == limit.

It seems it would be
full (otherwise what's the point of the CIEL?).  If class "1" is unused
can class 2 get 100% of the bandwidth?

Yes.

If both class 2 and 3 are
over-saturating, does class 2 get 100% of the bandwidth because of it's
priority?

It gets 99% of it. Class 3 is guaranteed 1%

-Tom
--
Tom Eastep    \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool
Shoreline,     \ http://shorewall.net
Washington USA  \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Public Key   \ https://lists.shorewall.net/teastep.pgp.key

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php
_______________________________________________
Shorewall-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users

Reply via email to