Menu
▾
▴
Re: [Shorewall-users] Basic traffic shaping
|
From: Tom E. <te...@sh...> - 2009-04-21 21:07:40
|
Laurent CARON wrote: > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 01:34:48PM -0700, Tom Eastep wrote: >> You are *guaranteeing* 20% of the bandwidth for this high-priority >> traffic but are limiting it to 40% -- *why*? > > This kind of interactive traffic has no *real* reason of using more than > 40% of the uplink. Maybe it is a good idea to let it be able to use the > full capacity though. > >>> ppp0 2 20*full/100 30*full/100 2 >>> tos=0x68/0xfc,tos=0xb8/0xfc >> Same with VOIP -- why not let it use all of the bandwidth if there is no >> lower-priority traffic. > > Sounds you're right > >>> ppp0 3 20*full/100 25*full/100 3 >>> ppp0 4 40*full/100 85*full/100 4 >>> ppp0 5 5*full/100 40*full/100 4 default >>> >>> /etc/shorewall/tcdevices: >>> ppp0 25000kbit 830kbit >>> >>> /etc/shorewall/tcrules: >>> 1:T 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 icmp echo-request >>> 1:T 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 icmp echo-reply >>> 1:T 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp ssh >>> 2:T 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 udp sip,iax >>> 2:T 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp sip,iax >> SIP and IAX traffic that is also marked tos-minimize-delay will go in >> this class rather than the first; is that what you want? > > You mean that sip and iax will all go in class 2 ? Yes -- there is a bug in the way that Shorewall-perl prioritizes the filter rules that causes fw mark rules to have a higher precedence (lower pref) than TOS rules. -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ When I die, I want to go like my Grandfather who Shoreline, \ died peacefully in his sleep. Not screaming like Washington, USA \ all of the passengers in his car http://shorewall.net \________________________________________________ |
