Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 10:35:10 -0700 From: John Nielsen <lists@jnielsen.net> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.net> Cc: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it>, "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Can DUMMYNET handle weighting of traffic according to firewall rules? Message-ID: <E1DD5C68-B4ED-4D10-B1D5-E0EED17D8C8B@jnielsen.net> In-Reply-To: <201412121523.IAA03923@mail.lariat.net> References: <201412120711.AAA00622@mail.lariat.net> <CA%2BhQ2%2Bg40aZO%2B6JJsvDU8GG_UGp=rO1tQQoaETRe%2BBc-iyBNKA@mail.gmail.com> <201412121523.IAA03923@mail.lariat.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Dec 12, 2014, at 8:23 AM, Brett Glass <brett@lariat.net> wrote: > At 03:06 AM 12/12/2014, Luigi Rizzo wrote: >=20 >> you can set the limit for the pipe, create two queues with different >> weights attached to the pipe, and then schedule. >>=20 >> ipfw pipe 12 config bw 3456 Kbit/s >> ipfw queue 34 config weight 2 pipe 12 >> ipfw queue 56 config weight 1 pipe 12 >> ipfw add queue 34 in recv halfduplexlink0 >> ipfw add queue 56 out xmit halfduplexlink0 >=20 > Alas, as I understand it (and also based on my empirical tests), this = will give downstream traffic priority but will still let the same amount = of upstream traffic through per second if there is no downstream = traffic... because the capacity of the pipe is still the same. What I = want to do is have the pipe, not the queue, weight the upstream traffic = twice as heavily. Is there a reason you can't use a separate pipe for each direction?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E1DD5C68-B4ED-4D10-B1D5-E0EED17D8C8B>