From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Dec 12 17:35:22 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B64EBCF
 for <net@freebsd.org>; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 17:35:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from webmail2.jnielsen.net (webmail2.jnielsen.net [50.114.224.20])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client CN "webmail2.jnielsen.net",
 Issuer "freebsdsolutions.net" (not verified))
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3784C932
 for <net@freebsd.org>; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 17:35:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.10.1.196] (office.betterlinux.com [199.58.199.60])
 (authenticated bits=0)
 by webmail2.jnielsen.net (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id sBCHZAGo031553
 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
 Fri, 12 Dec 2014 10:35:13 -0700 (MST)
 (envelope-from lists@jnielsen.net)
X-Authentication-Warning: webmail2.jnielsen.net: Host office.betterlinux.com
 [199.58.199.60] claimed to be [10.10.1.196]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
Subject: Re: Can DUMMYNET handle weighting of traffic according to firewall
 rules?
From: John Nielsen <lists@jnielsen.net>
In-Reply-To: <201412121523.IAA03923@mail.lariat.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 10:35:10 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E1DD5C68-B4ED-4D10-B1D5-E0EED17D8C8B@jnielsen.net>
References: <201412120711.AAA00622@mail.lariat.net>
 <CA+hQ2+g40aZO+6JJsvDU8GG_UGp=rO1tQQoaETRe+Bc-iyBNKA@mail.gmail.com>
 <201412121523.IAA03923@mail.lariat.net>
To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
Cc: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it>,
 "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <net@freebsd.org>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-net>,
 <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
 <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 17:35:22 -0000

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?