Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 10:38:11 +0930 From: "Daniel O'Connor" <doconnor@gsoft.com.au> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Cc: Baldur Gislason <baldur@foo.is>, Jeremie Le Hen <jeremie@le-hen.org>, "Devon H. O'Dell" <dodell@offmyserver.com> Subject: Re: prioritizing small ip packets? Message-ID: <200506141038.12034.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20050613204416.GJ30017@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> References: <42ADD249.7020709@dnainternet.net> <42ADD3D5.6080103@offmyserver.com> <20050613204416.GJ30017@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 06:14, Jeremie Le Hen wrote: > This is true, prioritizing ACKs is very useful when you want to download > with full speed while uploading. But I tend to agree with Baldur's idea > too : I give HTTP and DNS requests as well as interactive SSH session > (TOS field set to "low delay") a heavy weight in order to have them > practically unaffected by a big mail delivery or a scp. There is still a problem whereby a large packet in transit can't be interrupted by a smaller packet. One solution I saw for this when doing VoIP over ADSL was using PPPoE and setting it up for multi-link over one link. The packets get fragmented into smaller pieces and the fragments of smaller packets get higher priorities. Not sure how much over head it cost, but ISTR it wasn't too bad. -- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum GPG Fingerprint - 5596 B766 97C0 0E94 4347 295E E593 DC20 7B3F CE8C [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBCri385ZPcIHs/zowRAlWsAJ4o+rHIG7OLn30dz3tcGF8Bvc45wQCfbN/X Lx+rY29F5o2vOY6yxA26xIE= =C5MR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200506141038.12034.doconnor>