Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 9 May 2014 11:56:23 +0200
From:      Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it>
To:        Bill Yuan <bycn82@gmail.com>
Cc:        "freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org" <freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org>, Freddie Cash <fjwcash@gmail.com>
Subject:   Re: feature of `packet per second`
Message-ID:  <CA%2BhQ2%2Bj5wZYkAHmt18KicHDRhWt1y-ucfs-Dk5oCEOs4rTZ6%2BA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC%2BJH2yff-bpivvLPEEDQQqi998cVuoO62-LMRC=607JOXEwNw@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <5360F1F4.9060808@gmail.com> <5361105C.1040203@freebsd.org> <53611738.8010103@gmail.com> <CAOjFWZ4zRUmcjG-r--OqoGEWcSZoWhtTykgAAHzCjoEWsMVS9g@mail.gmail.com> <53611EB1.4000406@gmail.com> <CA%2BhQ2%2BhjjS=AXVdnaEdFOKY1DqiLuX9iP0gy3wo6FbwnEdq_Qw@mail.gmail.com> <5364E097.9020106@gmail.com> <CA%2BhQ2%2BgXC9uNdtH1VCGa%2Bs1dPNWjErC9qfgXmEnfQ4SQ6Rnz_g@mail.gmail.com> <536AD13B.6080907@gmail.com> <536AD941.9090102@gmail.com> <20140508073816.GB64368@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <536BACA4.7010702@gmail.com> <90ff4a7ff9a1d1bac510bb04fc457a91.authenticated@ultimatedns.net> <CAC%2BJH2yff-bpivvLPEEDQQqi998cVuoO62-LMRC=607JOXEwNw@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 5:00 AM, Bill Yuan <bycn82@gmail.com> wrote:

> OK then I will submit it as a patch in this weekend.
>
>
=E2=80=8Bthank you, much appreciated.
Don't worry about the details on the manpage,
we can fix them at a later time, same as handling
corner cases with small HZ values etc.

cheers
luigi
=E2=80=8B

>
> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 1:11 AM, Chris H <bsd-lists@bsdforge.com> wrote:
>
>> > On 5/8/14 15:38, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>> >> On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 09:09:21AM +0800, bycn82 wrote:
>> >>> On 5/8/14 8:35, bycn82 wrote:
>> >>>> On 5/4/14 1:19, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 2:27 PM, bycn82<bycn82@gmail.com
>> >>>>> <mailto:bycn82@gmail.com>>  wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>      On 5/2/14 16:59, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>      On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 6:02 PM, bycn82<bycn82@gmail.com
>> >>>>>>      <mailto:bycn82@gmail.com>>  wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>              fjwcash@gmail.com<mailto:fjwcash@gmail.com>
>> >>>>>>              <mailto:fjwcash@gmail.com<mailto:fjwcash@gmail.com>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>          Thanks for your reply,  and it is good to know the sysct=
l
>> >>>>>>          for ICMP.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>          finally it works.I just added a new `action` in firewall
>> and
>> >>>>>>          it is called `pps`,  that means it can be generic purpos=
e
>> >>>>>>          while the net.inet.icmp.icmplim is only for ICMP traffic=
.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>          the usage will be like below
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>          root@F10:/usr/src/sbin/ipfw # .*/ipfw add pps 1 icmp fro=
m
>> >>>>>>          any to any*
>> >>>>>>          00100 pps 1 icmp from any to any
>> >>>>>>          root@F10:/usr/src/sbin/ipfw # ./ipfw show
>> >>>>>>          00100     9     540 pps 1 icmp from any to any
>> >>>>>>          65535 13319 1958894 allow ip from any to any
>> >>>>>>          root@F10:/usr/src/sbin/ipfw #
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>      ???hi,
>> >>>>>>      as julian said it would be great if you would like to share
>> your
>> >>>>>>      code
>> >>>>>>      so we can integrate it in future ipfw releases.
>> >>>>>>      Once again citing Julian, dummynet is a bit of a superset of
>> pps but
>> >>>>>>      not exactly, so i see value in the additional feature.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>      One thing  ???to keep in mind in the implementation:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>      the burst size used for limiting is an important parameter
>> that
>> >>>>>>      everyone forgets. 1 pps is basically "don't bother me".
>> >>>>>>      1000 pps could be "1000 packets every fixed 1-sec interval"
>> >>>>>>      or "1 packet every ms" or (this is more difficult)
>> >>>>>>      "20 pkt in the last 50ms interval".
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>      If i were to implement the feature i would add two parameter=
s
>> >>>>>>      (burst, I_max) with reasonable defaults and compute the
>> internal
>> >>>>>>      interval and max_count as follows
>> >>>>>>         if (burst>  max_pps * I_max)
>> >>>>>>             burst =3D max_pps * I_max; // make sure it is not too
>> large
>> >>>>>>         else if (burst<  max_pps / HZ)
>> >>>>>>             burst =3D max_pps * HZ;    // nor too small
>> >>>>>>         max_count =3D max_pps / burst;
>> >>>>>>         interval =3D HZ * burst / max_pps;
>> >>>>>>         count =3D 0; // actual counter
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>      then add { max_count, interval, timestamp, count } to the ru=
le
>> >>>>>>      descriptor.
>> >>>>>>      On incoming packets:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>         if (ticks>=3D r->interval + r->timestamp) {
>> >>>>>>             r->timestamp =3D r->ticks;
>> >>>>>>             r->count =3D 1;
>> >>>>>>             return ACCEPT;
>> >>>>>>         }
>> >>>>>>         if (r->count>  r->max_count)
>> >>>>>>             return DENY;
>> >>>>>>         r->count++;
>> >>>>>>         return ACCEPT;
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>      cheers
>> >>>>>>      luigi
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>      Hi Luigi,
>> >>>>>      You are right, it will be more generic if provide two
>> parameters
>> >>>>>      as you described,
>> >>>>>      But this PPS feature should not be used to control the traffi=
c
>> >>>>>      rate, the dummynet you provided is the correct way.
>> >>>>>      So I am thinking in what kind of scenario, people need this P=
PS
>> >>>>>      feature?
>> >>>>>      in my opinion, people will use PPS only when they want to lim=
it
>> >>>>>      the connections/transactions numbers. ( already have limit
>> >>>>>      command to limit the connections)
>> >>>>>      So I think provide a simple PPS feature is good enough, and w=
e
>> >>>>>      can improve it if someone complaint on this.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> ???pps has a strong reason to exist because it is a lot cheaper
>> >>>>> than a dummynet pipe, and given its pur???pose is to police
>> >>>>> traffic (icmp, dns requests, etc) which should not even
>> >>>>> get close to the limit which is set, I think it is
>> >>>>> a completely reasonable feature to have.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Given that the above code is the complete implementation
>> >>>>> with the two parameters (burst and interval) there is no
>> >>>>> reason not to use them, at least internally.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Then you could choose not to expose them as part of the
>> >>>>> user interface (though since you are implementing a new
>> >>>>> option from scratch, it is completely trivial to
>> >>>>> parse 1, 2 or 3 arguments and set defaults for the others).
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> cheers
>> >>>>> luigi
>> >>>> OK, PPS with 2 parameters , it is done,
>> >>>> But how to get the current time in millisecond?
>> >>>> any recommendation?
>> >>> In order to get the millisecond, i tried to include the timeb.h but =
i
>> >>> met below
>> >> FreeBSD has a global kernel variable called ticks which increments
>> >> (roughly) HZ times per second and is all you need for this
>> >> kind of coarse estimates.
>> >> In linux there is something similar (jiffies maybe ?),
>> >> and the code to build ipfw on linux does some reasonable
>> >> mapping.
>> >>
>> >> The code i posted is, i believe,  complete and contains
>> >> all the details.
>> >>
>> >> cheers
>> >> luigi
>> >>
>> >>> n file included from
>> >>> /usr/src/sys/modules/ipfw/../../netpfil/ipfw/ip_fw2.c:42:
>> >>> @/sys/timeb.h:42:2: error: "this file includes<sys/timeb.h>  which i=
s
>> >>> deprecated"
>> >>>         [-Werror,-W#warnings]
>> >>> #warning "this file includes<sys/timeb.h>  which is deprecated"
>> >>>    ^
>> >>> any replacement for timeb.h
>> >
>> > Man page patch for PPS
>> >
>> > .It Cm pps Ar limit duration
>> > Rule with the
>> > .Cm pps
>> > keyword will allow the first
>> > .Ar limit
>> > packets in each
>> > .Ar duration
>> > milliseconds.
>> >
>> >- and it will be like blow
>> + and it will be below
>> >       pps _limit  duration_
>> >               Rule with the pps keyword will allow the first _limit
>> > _packets in
>> >               each _duration _milliseconds.
>> >
>> > is that OK?
>> Just a suggestion. :)
>>
>> --Chris
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org mailing list
>> > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw
>> > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ipfw-unsubscribe@freebsd.org=
"
>> >
>>
>>
>


--=20
-----------------------------------------+-------------------------------
 Prof. Luigi RIZZO, rizzo@iet.unipi.it  . Dip. di Ing. dell'Informazione
 http://www.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/        . Universita` di Pisa
 TEL      +39-050-2211611               . via Diotisalvi 2
 Mobile   +39-338-6809875               . 56122 PISA (Italy)
-----------------------------------------+-------------------------------



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CA%2BhQ2%2Bj5wZYkAHmt18KicHDRhWt1y-ucfs-Dk5oCEOs4rTZ6%2BA>