From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 7 00:36:59 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1267737B401 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 00:36:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xorpc.icir.org (xorpc.icir.org [192.150.187.68]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81D8343FCB for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 00:36:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rizzo@xorpc.icir.org) Received: from xorpc.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.8p1/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h677awkN057030; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 00:36:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rizzo@xorpc.icir.org) Received: (from rizzo@localhost) by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.8p1/8.12.3/Submit) id h677awOE057028; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 00:36:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rizzo) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 00:36:57 -0700 From: Luigi Rizzo To: Eugene Grosbein Message-ID: <20030707003656.A56037@xorpc.icir.org> References: <3F0310CE.5070302@tenebras.com> <3F03867A.79F82968@kuzbass.ru> <20030705123332.A60972@xorpc.icir.org> <3F078E39.ABC0822F@kuzbass.ru> <20030706002402.A58528@xorpc.icir.org> <3F07D3CD.4CC3B317@kuzbass.ru> <20030706021404.A94750@xorpc.icir.org> <3F07EEE6.1E4EBE41@kuzbass.ru> <20030706070646.B17595@xorpc.icir.org> <3F08FEBF.C121F4CE@kuzbass.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <3F08FEBF.C121F4CE@kuzbass.ru>; from eugen@kuzbass.ru on Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 01:01:51PM +0800 cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ipprecedence X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 07:36:59 -0000 If, in your description, RWRs already do prioritization, that is all what matters, them being the bottleneck nodes. I still believe your problem is elsewhere. Maybe the RWR's do not do prioritization despite their claims. Perhaps your link is just way too overloaded and you need to shape other traffic so that it does not fill up the queue between two subsequent packets (causing drops -- are you sure you aren't seeing drops rather than just delay ?) You said the LAN links are 100Mbit, so even if there is queueing there, 50pkts at 1MSS mean 75Kbyte or 600Kbits which is about 6ms each way -- that cannot be a problem; even at 10Mbit, you have 60ms which is a bit on the high side but ok-ish. cheers luigi On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 01:01:51PM +0800, Eugene Grosbein wrote: ... > > so what's your problem then ??? > > Cisco3640<-ethernet/LAN1->FreeBSD<-ethernet->RWR1<-radio- > -radio>RWR2<-ethernet/LAN2>-ATA186 > > The first problem is that VoIP is delay-intolerate. > The second problem is that WaveLan is 2mbit only and is overloaded. > The other problem is that routers in the chain are loaded significantly. > So the goal is to make voice traffic prioritized over the whole > chain of routers. > > Cisco can pass VoIP before other traffic ("ip rtp priority" command), > RWRs can too. Is FreeBSD capable of prioritizing VoIP in this scenario? > I hope it is. Perhaps, I need 2mbit dummynet queue for traffing that > goes to LAN2 (and back to LAN2) and different weights for VoIP > and other flows. Am I right? > > Eugene Grosbein