From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 30 17:23:10 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61B7A16A4CE for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 17:23:10 +0000 (GMT) Received: from out012.verizon.net (out012pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.137]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3AA443D48 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 17:23:09 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from [192.168.1.3] ([68.160.193.218]) by out012.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.06 201-253-122-130-106-20030910) with ESMTP id <20040830172309.DLGD22270.out012.verizon.net@[192.168.1.3]>; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:23:09 -0500 Message-ID: <41336262.2040709@mac.com> Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:22:42 -0400 From: Chuck Swiger Organization: The Courts of Chaos User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: i18rabbit@hotpop.com References: <200408300422.i7U4MZ3O006666@en26.ai1.anchorage.mtaonline.net> In-Reply-To: <200408300422.i7U4MZ3O006666@en26.ai1.anchorage.mtaonline.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out012.verizon.net from [68.160.193.218] at Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:23:08 -0500 cc: freebsd-questions Subject: Re: protocol priority X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 17:23:10 -0000 i18rabbit@hotpop.com wrote: > with FreeBSD 4.10 functioning as a 'ppp -nat' LAN server, > is there anyway to prioritize the processing of protocols? > > for example, i am grabbing nntp data, and i want it at a much > lower priority than http data - when i use my browser, i want > to see a 90/10 ratio of http/nntp packets in tcpdump on the > LAN server. i never heard of this being done, but it would > be nice. running 'nice' on a client doesn't seem to change > anything so far as this goes. ppp has some internal support for priortizing traffic, but if you want to get really fancy, consider setting up dummynet(4) over the tun0 interface ppp is binding to. The ppp traffic management is handled by: set urgent [tcp|udp|none] [[+|-]port] ... This command controls the ports that ppp prioritizes when trans- mitting data. The default priority TCP ports are ports 21 (ftp control), 22 (ssh), 23 (telnet), 513 (login), 514 (shell), 543 (klogin) and 544 (kshell). There are no priority UDP ports by default. See services(5) for details. If neither ``tcp'' or ``udp'' are specified, ``tcp'' is assumed. If no ports are given, the priority port lists are cleared (although if ``tcp'' or ``udp'' is specified, only that list is cleared). If the first port argument is prefixed with a plus (``+'') or a minus (``-''), the current list is adjusted, other- wise the list is reassigned. ports prefixed with a plus or not prefixed at all are added to the list and ports prefixed with a minus are removed from the list. ...consider something like the following rules: set urgent udp +53 set urgent tcp +53 set urgent tcp +80 -- -Chuck