From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 20 19:37:19 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0341216A41F for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:37:19 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tataz@tataz.chchile.org) Received: from smtp2-g19.free.fr (smtp2-g19.free.fr [212.27.42.28]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8322F43D45 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:37:18 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tataz@tataz.chchile.org) Received: from tatooine.tataz.chchile.org (vol75-8-82-233-239-98.fbx.proxad.net [82.233.239.98]) by smtp2-g19.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B79C2163D; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:37:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: by tatooine.tataz.chchile.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 351A3405D; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:37:17 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:37:17 +0200 From: Jeremie Le Hen To: vladone Message-ID: <20050920193717.GG24643@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> References: <97663975.20050917141303@spaingsm.com> <20050919122154.GM51142@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <477488950.20050920130453@spaingsm.com> <20050920152714.GF24643@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <1135123196.20050920192026@spaingsm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1135123196.20050920192026@spaingsm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.10i Cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: Re: dummynet patch X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:37:19 -0000 Hi, > I know what is WF2Q, but still dont see what is the problem for wich > dont't exist a possibility to limit bandwidth that is given to a > queue, with queue settings. > And exist a precedent, "queue" paramater that exist for pipe and > queue. > For example, if a "bw" parameter is not used for queue, then bandwidth > is given only acording with they weight, so use this option who want, > like anothers parameters ("dst-ip, mask, queue, even weight"). > And my suggestion isn't a caprice. > For example: if i have multiple users, that acces internet throught an > freebsd gateway. How split bandwidth? > I have two clear solutions: > 1. assign for each host an pipe. But i dont know if in this mode, in > conditions of heavy traffic, bandwidth is well splited. Is possibil > for an user to take more bandwidth (according with his pipe), and > another user remain without bandwidth. > 2. share total bandwidth, to different hosts, with queue. This is more > efficient but have a little problem. If an user is alone on traffic > can get all bandwith. For this reason, i want (and i think many > admins) an possibility to limit bandwidth that is given to a queue. > > I don't think that passing packets to multiple pipe and queue is e > efficiently for traffic flow. > My sugestion about "bw" parameter for queue is only for convenience. U > can named how you want, so i dont see problem about "... pipes and queues are two distinct objects which have > different semantics." You definitely want to use ALTQ, which is available since RELENG_5. Dummynet is not designed to achieve traffic management, its intent is to emulate a network. ALTQ will allow you to share bandwidth in a very fair way, such as you describe here. Regards, -- Jeremie Le Hen < jeremie at le-hen dot org >< ttz at chchile dot org >