From owner-freebsd-net Fri Jun 9 16:45:19 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from Awfulhak.org (tun.AwfulHak.org [194.242.139.173]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52FC837C1F2 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 16:45:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brian@Awfulhak.org) Received: from hak.lan.Awfulhak.org (root@hak.lan.awfulhak.org [172.16.0.12]) by Awfulhak.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA14266; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 00:45:29 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from brian@Awfulhak.org) Received: from hak.lan.Awfulhak.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hak.lan.Awfulhak.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA00463; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 23:37:34 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from brian@Awfulhak.org) Message-Id: <200006092237.XAA00463@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: Adam Cc: net@FreeBSD.ORG, brian@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP- WF2Q and RED now available in -current In-Reply-To: Message from Adam of "Fri, 09 Jun 2000 16:43:07 EDT." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 23:37:33 +0100 From: Brian Somers Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Peter Wemm wrote: > >Thierry Herbelot wrote: > >> "Gary T. Corcoran" wrote: > >> > > >> > Luigi, > >> > > >> > > as the subject says, i have just committed some new code to > >> > > dummynet (and related hooks and documentation for ipfw) to > >> > > implement RED (thanks to Gianluca Iannaccone) and a > >> > > variant of Weighted Fair Queueing called WF2Q+ > >> > > >> > I checked your web page, but didn't find anything describing > >> > what "RED" is. And I'm afraid if I just put "red" into a > >> > search engine I'll get a zillion results... ;-) > >> > > >> > So could you just very briefly explain what "RED" is, and/or > >> > point me to a URL which describes it? > >> > >> Random Early Discard : if the channel has not enough bandwidth, just > >> throw away some frames (randomly) > > > >More to the point, it takes advantage of TCP backoff to slow down all the > >TCP sessions so that you don't quite get to the point of hitting the 100% > >limit and losing a large chunk of in-flight data. If you drop a few packets > >earlier you can "shape" the tcp connection(s) so that they don't hit the > >wall hard. > > > >Cheers, > >-Peter > > This sounds like _exactly_ what I need for my link :) Anyone have any > information on how to set that up? It might just be enough reason to > upgrade my firewall ;> Luigi's description started this thread :-) Briefly: : In order to test WFQ you can try the following: : : ipfw add 100 queue 10 icmp from any to any out : ipfw add 200 queue 11 ip from any to any out : : ipfw queue 10 config weight 1 pipe 2 : ipfw queue 11 config weight 10 pipe 2 mask all : : ipfw pipe 2 config bw 200Kbit/s : : and then see how a ping -f to the outside will not disturb : other IP traffic, while still being able to use the full bandwidth : configured for the pipe. -- Brian Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour ! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message