Re: altq for vlans?
From: David Gilbert (dgilbert_at_dclg.ca)
Date: 02/14/05
- Previous message: Max Laier: "Re: altq for vlans?"
- In reply to: Max Laier: "Re: altq for vlans?"
- Next in thread: Jeremie Le Hen: "Re: altq for vlans?"
- Reply: Jeremie Le Hen: "Re: altq for vlans?"
- Reply: Jon Simola: "Re: altq for vlans?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 23:47:25 -0500 To: Max Laier <max@love2party.net>
>>>>> "Max" == Max Laier <max@love2party.net> writes:
Max> On Sunday 13 February 2005 22:36, David Gilbert wrote:
>> Has anyone considered patching the vlan driver to support altq? I
>> gather that since tun works, so should vlan.
Max> This should be a FAQ. Anyway, here is the story:
Max> While you can do ALTQ queueing on vlan interfaces the usefulness
Max> of this is very little. If the physical interface supports ALTQ
Max> it is *always* better to do the queueing there. If the physical
Max> interface does not support ALTQ it must be patched.
[...]
Max> If that does not help you, please try to explain what exactly you
Max> try to achieve and why it is not possible with this method.
Max> Thanks.
Well... the issue is several fold. Firstly, the router in question is
talking in trunk mode to a switch which in turn hands out ports to end
user boxes. So the "real" interface could be queue limited, but in
general, it can be assumed that the GigE interface is faster than the
sum of the traffic coming into it.
Now... you seem to be saying that if the queue is attached to (in this
case) em0, and vlan10 goes through em0, that traffic will be subject
to the queue ... even though it's been tagged ... and from the
perspective of em0 is no longer IP traffic.
This is certainly not obvious, if it is the case.
But from a vlan-as-virtual-circuit-replacement standpoint, it makes
sense to note a vlan as a queue entity.
Anyways, the _real_ problem is that traditionally, I'd used firewall
rules for accounting as well as security. To that end, labels are
very cool. However, they have one rather large defect:
If you're dealing with keep state rules, there seems to be no obvious
way to account for incoming vs. outgoing traffic. The label only
reports total traffic for the state matching the rule... which is both
in and out.
So... I was only messing with queues right now in hopes that the queue
would give better reporting. Maybe not.
Dave.
-- ============================================================================ |David Gilbert, Independent Contractor. | Two things can only be | |Mail: dave@daveg.ca | equal if and only if they | |http://daveg.ca | are precisely opposite. | =========================================================GLO================ _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- Previous message: Max Laier: "Re: altq for vlans?"
- In reply to: Max Laier: "Re: altq for vlans?"
- Next in thread: Jeremie Le Hen: "Re: altq for vlans?"
- Reply: Jeremie Le Hen: "Re: altq for vlans?"
- Reply: Jon Simola: "Re: altq for vlans?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
