Re: Understanding where dummynet fits into an ipfw ruleset
- From: "Freddie Cash" <fjwcash@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 00:43:18 -0700
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 11:22 PM, Ian Smith <smithi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It's not clear to me what's not working from your example rules above?
I never said anything wasn't working. I was just looking for
information to better understand how things work together, and to get
a general feeling of where the queue rules would have to go.
Given using one_pass=1, that should go. And using one_pass=0, you
should only need to also add as say rule 150:
150 allow ip from 1.1.1.1 to 2.2.2.2 in recv em0
I'm starting to better understand how one_pass affects things. And I
think I get, now, where to put the queue rules.
I won't be doing any of the actual testing or implementation until
July. I was just looking for more info on how to set things up.
> > Yes I suspect Freddie might want to use pipe rather than queue here too,
> > if just for bandwidth limitation rather than weighted queueing by type
> > of traffic? And is it only wanted for managing the inbound traffic?
>
> No, I want to use queue. I want to create rules to "reserve"
> bandwidth for connections to important servers, as we're moving to
> more web-based applications, and I want to make sure students surfing
> the web don't impact office staff. There will be a single pipe, with
> two queues, one weighted at twice the value of the other. That way,
> if there is no staff traffic, the students get the whole pipe. If
> there is no student traffic, staff get the whole pipe. And if there's
> a mix, then staff traffic is prioritised ahead of student traffic.
Ok; on rereading your original, I should have realised that. So with a
similar set of rules for the other of staff/students that your above
example deals with, and the right pipe and queue configs, what remains
to do? Sorry to be thick, but I don't see why that wouldn't work ..
I never said it wouldn't (or didn't) work. :)
--
Freddie Cash
fjwcash@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"
- References:
- Re: Understanding where dummynet fits into an ipfw ruleset
- From: Freddie Cash
- Re: Understanding where dummynet fits into an ipfw ruleset
- From: Ian Smith
- Re: Understanding where dummynet fits into an ipfw ruleset
- Prev by Date: Re: kern/125024: vr(4) does not see incoming multicast packets in non-promiscuous mode (broadcast is fine); breaks IPv6
- Next by Date: Freebsd IP Forwarding performance (question, and some info) [7-stable, current, em, smp]
- Previous by thread: Re: Understanding where dummynet fits into an ipfw ruleset
- Next by thread: Re: Understanding where dummynet fits into an ipfw ruleset
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
