On Friday 29 July 2005 11:02, Chuck Swiger wrote: > Either the "established" or the "tcpflags !syn,ack" keywords in a rule > adding matching packets to a high-priority queue ought to do it...? Or > perhaps you meant something more specific than just "TCP packets with > TH_ACK" set? :-)
Hmm, I guess you could make those skip the pipe.. > Anyway, I'm not convinced that trying to classify packets within an > established TCP connection in order to place them on different queues is a > really good idea, since you're quite likely to reorder the packets by doing > so. I'd expect both latency and bandwidth of a TCP connection to suffer > very noticably if more than 10% or so of the packets arrive out of order... The theory is that by prioritising outgoing ACKs you don't cause downstream delays when your upstream is full. eg http://www.benzedrine.cx/ackpri.html > [ Hmm. I suppose that one could make an exception to the above > generalization if URG was set, but the TCP stack already makes an effort to > prioritize and deliver out-of-band urgent stuff as quickly as possible, > anyway, right? ] Maybe, but it doesn't appear to do a particularly good job for a lot of situations :) -- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum GPG Fingerprint - 5596 B766 97C0 0E94 4347 295E E593 DC20 7B3F CE8C
pgpLGYTEY7UN8.pgp
Description: PGP signature
