Hi
I'm trying to do traffic shaping with FreeBSD, here are my rules
su-3.2# ipfw pipe show
1: 1.000 Mbit/s0 ms 50 sl. 1 queues (1 buckets) droptail
mask: 0x00 0x/0x -> 0x/0x
BKT Prot ___Source IP/port Dest. IP/port Tot_pkt/bytes Pkt/Byte Drp
0
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 15:55:05 +1100
Terry Sposato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Norberto Meijome wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 14:43:20 +0200
> > Mel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I think you'll find that bursts are best counteracted like this:
> >> http://www.probsd.net/pf/index.php/Hednod%2
Norberto Meijome wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 14:43:20 +0200
Mel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think you'll find that bursts are best counteracted like this:
http://www.probsd.net/pf/index.php/Hednod%27s_HFSC_explained#Tips.2FIdeas
Mel, can you please confirm this link / FQDN ? no NS defined for
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 14:43:20 +0200
Mel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you'll find that bursts are best counteracted like this:
> http://www.probsd.net/pf/index.php/Hednod%27s_HFSC_explained#Tips.2FIdeas
Mel, can you please confirm this link / FQDN ? no NS defined for the domain...
TIA,
B
> -Original Message-
> From: Giorgos Keramidas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 9:45 AM
> To: Wojciech Puchar
> Cc: Ted Mittelstaedt; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: FreeBSD Traffic Shaping
>
>
&g
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 4:51 AM
> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: FreeBSD Traffic Shaping
>
>
> As far as I know, every ca
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 4:38 AM
> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: RE: FreeBSD Traffic Shaping
>
>
> I can now confirm that thes
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 4:22 AM
> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: FreeBSD Traffic Shaping
>
>
> I think you guys went a bi
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 11:30:44 +0200 (CEST), Wojciech Puchar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> The vast majority of people out there have asymmetrical bandwidth
>> limiting needs - that is, they have a pipe to the Internet and have a
>> lot more data coming from the Internet to them, than data going from
As far as I know, every carrier bills by 95th percentile.
This particular server is colocated and the bandwidth average is
2.35mbps while the 95th is 3.7mbps.
I don't want my clients to have to compete for bandwidth - if 1000
users share a 3mbps fixed pipe, they will each get 3k/sec -. Rathe
On Wednesday 02 April 2008 14:21:38 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Also, the reason for this need is that some services use
> burst-bandwidth and I have many peaks and lows throughout the day.
> This means that my carrier who bills me by the 95th percentile is
> having a field day.
He bills by the se
BSD6.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Christopher Cowart
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 7:55 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: FreeBSD Traffic Shaping
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am trying to limit the ba
I think you guys went a bit on a tangent here. What I am trying to do
is limit the outbound bandwidth of my services and this should be
perfectly possible as I control the output.
Also, the reason for this need is that some services use
burst-bandwidth and I have many peaks and lows through
On Wednesday 02 April 2008 09:27:21 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I gave port 80 as an example but I need this configuration for
> limiting other services as well.
>
> If you have a 100mbps connection and only one client, you want him to
> only use 50kbps, not the full pipe. If you have 200 clients, t
On Wednesday 02 April 2008 10:55:58 Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> The vast majority of people out there have asymmetrical bandwidth
> limiting needs - that is, they have a pipe to the Internet and
> have a lot more data coming from the Internet to them, than data
> going from them to the Internet. Th
loss and almost any other traffic stream (including P2P) with
1-10% loss.
In short, the bandwidth limiting code really has little
practical value when implemented in FreeBSD that is why few do
it.
:)
i do on my 300 users network. works VERY well. i use queues to equally
divide available ban
On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 12:55:58AM -0800, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> It is that it's impossible to limit INCOMING bandwidth from the
> Internet.
The fact is you can limit incoming TCP with little to no packet
loss and almost any other traffic stream (including P2P) with
1-10% loss.
> In short, the
The vast majority of people out there have asymmetrical bandwidth
limiting needs - that is, they have a pipe to the Internet and
have a lot more data coming from the Internet to them, than data
going from them to the Internet. Their desire is to somehow make
it so that certain kinds of incoming
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 11:27 PM
> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: RE: FreeBSD Traffic Shaping
>
>
> I gave port 80 as an example
al Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Cowart
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 7:55 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: FreeBSD Traffic Shaping
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am trying to limit the bandwidth available
al Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Cowart
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 7:55 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: FreeBSD Traffic Shaping
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am trying to limit the bandwidth availab
ECTED]
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: FreeBSD Traffic Shaping
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am trying to limit the bandwidth available to some connections and
> I'm not sure FreeBSD can handle this. Maybe some of you can help.
> Here's what I need to have exac
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am trying to limit the bandwidth available to some connections and I'm
> not sure FreeBSD can handle this. Maybe some of you can help. Here's what I
> need to have exactly.
>
> No matter what the number of connections, each connection should have at
> most/least 50k
On Wednesday 02 April 2008 00:18:36 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I've tried dummynet but it doesn't do what I need because if I define
> a pipe with 1mbps and if I have 1000 connections, each connection will
> have less than 50kbps.
>
> Any way to do this in FreeBSD ?
No, unfortunately your ISP giv
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am trying to limit the bandwidth available to some connections and I'm not
sure FreeBSD can handle this. Maybe some of you can help. Here's what I need
to have exactly.
No matter what the number of connections, each connection should have at
m
I am trying to limit the bandwidth available to some connections and
I'm not sure FreeBSD can handle this. Maybe some of you can help.
Here's what I need to have exactly.
No matter what the number of connections, each connection should have
at most/least 50kbps guaranteed outbound on port 8
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004, Dan Pelleg wrote:
> Vincent Poy writes:
> >
> >That's the part where it becomes difficult since even though I
> > have 8 IP's, it's still on a /24 mask so only the 8 IP's in that /24 are
> > actually local.
>
> Use a /27 mask.
a /27 would work except it'll be 3
Vincent Poy writes:
>
> That's the part where it becomes difficult since even though I
> have 8 IP's, it's still on a /24 mask so only the 8 IP's in that /24 are
> actually local.
>
Use a /27 mask.
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://li
On 6 Feb 2004, Dan Pelleg wrote:
> Vincent Poy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >
> > After reading ipfw(8), I hope I have it correct that it's
> > like this:
> >
> > ipfw add queue 1 ip from any to any out xmit xl0
>
> Shouldn't "ipfw add queue 1" be enough?
Don't know, that was what
On 6 Feb 2004, Dan Pelleg wrote:
> Vincent Poy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On 6 Feb 2004, Dan Pelleg wrote:
> >
> > > Vincent Poy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > Greetings all:
> > > >
> > > > I have a ADSL connection where the upstream pipe is smaller than
> > > > the down
Vincent Poy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> After reading ipfw(8), I hope I have it correct that it's
> like this:
>
> ipfw add queue 1 ip from any to any out xmit xl0
Shouldn't "ipfw add queue 1" be enough?
> ipfw pipe 1 config bw 384Kbit/s
> ipfw queue 1 config pipe 1 weight 30 mask al
Vincent Poy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 6 Feb 2004, Dan Pelleg wrote:
>
> > Vincent Poy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Greetings all:
> > >
> > > I have a ADSL connection where the upstream pipe is smaller than
> > > the downstream with it at 1.5Mbps/384kbps now and will be upgradin
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004, Vincent Poy wrote:
> On 6 Feb 2004, Dan Pelleg wrote:
>
> > Vincent Poy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Greetings all:
> > >
> > > I have a ADSL connection where the upstream pipe is smaller than
> > > the downstream with it at 1.5Mbps/384kbps now and will be upgrading
On 6 Feb 2004, Dan Pelleg wrote:
> Vincent Poy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Greetings all:
> >
> > I have a ADSL connection where the upstream pipe is smaller than
> > the downstream with it at 1.5Mbps/384kbps now and will be upgrading to
> > 6Mbps/608kbps soon. The issue I'm having is t
Vincent Poy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Greetings all:
>
> I have a ADSL connection where the upstream pipe is smaller than
> the downstream with it at 1.5Mbps/384kbps now and will be upgrading to
> 6Mbps/608kbps soon. The issue I'm having is that whenever I upload, it
> fills the upstre
Greetings all:
I have a ADSL connection where the upstream pipe is smaller than
the downstream with it at 1.5Mbps/384kbps now and will be upgrading to
6Mbps/608kbps soon. The issue I'm having is that whenever I upload, it
fills the upstream to full capacity and the downstream would lag as
36 matches
Mail list logo
