Hi, How can I set equal bandwidth of 512kbit downlink and 256kbit uplink for every single IP address of 254 IP addresses I have in my LAN? Regards, ro0ot
you will have to use classful traffic shaping (QOS) with HTB / CBQ / HSFC. go to www.lartc.org <http://www.lartc.org> and they have a pretty good document on how to get it up and running pretty fast :-) if u run in to any problems come back and ask :-) On 5/19/05, ro0ot <ro0ot@phreaker.net> wrote:> > Hi, > > How can I set equal bandwidth of 512kbit downlink and 256kbit uplink for > every single IP address of 254 IP addresses I have in my LAN? > > Regards, > ro0ot > > > > _______________________________________________ > LARTC mailing list > LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc >-- Miłego Dnia Krystian Antoni _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Do you mean creating class for every IP or you know some other solution that I''m looking for a long time with no success? regards, Andriy Korud -----Original Message----- From: lartc-bounces@mailman.ds9a.nl [mailto:lartc-bounces@mailman.ds9a.nl]On Behalf Of Krystian Antoni Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 10:26 PM To: ro0ot Cc: lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl Subject: Re: [LARTC] equal bandwidth for all IPs you will have to use classful traffic shaping (QOS) with HTB / CBQ / HSFC. go to www.lartc.org and they have a pretty good document on how to get it up and running pretty fast :-) if u run in to any problems come back and ask :-) On 5/19/05, ro0ot < ro0ot@phreaker.net> wrote: Hi, How can I set equal bandwidth of 512kbit downlink and 256kbit uplink for every single IP address of 254 IP addresses I have in my LAN? Regards, ro0ot _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc -- Miłego Dnia Krystian Antoni _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
On Thu, 19 May 2005, ro0ot wrote:> How can I set equal bandwidth of 512kbit downlink and 256kbit uplink for > every single IP address of 254 IP addresses I have in my LAN?See: http://wipl-wrr.sourceforge.net/ The system is made by: Christian Worm Mortensen (worm at dkik.dk) To quote his announce email: "The WRR scheduler is an extension to the Traffic Control/network bandwidth management part of the Linux kernels. The scheduler was developed to support distributing bandwidth on a shared Internet connection fairly between local machines." I know a couple of systems which are using WRR in production, but I have not tried it my self. Hilsen Jesper Brouer -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Research Assistant Dept. of Computer Science, University of Copenhagen E-mail: hawk@diku.dk, Direct Tel.: 353 21438 -------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 20 May 2005 12:00:42 +0200 (CEST) Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@diku.dk> wrote:>See: > http://wipl-wrr.sourceforge.net/[cut]>I know a couple of systems which are using WRR in production, but I have >not tried it my self.I use it at about 5 locations, largest one having ~1400 computers. Works like a charm. Fore easy to use script check out my distribution Route Hat http://www.routehat.org (the script is of course usable in other distributions too supposing you have all the patches in iproute/iptables/kernel) Yours sincerely, Peter
ro0ot wrote:> Hi, > > How can I set equal bandwidth of 512kbit downlink and 256kbit uplink for > every single IP address of 254 IP addresses I have in my LAN?You could aswell as wrr consider esfq - you can only roughly divide what bandwidth you have, but the advantage over wrr is that you can choose a queue length for your link speed. I don''t think you can di it with wrr and if you are shaping download from the internet it could be better. Andy.
On Sun, 22 May 2005 18:51:36 +0100 Andy Furniss <andy.furniss@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:>You could aswell as wrr consider esfq - you can only roughly divide what >bandwidth you have, but the advantage over wrr is that you can choose a >queue length for your link speed.ESFQ is good, but isn''t a panacea. You still can use esfq as a queueing discipline for wrr''s subclasses. In fact it''s a perfect match, because you have both fair division among sources AND among the connections made from the same IP.>I don''t think you can di it with wrr and if you are shaping download >from the internet it could be better.You don''t have to do this directly with WRR, but you can do it with HTB "above" WRR. As for download, you can use IMQ. Check out Route Hat''s tc script. I was able to reach fair internet bandwidth division for a peak of 700 users on a 8MBit line. Of course heavy P2P users complained, but casual users were happy and so were the gamers, because they had low latency with low but sustained transfer rate.>Andy.Yours sincerely, shurdeek
Peter Surda wrote:> On Sun, 22 May 2005 18:51:36 +0100 Andy Furniss <andy.furniss@dsl.pipex.com> > wrote: > > >>You could aswell as wrr consider esfq - you can only roughly divide what >>bandwidth you have, but the advantage over wrr is that you can choose a >>queue length for your link speed. > > ESFQ is good, but isn''t a panacea. You still can use esfq as a queueing > discipline for wrr''s subclasses. In fact it''s a perfect match, because you have > both fair division among sources AND among the connections made from the same > IP.I agree wrr is better than esfq in many ways. I also haven''t used it or looked at it for some time, so may be totally wrong about what you can and can''t do with it :-)> >>I don''t think you can di it with wrr and if you are shaping download > >>from the internet it could be better. > You don''t have to do this directly with WRR, but you can do it with HTB "above" > WRR. As for download, you can use IMQ.What I meant was I don''t think you can choose one length for the whole wrr class - you can add queues to wrr like you can htb classes and you can limit those, but you have one for each user - so with many users and shaping from the wrong end of a slow link you end up with a total queue length that is too long to keep good control of the link. The above may not be such an issue depending on the speed of the link and the number of users active at any one time. Andy.