Kind of curious: What would I need to install/patch to build a bandwidth router? The purpose of the router would be to limit sets of STATIC ip ranges to various up/down speeds for testing purposes. Example. 192.168.2.4-9 @ 28.8 192.168.2.10-15 @ 56.6k 192.168.2.16-21 @ 128k 192.168.2.22-25 @ 256k 192.168.2.26-30 @ 512k I have used Allot''s bandwidth router in a similar manner to evaluate a partners product. (They wanted their router back :-( ) Anyways I was curious if it would be possible to build my own linux router for this purpose and what would I need to install - compile - or patch. I am planning on using Gentoo as the base system so I can put everything I need in the Kernel as I install the system. Problem is I am not sure what to add to the kernel to make this Idea possible. Or even where to find a working example similar to what I want to do with my router. Any pointers will be appreciated. The part 2 portion of the idea would be to have different iptables rules for some of the ip ranges that don''t have their bandwidth limited... Again to futher torture the client side applications we test. Thanks in advance, James _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
Hello James,
: Anyways I was curious if it would be possible to build my own linux
: router for this purpose and what would I need to install - compile - or
: patch.
[ For the record, this is not the only way, but it is one of the easiest
ways to get into traffic control with linux, and is very well supported
on this list. ]
- kernel with HTB (version 3) [ 2.4.20+, without patches ]
- tc with HTB support: http://luxik.cdi.cz/~devik/qos/htb/
: I am planning on using Gentoo as the base system so I can put
: everything I need in the Kernel as I install the system. Problem is I
: am not sure what to add to the kernel to make this Idea possible. Or
: even where to find a working example similar to what I want to do
: with my router.
See the QoS kernel options. (Search for "fair queueing" in your
.config.)
: Any pointers will be appreciated.
As usual, there are two good places to start:
http://lartc.org/ LARTC
http://www.docum.org/ Stef Coene''s site
There are ample other resources if you have more specific questions.
: The part 2 portion of the idea would be to have different iptables
: rules for some of the ip ranges that don''t have their bandwidth
: limited...
What exactly do you mean here? Do you wish to use fwmark as a selector
for traffic control? If so, read some of Stef''s docs:
http://www.docum.org/
http://www.docum.org/stef.coene/qos/docs/filter.html
Short answer: Yes, you can use ipchains/iptables to mark packets and then
perform traffic control based on these marks.
: What would I need to install/patch to build a bandwidth router? The
: purpose of the router would be to limit sets of STATIC ip ranges to
: various up/down speeds for testing purposes.
:
Your example, a possibility. Modified, with ASCII diagram:
selected IPs bandwidth class
----------------------------------------
192.168.2.4-9 28.8 1:2
192.168.2.10-15 56.6k 1:3
192.168.2.16-21 128k 1:4
192.168.2.22-25 256k 1:5
192.168.2.26-30 512k 1:6
RB=real bandwidth
r = HTB class rate
c = HTB class ceil
Yes you can select ranges of IPs with classifiers (tc filter) and restrict
them to classes with specified bandwidths.
HTB-root-class (1:1) -- - - - - - -> RBkbit r RBkbit c
|
+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------+
1:7 | 1:6 | 1:5 | 1:4 | 1:3 | 1:2 |
| | | | | +--> 28kbit r 28kbit c
| | | | +-- - - - -> 56kbit r 56kbit c
| | | +- - - - - - - - - -> 128kbit r 128kbit c
| | +-- - - - - - - - - - - - - -> 256kbit r 256kbit c
| +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> 512kbit r 512kbit c
+-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> ???kbit r RBkbit c
Keep in mind, this is but one example of the way you could subdivide your
bandwidth.
The example above is a description of the classes and children classes
which would allow you to enforce the guidelines you have set out above.
: Again to futher torture the client side applications we test.
But why would we want to be so vicious to the poor client? All it''s
trying to do is consume every iota of bandwidth....is that so wrong?
The client isn''t evil, it''s just coded that way.... ;-)
-Martin
--
Martin A. Brown --- SecurePipe, Inc. --- mabrown@securepipe.com
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
Thanks Martin, Comments added below: --- "Martin A. Brown" <mabrown-lartc@securepipe.com> wrote:> Hello James, > > : Anyways I was curious if it would be possible to build my own > linux > : router for this purpose and what would I need to install - > compile - or > : patch. > > [ For the record, this is not the only way, but it is one of the > easiest > ways to get into traffic control with linux, and is very well > supported > on this list. ] > > - kernel with HTB (version 3) [ 2.4.20+, without patches ] > - tc with HTB support: http://luxik.cdi.cz/~devik/qos/htb/ > > : I am planning on using Gentoo as the base system so I can put > : everything I need in the Kernel as I install the system. Problem > is I > : am not sure what to add to the kernel to make this Idea > possible. Or > : even where to find a working example similar to what I want to > do > : with my router. > > See the QoS kernel options. (Search for "fair queueing" in your > .config.) > > : Any pointers will be appreciated. > > As usual, there are two good places to start: > > http://lartc.org/ LARTC > http://www.docum.org/ Stef Coene''s site > > There are ample other resources if you have more specific > questions. > > : The part 2 portion of the idea would be to have different > iptables > : rules for some of the ip ranges that don''t have their bandwidth > : limited... > > What exactly do you mean here? Do you wish to use fwmark as a > selector > for traffic control?Not sure if I mean fwmark. However Stef''s docs are on my reading list. Basically I will want to simulate different types of firewalls per iprange. Meaning -- the basic firewall config I will allow anything out and only responses into the "network" and on a more evil admin type firewall I would like to block various ports from outbound access. Any suggestions here would also be appreciated.> If so, read some of Stef''s docs: > > http://www.docum.org/ > http://www.docum.org/stef.coene/qos/docs/filter.html > > Short answer: Yes, you can use ipchains/iptables to mark packets > and then > perform traffic control based on these marks.Which would be better ipchains or iptables?> > : What would I need to install/patch to build a bandwidth router? > The > : purpose of the router would be to limit sets of STATIC ip ranges > to > : various up/down speeds for testing purposes. > : > > Your example, a possibility. Modified, with ASCII diagram: > > > selected IPs bandwidth class > ---------------------------------------- > 192.168.2.4-9 28.8 1:2 > 192.168.2.10-15 56.6k 1:3 > 192.168.2.16-21 128k 1:4 > 192.168.2.22-25 256k 1:5 > 192.168.2.26-30 512k 1:6 > > RB=real bandwidth > r = HTB class rate > c = HTB class ceil > > Yes you can select ranges of IPs with classifiers (tc filter) and > restrict > them to classes with specified bandwidths. > > HTB-root-class (1:1) -- - - - - - -> RBkbit r > RBkbit c > | > +--------+--------+--------+--------+-------+ > 1:7 | 1:6 | 1:5 | 1:4 | 1:3 | 1:2 | > | | | | | +--> 28kbit r > 28kbit c > | | | | +-- - - - -> 56kbit r > 56kbit c > | | | +- - - - - - - - - -> 128kbit r > 128kbit c > | | +-- - - - - - - - - - - - - -> 256kbit r > 256kbit c > | +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> 512kbit r > 512kbit c > +-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> ???kbit r > RBkbit c > > Keep in mind, this is but one example of the way you could > subdivide your > bandwidth. > > The example above is a description of the classes and children > classes > which would allow you to enforce the guidelines you have set out > above. >Great example you definately got the little mouse back onto the wheel.> : Again to futher torture the client side applications we test. > > But why would we want to be so vicious to the poor client? All > it''s > trying to do is consume every iota of bandwidth....is that so > wrong? > The client isn''t evil, it''s just coded that way.... ;-)My job is to punish the coders by beating their little client to a pulp, while maintaining consistant varibles thru out the test. ;-). The problem is they are starting to get wise to my tricks so I am having to get more creative... >:-) James> -Martin > > -- > Martin A. Brown --- SecurePipe, Inc. --- mabrown@securepipe.comAgain Thanks for your help. _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
: > What exactly do you mean here? Do you wish to use fwmark as a : > selector for traffic control? : : Not sure if I mean fwmark. However Stef''s docs are on my reading : list. Basically I will want to simulate different types of firewalls : per iprange. Meaning -- the basic firewall config I will allow : anything out and only responses into the "network" and on a more evil : admin type firewall I would like to block various ports from outbound : access. I think you''ll find iptables more than adequate. For the packet filtering, mangling/marking and NAT (if you need it), you''ll find iptables more than adequate. For traffic control, you''ll use tc, which is part of the iproute2 package. (Note, that the tc with htb support is currently only available via the main HTB page, as a patch or binary.) : Which would be better ipchains or iptables? iptables if you have a choice. For iptables help: http://iptables-tutorial.frozentux.net/ Is the best place to start. -Martin -- Martin A. Brown --- SecurePipe, Inc. --- mabrown@securepipe.com _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
On Saturday 08 March 2003 05:07, Martin A. Brown wrote:> : > What exactly do you mean here? Do you wish to use fwmark as a > : > selector for traffic control? > : > : Not sure if I mean fwmark. However Stef''s docs are on my reading > : list. Basically I will want to simulate different types of firewalls > : per iprange. Meaning -- the basic firewall config I will allow > : anything out and only responses into the "network" and on a more evil > : admin type firewall I would like to block various ports from outbound > : access. > > I think you''ll find iptables more than adequate. > > For the packet filtering, mangling/marking and NAT (if you need it), > you''ll find iptables more than adequate. > > For traffic control, you''ll use tc, which is part of the iproute2 package. > (Note, that the tc with htb support is currently only available via the > main HTB page, as a patch or binary.) > > : Which would be better ipchains or iptables? > > iptables if you have a choice. > > For iptables help: > > http://iptables-tutorial.frozentux.net/An other reason is that you need kernel 2.4.x for the htb support so you need iptables. Ipchains is for kernel 2.2.x. Stef -- stef.coene@docum.org "Using Linux as bandwidth manager" http://www.docum.org/ #lartc @ irc.oftc.net _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/