cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA
| reply to Airplane777
Re: Monowall general Traffic Shaper queue approaches ?
No, I mean it's cheap to build your internal network with high speeds. Unless you are using an asymetric line (like ADSL or cable) your upload speeds are the same as your download speeds.
There really isn't "so much download bw" when you think about it, almost 80% of the total traffic will be download traffic.
Think about what it takes to load a simple web page. On the upload side you have the original request and the acks all of which are really tiny packets. On the download side you have the page itself and the graphic files which can be quite large depending on the webpage.
The one thing that breaks this is peer to peer since the software uses your computer to share files with others, so you are getting a lot of upload traffic because of it. You are incorrect as p2p traffic is the most important thing to reduce on your network.
ACKs and DNS traffic are so small I wouldn't even bother doing anything special with them.
As to VOIP, that's something I might queue seperately but I would apply a queue in both directions for it if I did.
IP video? Are you planning on having having customers host their own movies or security video servers? IP video is UDP meaning that if a customer is downloading video from somewhere there will be no upstream traffic. As to hosting security servers we've installed these on DSL lines so I have some direct experience. A low quality 8 camera server will max out the 512k upload found on some DSL circuits. A higher quality server will require 1 M or more upload for someone to view it remotely.
As I said before, do you feel it's important to prioritize VOIP? We don't so we don't do it.
There is no good technical reason to prioritize DNS or upstream ACKs although the impact of doing so won't be much. If you're so concerned about DNS then use the monowall box as a caching DNS server and have your customers point to it.
P2P is the worst thing to happen to ISPs in general in the last few years, it has made it so that anyone with any technical ability can trade files, therefore increasing that traffic.
--
CCNA, Comtrain Certified Tower Climber |
|
John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
 ·CenturyLink
| said by cmaenginsb  :As to hosting security servers we've installed these on DSL lines so I have some direct experience. A low quality 8 camera server will max out the 512k upload found on some DSL circuits. A higher quality server will require 1 M or more upload for someone to view it remotely. What was the pic size and frame rate?
--
A is A |
|
Airplane777
join:2004-06-20
4 edits | reply to cmaenginsb
said by cmaenginsb :The one thing that breaks this is peer to peer since the software uses your computer to share files with others, so you are getting a lot of upload traffic because of it. You are incorrect as p2p traffic is the most important thing to reduce on your network. Thanks cmaenginsb for your reply.
Last night I set up my AP with DHCP again to make it available again to my neighbors. You might remember that I had one or two neighbors that were constantly sending and receiving data, as noted by the LED on my WISP interface. I checked the Traffic Graph last night and sure enough they were sending out way more data then they were receiving. Looks like they were doing P2P. I wonder if it was a virus on their machine, cause it was non-stop. Or maybe it could be a DOS attack. I don't know that Monowall can defend against DOS attacks?
I'm going to have to find a way to make that P2P stuff at the bottom of the low priority list.
Gee...that video really takes up a lot of BW. I may have to wait til I get a larger pipe.
Since WISPs routinely oversubscribe (as all ISPs usually do), I figure there will be congestion of the downloaded data at times. Maybe there isn't anything much Monowall can do about that with queues? Probably just try to get a larger pipe to the ISP?
If I didn't use hardly any queues at all, as you suggest, and only used up and down rate limits for WISP customers, then does it matter if I rate limit WISP customers by static pipes or virtual pipes? Or are virtual pipes still the best way to rate limit? |
|
