well, if tcp throttles down at the point where packets are dropped is of course good, but still, when a download is peaking at the maximum speed minus a couple kbits, the delay is terrible, that's what i want to change. any idea? regards, tomas bonnedahl On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 10:13:27PM +0100, Stef Coene wrote: > On Wednesday 05 February 2003 16:44, Tomas Bonnedahl wrote: > > to get most out of qos in general, would the best thing be to set up qos on > > both ends of a bottleneck with both ingress and egress filtering? the > > reason for asking is because we have a 2mbit connection with egress > > filtering qos, the problem is that we experience most downloads compared to > > uploades and therefor the egress filtering doesnt provide much help. > > > > what we could do is to get ingress filtering on our side here, but i dont > > know how much that would help really, the data has already passed the > > bottleneck in the path. so, my question, would i experience any different > > delay if adding ingress filtering? > Yes. A tcp connection will throttle down if you drop packets. But this is > not the same as egress shaping. > > > it is a 2mbit fiber stub network which looks pretty much like this: > > > > lan - router - fw - isp - internet > > > > the egress qos is at the moment at the router which pretty much says > > "prioritize interactive sessions". > > > > > > since the filtering for qos is rather simple, just telnet/ssh to a certain > > host, should i contact my isp and ask them to set some egress qos going to > > our network on the cisco router that is at their place? btw, anyone know > > how good the qos is on cisco 2600? > I have no idea how the qos works on cisco router. > Just give it a try and se what happens. > > Stef > > -- > > stef.coene@docum.org > "Using Linux as bandwidth manager" > http://www.docum.org/ > #lartc @ irc.oftc.net > >
