Hi, > -----Original Message----- > From: lartc-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:lartc-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Dawid Kuroczko > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 10:37 PM > To: Luman > Cc: lartc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [LARTC] Intelligent P2P detection > > > On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Luman wrote: > > > I need this solution not only to prioritizing the traffic (prioritizing > > can be achieve in other way) but also to selection the Internet link. I > > want to NAT this low quality data for some specific address in order to > > send it over cheaper link. > > I do not know if it might help you, but here's my "temporary hack quality" > solution. > > Assumptions: > Determine and mark 'good traffic' -- i.e. smtp, ftp, http, ssh, etc., > everything which uses well known ports. Probably most people do it > anyway, at least to some level. Yes. I do it exactly the same way. Quota patch may be of some help, if we want to limit more agressive users. Time patch is also of some use. > > All what is left are P2P connections and some other misc connections. > A bit unfair for other protocol using non-standard ports, like Instant > Messenger style-software, and lots of other stuff. So here we introduce > a trick. IMs and other low bandwidth traffic will use small packets > ( < 512 or even < 256), P2P will use maximum MTA available (usually > 1500, but I've seen some using 576 packets, hence i treat > 512 as P2P). Prioitizing small TCP packets carying ACK's, SYN's and small payloads is also a very good idea. Some other trick include prioritizing UDP and ICMP packets (sometimes with more strict policy, like limiting packets/s or their sizes). I didn't dive deeper because I was worried about CPU usage. I use a mix of methods described above. But in some cases shaping systems like dyband are better. I am looking for a free alternative. RK
