At Fri, 17 Jun 2005 03:11:35 +0200, Tobias Diedrich wrote: Hi > 1) > I don't think the kernel patch is needed as you can fold that > information into the rate table AFAICS (See the patch at the end > of this mail). Then again, depending on the overhead value you'd > of course have a slight inaccuracy (in case the overhead is not > divisible by 2^cell_log). Thus in my patch I just assume the > worst. I do not remember the details (is my office mate's thesis and not mine), but from what I remember it will actually more than slightly inaccurate. The thing is that the rate table is off-by-one with respect to 2^cell_log - see section 6.1.2 of the thesis. If you use the patch in the thesis, the calculations will be 100% accurate. > 2) > AFAICS you only looked at upstream shaping, right? Its the focus of my office mates thesis, but there is also a chapter that looks at posible downstream problems. > At least from my experience I can say that for my ADSL link > (3456kbit down / 448kbit up raw ATM speed, shared by 5 users) > it is quite easy to saturate the downstream with a bittorrent > download. So some sort of downstream shaping is needed too. >From what I have seen in different places it is actually normally not a problem. But 4/8Mbps/768kbps ADSL's are also very common here i DK. The problem always seem the be the upstream capacity and the extreme usage P2P programs. > Unfortunately the IMQ patch seems to panic the kernel when it > starts dropping packets. I am currently using a shellscript There is actually no need to use IMQ, or there are at least other ways. Several places I have just setup the queue disciplines on the interface towards the LAN. If you need communication between the LAN and the router, you can make a special HTB leaf for that, and map packages with iptables. --- Yours Per Marker Mortensen <per@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
