Hi, I've read your recomendation: (http://www.netfilter.org/projects/patch-o-matic/pom-extra.html#pom-extra-co nnrate in order to differentiate between an established http download and interactive http traffic. In that patch suggest something like that: iptables .. -m tos --tos Minimize-Delay \ -m connrate --connrate 20000:inf \ -j TOS --set-tos Maximize-Throughput => match packets in minimize-delay TOS connections that are transferring faster than 20kbps and change their tos to maximize-throughput instead. Is very intresting! Somebody has really tryed this patch ? best regards andres -> -> -> I would recommend looking at the connrate -> (http://www.netfilter.org/projects/patch-o-matic/pom-extra.html#p -> om-extra-connrate) Patch-O-Matic patch. Your interactive -> sessions could be long lived and thus pass the connlimit and / -> or connbytes matches and thus be falsely classified. Where as -> if you test for your interactive sessions by looking for an over -> all average low rate, burst delay burst delay etc, you should -> have a low average and thus be able to match based on rate to -> classify them higher. -> -> -> -> Grant. . . . -> -> Paul J. Smith wrote: -> > Hi, -> > -> > I’ve been wondering if anyone has thought of a way to differentiate -> > between an established http download and interactive http traffic? I -> > would like to give interactive http traffic priority over someone -> > downloading large files. -> > -> > Has anyone any ideas how to detect packets that are part of a download -> > like this? -> > -> > Thanks. -> -> _______________________________________________ -> LARTC mailing list -> LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -> http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
