Hi,
May be you should check HTB and its 'ceil' param which can limit bandwith
to an upper bound. Refers to HTB user guide section "4. Ceiling"
http://luxik.cdi.cz/~devik/qos/htb/manual/userg.htm#ceiling
etienne
nic-lartc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
(Sent by: lartc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
08/05/2007 03:51)
> EHLO tc gurus.
>
> New to traffic control. Unfortunately, the politicians here in Denmark
> have decided that a PC is the same as a television set - so anyone
> owning a PC and internet connection of over 255 kbit/s must pay DKR
> 2200/year = EUR 300 = USD 400 in television licence fees :-( This
is a
> lot of money for poor students, so we want to offer the students the
> *option* of limiting their download speed to 255 kbit/s. Limit must
be
> per internal IP number (or MAC address, even better).
>
> Situation: dorm rooms, 130 residents, Internet connection is 100 Mbit
> full duplex fiber Ethernet, never over 10% used. Router/firewall is
a
> Debian/Etch box 650 Mhz, 160 Mb RAM, with kernel 2.6, iptables,
> netfilter iproute2 & everything necessary.
>
> eth0 = internet, eth1 = DMZ, eth2 = internal NATted network, 172.16.0.0/16
>
> As far as I can see, this should do the trick?:
>
> # delete all existing queue disciplines
> tc qdisc del dev eth2 root
>
> # attach queue discipline HTB to interface eth2 and give it handle
1:0
> tc qdisc add dev eth2 root handle 1:0 htb
>
> # host 1
> tc class add dev eth2 parent 1:0 classid 1:1 htb rate 255kbit burst
255kbit
> tc filter add dev eth2 protocol ip parent 1:0 prio 1 u32 \
> match ip dst 172.16.255.132 flowid 1:1
>
> # host 2
> tc class add dev eth2 parent 1:0 classid 1:2 htb rate 255kbit burst
255kbit
> tc filter add dev eth2 protocol ip parent 1:0 prio 1 u32 \
> match ip dst 172.16.255.145 flowid 1:2
>
> # etc etc etc
>
> Questions:
>
> 1) Is this a good way of doing it?
>
> 2) TBF or HTB? I just chose HTB because it seems more flexible and
has
> sane defaults, so I don't have to think so much. Are there any
> disadvantages?
>
> 3) Any clever suggestions on how to best implement the stupid
law with
> the least harm to our users (for example, maybe we could have a
> relatively high burst bandwidth, with the real limiting to 255 Kbit/s
> only kicking in after several seconds? This might make normal web
> surfing seem almost unaffected?
>
> Thanks,
> Nicolas
_______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
