Hi
No need for htb, simple tbf will do.
But if you are creating your own:
As i understand token bucket, you should take each packet from the end
of queue in order they are there, i.e S1, S2, S1, S2, not just each
other. When the bucket is full, you will drop every packet on input. It
is unlikely that you will free space in buffer everytime right when S2
packet comes... You would have buffer full of s2 then, not s1|s2|s1...
as you say. Are you sure you are dequeuing from front and doing tail-drop ?
As i understand:
dequeue at constant
rate<--que_front_s1,s2,s1,s2,s1,s2_que_tail<--enqueue input or drop
Maybe change in size of token could help mix this... How big is one
token now? (i do not know how your tbf is implemented...)Can you give
more details ?
By the way: how are you creating those streams, i think it is unusual to
see such properly ordered packets of streams in real life ...
If i am completely out, sorry then, just beginner.
Best regards (default)
Piotr Wójcicki wrote:
I am trying to create my own Token Bucket Filter. However, I have a problem
with packet dropping.
Scenario :
I got two streams 20KB/s each.
I got one bucket with rate 20KB/s
I put both streams into this bucket.
When buffer is full packets need to be dropped. The problem is that only
every other packet needs to be dropped in this scenario.
Streams are the same so queue looks like that :
S1 | S2 | S1 | S2
Packets form both streams are one by one.
The result is that all packets from stream S1 are being dropped and all
packets from Stream S2 are being sent.
Ideally half of dropped packets would be from S1 and half from S1.
What are possible solutions to this problem ?
Piotr Wojcicki
_______________________________________________
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
