[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: shaping: dividing bandwidth between router & NAT hosts

Cory Oldford wrote at 2010-02-12 15:51 -0600:
>    Policing != shaping

Stephan suggested:
> "lowering throughput by around 10%" compared to upstream down bandwidth

And I said later:
> So, I just need to do ingress policing on WAN interface at 10% less than tested
> down bitrate...

Stephan said:
> Yes. You'll need IMQ for this.

I said:
> Huh?  Why not just this?
> tc qdisc add dev eth0 handle ffff: ingress
> tc filter add dev eth0 parent ffff: protocol ip prio 50 u32 match ip src \
> police rate ${DOWN}kbits burst 10k drop flowid :1

So, Stephan must have been meant ingress shaping (delaying packets?) and I 
assumed he meant ingress policing.  Is there a significant reason to use 
shaping rather than policing?  Yes, policing drops valid packets, but TCP will 
cause that anyway before backing off sending.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: