Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 00:36:57 -0700 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> To: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@kuzbass.ru> Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ipprecedence Message-ID: <20030707003656.A56037@xorpc.icir.org> In-Reply-To: <3F08FEBF.C121F4CE@kuzbass.ru>; from eugen@kuzbass.ru on Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 01:01:51PM %2B0800 References: <3F0310CE.5070302@tenebras.com> <3F03867A.79F82968@kuzbass.ru> <20030705123332.A60972@xorpc.icir.org> <3F078E39.ABC0822F@kuzbass.ru> <20030706002402.A58528@xorpc.icir.org> <3F07D3CD.4CC3B317@kuzbass.ru> <20030706021404.A94750@xorpc.icir.org> <3F07EEE6.1E4EBE41@kuzbass.ru> <20030706070646.B17595@xorpc.icir.org> <3F08FEBF.C121F4CE@kuzbass.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
If, in your description, RWRs already do prioritization, that
is all what matters, them being the bottleneck nodes.
I still believe your problem is elsewhere.
Maybe the RWR's do not do prioritization despite their claims.
Perhaps your link is just way too overloaded and you need
to shape other traffic so that it does not fill up the queue
between two subsequent packets (causing drops -- are you sure
you aren't seeing drops rather than just delay ?)
You said the LAN links are 100Mbit, so even if there is queueing
there, 50pkts at 1MSS mean 75Kbyte or 600Kbits which is about 6ms
each way -- that cannot be a problem; even at 10Mbit, you have 60ms
which is a bit on the high side but ok-ish.
cheers
luigi
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 01:01:51PM +0800, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
...
> > so what's your problem then ???
>
> Cisco3640<-ethernet/LAN1->FreeBSD<-ethernet->RWR1<-radio-
> -radio>RWR2<-ethernet/LAN2>-ATA186
>
> The first problem is that VoIP is delay-intolerate.
> The second problem is that WaveLan is 2mbit only and is overloaded.
> The other problem is that routers in the chain are loaded significantly.
> So the goal is to make voice traffic prioritized over the whole
> chain of routers.
>
> Cisco can pass VoIP before other traffic ("ip rtp priority" command),
> RWRs can too. Is FreeBSD capable of prioritizing VoIP in this scenario?
> I hope it is. Perhaps, I need 2mbit dummynet queue for traffing that
> goes to LAN2 (and back to LAN2) and different weights for VoIP
> and other flows. Am I right?
>
> Eugene Grosbein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030707003656.A56037>