Re: [Cake] cake separate qos for lan

[Allan Pinto <allan316@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6145 bytes --]

getting a illegal filter id for these two commands,

>tc filter replace dev ppp0 protocol ip prio 1 handle 11 u32 match ip src
$CACHE_IP/32
> tc filter replace dev ppp0 protocol ip prio 2 handle 12 u32 action mirred
egress redirect dev ifb0

will check further and reply.

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 6:36 PM, moeller0 <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:

> Hi Allen,
>
> > On Mar 28, 2016, at 14:25 , Allan Pinto <allan316@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Sebastian,
> > I should have made this more clear please see below topology with added
> comments. the customers connecting to the linux router can be in range from
> 100 to 2000, so shaping on the switch is not really a option.
>
>         Oh, I did not advocate shaping on the switch, just on the Linux
> router’s interface connecting it to that switch, but it seems i
> misunderstood your issue, I assumed you want to shape both directions….
>
> > I am right now testing on a i3 machine, but for actual live testing am
> planning to test with i7 or a xeon.
> >
> >                   Cache-Server [ connected to internet gateway , traffic
> can be sent to it via wccp or policy based routing ]
> >                            |
> >   internet---->internet Gateway —> L2 switch [ MEN network on fiber ]
>  --> LInux router with cake[ includes a pppoe server which authenticates
> with radius ] - - [ pppoe connection over a fiber men network ]  -->
> customer [ customers can be 100 to 2000 ]
> >
> > basically the customer will create a broadband connection on his pc to
> connect.
> >
> > . > @Allan, what is the link technology you use?
> > fiber 1g/10g/last hop cat5e
>
>         Nice, that means you can certainly skip using pppoe-vcmux, as that
> is ATM/AAl5 specific, I would assume that using “overhead NN” should be
> more effective. Since you run the show you will know exactly which overhead
> to account for (keep in mind that Linux will occasionally add 14 bytes for
> parts of the ethernet header). It might make sense to include preamble and
> inter-frame gap into the per packet overhead as effectively you are shaping
> on ethernet IIUC.
>
> >
> > > As I just wrote, can’t we completely avoid the IMQ/IFB here and use
> dual egress shaping instead (once on the pppoe device and once on the
> interface connected to the switch, which effectively should shape both
> directions)?
> >
> > i may be wrong here, but i think jonathan is advising the use of IMQ/IFB
> to provide two different shaping scenarios on egress itself. not ingress.
> as i need cache traffic to have higher bandwidth on the egress towards
> customer but non- cache traffic [ pure internet ] to remain within the
> bandwidth limits purchased by the customer.
>
>         Ah, you are right, I have not fully thought through your
> requirements then. I am quite curios to learn how this will work out ;)
> Especially since you will need to run (100 to 2000) * 2 cake instances on
> the router if you go for a “two shaper per customer” approach.
>
> Best Regards
>         Sebastian
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 5:39 PM, moeller0 <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
> > Hi Jonathan,
> >
> > > On Mar 28, 2016, at 12:31 , Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> On 27 Mar, 2016, at 11:20, moeller0 <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> it might be more future-proof to just use IFBs from the get-go
> > >
> > > For this particular use-case, it seems to be more complicated to use
> IFB than IMQ, largely because there is no iptables rule to divert packets
> through an IFB device, and unlike iptables, the CBQ filter mechanism
> doesn’t directly support negative matches of any kind.
> >
> >         As I just wrote, can’t we completely avoid the IMQ/IFB here and
> use dual egress shaping instead (once on the pppoe device and once on the
> interface connected to the switch, which effectively should shape both
> directions)?
> >
> > >
> > > However, I think this would work - though it’s completely untested:
> > >
> > > ip link set ifb0 up
> > >
> > > tc qdisc replace dev ppp0 root handle 1: cake pppoe-vcmux bandwidth
> $FULL_RATE triple-isolate
> >
> >         I wonder how you came up with pppoe-vcmux, I have not seen any
> information about the link technology in Allan’s post. As far as I know a
> number of (mislead) ISPs use PPPoE even on fiber links. @Allan, what is the
> link technology you use?
> >
> > >
> > > tc qdisc replace dev imq0 root handle 2: cake raw bandwidth
> $NONCACHE_RATE flows
> >
> >         I believe this might work as egress on the interface facing the
> L2-switch…
> >
> > >
> > > tc filter replace dev ppp0 protocol ip prio 1 handle 11 u32 match ip
> src $CACHE_IP/32
> > >
> > > tc filter replace dev ppp0 protocol ip prio 2 handle 12 u32 action
> mirred egress redirect dev ifb0
> > >
> > > The logic of the above is that a positive match is made on the cache
> traffic, but no action is taken.  This terminates filter processing for
> that traffic.  The remaining traffic is redirected unconditionally to the
> IFB device by the second filter rule.
> > >
> > > One thing I’m not entirely certain of is whether traffic that has been
> through an IFB device is then requeued in the normal way on the original
> device.
> >
> >         It should, but only on egress…
> >
> >
> > > I’d appreciate feedback on whether this system does in fact work.
> > >
> > >> I would respectfully recommend to avoid the symbolic overhead
> parameters
> > >
> > > Even if I change their underlying behaviour in the future, it’ll be in
> a way that retains backwards compatibility with all the examples I’ve given
> for the current scheme.  I mostly wanted to raise awareness that the
> overhead compensation system exists for use on encapsulated links.
> >
> >         All fair points!
> >
> > >
> > > - Jonathan Morton
> > >
> >
> >
> > Best Regards
> >         Sebastian
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanx and regd's.
> >
> > Allan.
> >
>
>


-- 
Thanx and regd's.

Allan.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7622 bytes --]