[Commotion-discuss] [Commotion-dev] QoS/packet reordering

Jeremy Lakeman Jeremy.Lakeman at gmail.com
Tue Mar 31 09:53:06 EDT 2015


Firstly, you have to throttle upstream traffic based on where the smallest
bottleneck is. If this is beyond your router, then you need to guestimate
the available upstream bandwidth. In some configurations, you might be able
to use upnpc to query the upstream router and read it's actual link speed.

Secondly, most traffic is probably coming in, and you have fewer options to
limit what the internet is sending back to you. The best you can do is
throttle and drop data you have already received and rely on TCP /
application layer to reduce the impact in future.

Actually, thinking about this. I wonder if you could mangle outgoing TCP
ack's to better manage future incoming bandwidth... Not sure if anyone has
looked into that.

On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 11:53 PM, Adam Longwill <adam.longwill at metamesh.org>
wrote:

> Over here at PittMesh we're trying to implement something we describe as
> "relative QoS" or "packet reordering" and we're not coming up with much.
>
> Basically, we want to ensure bandwidth donors don't attach to the mesh and
> then have all their bandwidth eaten up.
>
> We have introduced a 2 router system: We deploy one Rocket outside that
> broadcasts into the street and mesh it over ethernet to a wdr3600 inside
> that allows people to access PittMesh from their home/business. THAT
> WDR3600 is connected to the host's gateway.
>
> Ideally, the hosts use the WDR3600 as their primary router because then we
> can implement tools that should prefer Port 2-4 over port 1, the PittMesh
> port.
>
> The problem is, we haven't found a way to do this very well.
>
> We can implement port-based QoS-- but as far as we can tell we have to
> define a limit to the bandwidth-- which we don't necessarily KNOW.
>
> What we want to do is just give priority to packets on ports 2-3. Meaning,
> they get processed and moved first, regardless of any other factor. Port
> 1's packets have to wait until there is a break in the packets for ports
> 2-3.
>
> Does anyone have any ideas on how to implement this?
>
> Thanks
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commotion-dev mailing list
> Commotion-dev at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/commotion-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/commotion-discuss/attachments/20150401/87e0f796/attachment.html>


More information about the Commotion-discuss mailing list