Guest User!

You are not Sophos Staff.

Thread Info
  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 6 replies
  • Subscribers 2 subscribers
  • Views 1585 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Suggested
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Is my understandig of how QoS works correct?..

mnv
Hello everyone,

few hours today I've spent reading posts here on how to configure QoS and how it works.

Then I made some tuning at my Astaro box (software, the latest version).

If somebody more advanced than me will say if that is correct, I'll be very thank [[[:)]]].

So...

Astaro's LAN IP is 192.168.1.252.

There is a subdivision behind the cheap Edimax router, it has WAN IP of 192.168.1.237 (and LAN IP of 192.168.7.252). So people 192.168.7.0/24 behind this router are doble-NATed [[[:)]]].

They also have a PC with torrents and they like to download some BS (Bob, am I right? [[[:)]]] ) from the net and jam the bandwidtch.

I decided to give'em 384 kbit guarantee and up to 512 kbit max.

What I did is shown below.

First, I create two traffic selectors:

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/4272/astaroshaper1.jpg

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/6851/astaroshaper2.jpg

Then, I defined the bandwidtch pool as this:

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/4089/astaroshaper3.jpg

I hope that all traffic from 1.252 to 1.237 and vice versa will be limited with 512 kbit and will have 384 kbit CIR.

Is that correct? Will these rules do what I want?

And is it correct to bind bandwidth pool to "internal (up)" interface?


This thread was automatically locked due to age.
Parents
  • 0
    Looks great!  Don't forget to put upper-limits on those bandwidth pools; right now,you only are guaranteeing bandwidth to undesireable traffic instead of limiting it.

    Cheers - Bob
  • 0 in reply to BAlfson
    Looks great!  Don't forget to put upper-limits on those bandwidth pools; right now,you only are guaranteeing bandwidth to undesireable traffic instead of limiting it.

    Cheers - Bob


    Bob, my admin called me today and said that internet for 1.237 works extremely slow.

    I thought there are some viruses/trojans which are jamming the bandwidth, however... when I switched off all these bandwidth pools, all began to work just fine (1) and total bandwidth usage was not more than 128 kbits (2).

    So I suppose that this "slowness" was "created" by bandwidth pools. Of course, I'm not sure.

    What was that? [:)]
Reply
  • 0 in reply to BAlfson
    Looks great!  Don't forget to put upper-limits on those bandwidth pools; right now,you only are guaranteeing bandwidth to undesireable traffic instead of limiting it.

    Cheers - Bob


    Bob, my admin called me today and said that internet for 1.237 works extremely slow.

    I thought there are some viruses/trojans which are jamming the bandwidth, however... when I switched off all these bandwidth pools, all began to work just fine (1) and total bandwidth usage was not more than 128 kbits (2).

    So I suppose that this "slowness" was "created" by bandwidth pools. Of course, I'm not sure.

    What was that? [:)]
Children
No Data