PF + ALTQ - Bandwidth per customer

[David Roseman]

Is top-posting allowed here?

This product has been around longer than ALTQ and pf. So its unlikely
that they threw away something that has always been superior to ALTQ to 
replace it with ALTQ. The release notes go back to 1996. They also claim
to have re-written the FreeBSD bridging code to gain 40% in performance. 

http://www.etinc.com/release.notes

RED and CBQ were technologies championed by Cisco. They're designed to
work on CPU-starved routers. Cisco had a big problem because their routers
were designed to move packets and they didn't have any cpu power available
for intelligent processing required for packet shaping. So they designed
these brain-dead "leaky bucket" and CBQ models to work on their cpu-starved routers in the 90s. Inexplicably, these silly techniques were copied and put into pubic operating systems, and people still use them to
save what amounts to pennies compared to the new business they can attract
with a better network.

If you'd read the white papers you'd know its not a queue-based
product and its totally custom. Window shaping is really the most
important technology to reduce the amount of traffic in a nework. Slowing
servers naturally without having to queue data makes a dramatic change in
the delay patterns of a large network. Imagine 1000 servers sending 3000
bytes per window instead of 32K. The backup queue depths are dramatically 
reduced even without specific bandwidth limits per customer.

It also has a traffic monitor that is indispensable in tracking down 
DOS attacks, worms and out of control servers. I'd pay $500. just for the monitor. I have a problem, I fire up the monitor and bingo, I find the 
problem. I think you can buy the lowest priced license and still use the
monitor and gather statistics no matter how large your network is.

David

--- On Sat, 11/29/08, Sebastian Tymków <sebastian.tymkow at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Sebastian Tymków <sebastian.tymkow at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: PF + ALTQ - Bandwidth per customer
> To: david_5073 at yahoo.com
> Cc: freebsd-pf at freebsd.org, freebsd-isp at freebsd.org, "Marcello Barreto" <marcello at linconet.com.br>
> Date: Saturday, November 29, 2008, 10:48 AM
> Hello,
> 
> Why do you think it's unrealiable technology ?
> I think system that you propose rely on this technology ;)
> Most of this use bsd/linux/unix on board with own solutions
> and than they're
> packed into the box
> with cute web interface.
> Of course I can be wrong...
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Shamrock
> 
> 2008/11/29 David Roseman <david_5073 at yahoo.com>
> 
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Mon, 11/24/08, Marcello Barreto
> <marcello at linconet.com.br> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Marcello Barreto
> <marcello at linconet.com.br>
> > > Subject: PF + ALTQ - Bandwidth per customer
> > > To: freebsd-pf at freebsd.org,
> freebsd-isp at freebsd.org
> > > Date: Monday, November 24, 2008, 4:04 PM
> > > Hello Folks,
> > >       I believe you have heard this several
> times, but I'm
> > > new to FreeBSD and i'm trying to change my
> bandwidth
> > > control from Linux (iptables + TC + iproute) to
> Freebsd (PF
> > > + ALTQ).
> > >       I read about PF and I was very interested
> on it, but I
> > > want to limit the bandwidth (Download and Upload)
> from each
> > > customer behind a router (Obviously, FreeBSD with
> PF.)..
> > > There are several networks and a lot of
> customers, and with
> > > my rules, only what I got was each customer
> sharing the same
> > > queue...
> > >
> > >       There are my rules:
> > > altq on $external cbq queue {def_up, def_up300,
> def_up450,
> > > def_up600, def_up1000}
> > > altq on $internal cbq queue {def_down,
> def_down300,
> > > def_down450, def_down600, def_down1000}
> > >
> > > queue def_up bandwidth 10% cbq(default)
> > > queue def_down bandwidth 10% cbq(default)
> > >
> > > queue def_up300 bandwidth 128Kb cbq(red)
> > > queue def_up450 bandwidth 200Kb cbq(red)
> > > queue def_up600 bandwidth 300Kb cbq(red)
> > > queue def_up1000 bandwidth 500Kb cbq(red)
> > >
> > > queue def_down300 bandwidth 300Kb cbq(red)
> > > queue def_down450 bandwidth 450Kb cbq(red)
> > > queue def_down600 bandwidth 600Kb cbq(red)
> > > queue def_down1000 bandwidth 1024Kb cbq(red)
> > >
> > >
> > > pass in quick inet proto {tcp, udp} from
> <mylocalnet>
> > > to any queue def_down300
> > > pass out quick inet proto {tcp, udp} from
> > > <mylocalnet> to any queue def_up300
> > >
> >
> > You should consider a commercial product rather than
> relying on
> > old and somewhat unreliable technology. We've been
> able to squeeze a
> > lot more customers onto our network for a $3500.
> investment. It paid for
> > itself in 2 months. We have a dual-core 2.33Ghz system
> passing 95Mb/s
> > with 12000 rules in place and it runs at about 10%.
> The latest version is
> > truly amazing.
> >
> > http://www.etinc.com
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > David