[Olsr-users] How to prioritize OLSR UDP packets.

[(spam-protected)]

On 01/14/2010 01:34 PM, Markus Kittenberger wrote:
> in the first two tests i did put them into the same flow with different
> prios
> 
> and in the third test i put in in different flows

AFAIK the tc filter's prio parameter has a different meaning. Looking at
the documentation at http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.adv-filter.html :

"""
Classifiers in general accept a few arguments in common. They are listed
here for convenience:
[...]
prio

    The priority of this classifier. Lower numbers get tested first.
"""

and

"""
The command line of tc filter program, used to configure the filter,
consists of three parts: filter specification, a selector and an action.
The filter specification can be defined as:

tc filter add dev IF [ protocol PROTO ]
                     [ (preference|priority) PRIO ]
                     [ parent CBQ ]

The protocol field describes protocol that the filter will be applied
to. We will only discuss case of ip protocol. The preference field
(priority can be used alternatively) sets the priority of currently
defined filter. This is important, since you can have several filters
(lists of rules) with different priorities. Each list will be passed in
the order the rules were added, then list with lower priority (higher
preference number) will be processed. The parent field defines the CBQ
tree top (e.g. 1:0), the filter should be attached to.

The options described above apply to all filters, not only U32.
"""

seems like the prio parameter specifies only the order in which the
filter rules are tested and does not act as a "weight" on the rule.

In any case the third test has results that are in contrast with the
other two tests? That is, in the first two tests, the flow with lower
prio gets the higher bandwidth, while in the third test the flow with
higher prio gets the higher bandwidth?

Bye,
Clauz


> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:25 PM, <(spam-protected)
> <mailto:(spam-protected)>> wrote:
> 
>     On 01/13/2010 10:24 PM, Markus Kittenberger wrote:
>     > i just testet my own scripts now,..  and they do work mostly as
>     expected,..
>     >
>     > i also had some problems, to get a working setup where i can test if
>     > traffix X gets priorized or not
>     > (especially as i tried to create the 2 test udp stream on the same
>     host,
>     > but i did not investigate further)
>     >
>     > my test setup
>     > a ... b --- c
>     >
>     > ... is a 100mbit link
>     > --- an 5.5mbit 801.11b wireless link capable of (somewhat stable) 2 to
>     > 4.5mbit useable udp throughput (in olsr terms its a rock solit ETX 1.0
>     > link (20meter but outoor *g))
>     >
>     > priorization was made on b
>     >
>     > traffic was created on a (udp port 5001) and b (udp port 5002)
>     >
>     > tc filter $1 dev $DEV protocol ip parent 1: prio 3 u32 match ip
>     protocol
>     > 17 0xff match ip dport 5001 0xffff flowid 1:1
>     > tc filter $1 dev $DEV protocol ip parent 1: prio 4 u32 match ip
>     protocol
>     > 17 0xff match ip dport 5002 0xffff flowid 1:1
>     >
>     > 5001: 1.8mbit
>     > 5002: 1.2mbit
>     >
>     > tc filter $1 dev $DEV protocol ip parent 1: prio 19 u32 match ip
>     > protocol 17 0xff match ip dport 5001 0xffff flowid 1:1
>     > tc filter $1 dev $DEV protocol ip parent 1: prio 3 u32 match ip
>     protocol
>     > 17 0xff match ip dport 5002 0xffff flowid 1:1
>     >
>     > 5001:0.1mbit
>     > 5002:1.8mbit
>     >
>     > tc filter $1 dev $DEV protocol ip parent 1: prio 4 u32 match ip
>     protocol
>     > 17 0xff match ip dport 5001 0xffff flowid 1:1
>     > tc filter $1 dev $DEV protocol ip parent 1: prio 3 u32 match ip
>     protocol
>     > 17 0xff match ip dport 5002 0xffff flowid 1:2
>     >
>     > 5001 4.0mbit
>     > 5002 0.0mbit (so no chance for traffic on port 5002, or infact for any
>     > traffic on flowid 1:2 or 1:3)
> 
>     Hello.
>     You did three tests and just changed the value of the "prio" parameter
>     in each test, right? In the first two tests do you classify the two
>     flows into the same class (1:1), or it's a typo?
> 
>     Clauz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.olsr.org/pipermail/olsr-users/attachments/20100114/44b49f3f/attachment.sig>