Minimum (Cisco, obsolete) HW/SW for UBRL, QoS, Fairness, Weighted Fairness experimentation


I share my DSL connection with my neighbor. %99 of the time it's all good, but sometimes I think he plays games that hog up %95+ of the network bandwith and my "Internet Experience" slows to a crawl.

I'd like to experiment with fairness and bandwidth guarantee technologies.

Ultimately the behavior I would like is to allow my neighbor to use all of the available bandwidth unless I start needing it... at that point the router should be more protective of my traffic, up to and including limiting his bandwidth to about %50 of overall available.

I've spent a few hours browsing the web and have found a few technologies that would seem to help, though it is not immediatley apparent any of these include the feature of allowing a bandwidth-limited IP to use all the available bandwidth if there is no other trafiic.

My real questions are two. First is there anyone out there who has solved this prolem on his or her own network and is happy with the solution: what combination of acronyms/hardware worked for you?

The second, closely related question is what would be the recommended minimum Cisco HW and SW/packages if I were to want to explore these areas as freely as possible. Especially with respect to obsolete equipment that's available on Ebay cheap. I'm tempted to buy a 1700 series ie: 1721 or 175x and play with voip too, but would something like a 2600 series be better? Or do I really need something pricier?

Power consumption and inititial costs are logically limited by the fact my neigbor only pays $10 a month/half the monthly bill. Maybe $15 if we upgrade. It quickly becomes more cost effective to just kick him off.

I use fixed IP addresses, a Zoom X5 4 port ethernet adsl modem/router in one room and a $15 4 port hub/switch in the other room. We run a 100' cat5 cable from the hub/switch to his place, I dunno if he has a hub/switch at his place. I'm assuming I'm either looking for something with two ethernet ports to sit between the Zoom modem/router and the hub/switches, or something with an ADSL port and an ethernet interface. It seems the 1700 series has trouble running LLQ and RSVP over ethernet ports?

My background is that I was a pretty good Cisco/Sun consultant but gave it up about 7 years ago... right when people started playing around with QoS. I guess I don't remember much if I forget where to go on Cisco's web site for a comprehensive model/ supported feature matrix.

I think a lot of people would be interested in your answer(s).


Reply to
Jeff Miller
Loading thread data ...

Your biggest problem is going to be downstream, not upstream. It sounds to me like your neighbor is firing up an ftp or newsgroup session, and the bandwidth is doing exactly what you are thinking. QoS technology will allow you to prioritize outgoing traffic, and while you can do it by IP address, its probably better to do it for traffic classes themselves. In short, put Voip into a bucket that is guaranteed 10% of bandwidth if in use, other protocols (http/https) in a 20% bucket and let ftp/newsgroup/whatever sit in the default queue. This would require switches that can effectively 'mark' the traffic, and routers that will implement the traffic shaping.

However, and as I alluded to above, your problem may in fact be download traffic, which there is absolutely nothing you can do.....Unless your provider is 'shaping' back, its going to send the traffic as its received from the internet.

That being said, I know a lot of the modern day routers (linksys, etc) do support QoS and prioritizing traffic. I'm not sure how good their solutions are, but I would look into those before I looked into sinking dollars into a cisco infrastructure......If you find some cool solutions on the home gateway stuff, keep me posted as I am not that up to date on residential solutions.

If you do go the Cisco route, check out this:

formatting link

Reply to

If you set a policer on download TCP traffic, dropping it when it gets to your router, then although that may seem like a waste ("you've already paid for that bandwidth"), dropping it will have the side effect of triggering TCP's congestion control. In theory, the congestion control mechanisms should be able to feed back to the point where the traffic is sustained below the policed speed.

Policing downloaded UDP traffic is -generally- a waste, but if the application has implimented its own sequencing and flow control on top of UDP, then it might help. And if a lot of the UDP goes missing, disrupting the perception of the application, it will discourage people from using the heavy bandwidth application. ;-)

Reply to
Walter Roberson

What about a small managed switch - most of them have QOS and rate limiting

Reply to

Bandwidth Controller does dynamic allocation:

formatting link
There is also Traffic Shaper XP which is a freeware program:
formatting link

Reply to
r72392 Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.