Traffic shaper changes [90% completed, please send money to complete bounty]
-
I'll put in 200$ for shaping unrestricted by number of WANs and LANs.
-
Hi,
I'm throwing in $500 on this one. I'm specifically interested in multiple LAN interface support. Wizard support for this is desired, but not required.
I wanted to paypal the money right now, but was advised to wait. ;)
/Eirik
-
Okay we are nearing completion of a COMPLETE traffic shaper overhaul.
Ermal has done quite a bit of work to overhaul the shaper and make it multiple interface ready, adding back all ALTQ protocols and making it generally easier to edit queues and rules.
So who is still in on this bounty? The plans are to bring this into HEAD and RELENG_1. We might be able to make a patch set available for 1.2 AFTER it has been tested in RELENG_1.
-
I'm still here, but I don't know how to send the money and when
-
I will pay 1000 $ for eris solution if a fully stable patch set exists for 1.2
-
Where is everyone else? I know there was a lot more folks that committed money. Ermal has spent a LOT of time on this project and it would be a travesty if he does not get what was promised to the person that did the work.
-
Happy new year, my payment arise, now i will pay 1200 $ for a 1.2 patch set solution.
-
100$ on it's way
-
Thanks to everyone that is coming through with their end of the deal.
Now everyone else, please, please keep your pledge. I would hate to have to switch the bounty system to a prepaid model where everyone would suffer.
-
Ups, i have found 200 $, so my payment for a 1.2 fully stable patch set is now 1400 $
-
Thank you heiko! Now where is everyone else?
-
hi all,
i already sent the money via paypal - as noted - and I would be happy to get transparent shaping (bridged mode) working well - for the folks who only want to shape without modifying any routing or ip assignments…nice on mac or ip basis, timed and easy to setup :-)
thomas
-
Hi,
I've never post any money via paypal to a bounty, exists an account or any reference to do it right?
-
sure, see bottom of page http://www.pfsense.org/index.php?id=38
thomas
-
Has anyone contacted wcoolnet via his/her blog as he/she said 2 months ago?
-
@Nil:
Has anyone contacted wcoolnet via his/her blog as he/she said 2 months ago?
I don't think so. Care to contact them and ask them to tune back in to the thread?
-
The company I work for may be interested in this. Right now we have a pfsense box with a /24 of ips on 20 mb/s metro e, and a /26 on 6 mb/s 4 bonded t-1's and a managed cisco 3600 series. We recently met with a ccie about a cisco 3845 for the metro e, and implementing bgp.
Would the new shaper changes allow us to shape the connections and allow for one to be much faster than the other? We don't really need load balancing, just failover. Also, could we use the failover capabilities of pfsense instead of a 3845 to completely failover the metro e to the bonded t's? I would much rather use pfsense for everything possible as long as it's very stable like the test box I set up on the metro e and just left there because it worked so well. We would also want to purchase the support because downtime is really big $$$ for us now that we've grown. That's why we need the failover.
-
The company I work for may be interested in this. Right now we have a pfsense box with a /24 of ips on 20 mb/s metro e, and a /26 on 6 mb/s 4 bonded t-1's and a managed cisco 3600 series. We recently met with a ccie about a cisco 3845 for the metro e, and implementing bgp.
Would the new shaper changes allow us to shape the connections and allow for one to be much faster than the other? We don't really need load balancing, just failover. Also, could we use the failover capabilities of pfsense instead of a 3845 to completely failover the metro e to the bonded t's? I would much rather use pfsense for everything possible as long as it's very stable like the test box I set up on the metro e and just left there because it worked so well. We would also want to purchase the support because downtime is really big $$$ for us now that we've grown. That's why we need the failover.
If "one to be much faster than the other" you mean that the failover is not the same speed as the primary, the answer is a simple yes.
-
Sorry, let me try to clarify.
What we want is our main connection to be the metro e on dark fiber setup as an oc-12 ring and upgradable to oc-192. We have a /24 of ips on it that we want to automatically fail over to the bonded t-1's that we may upgrade to a t-3 if our critical traffic increases past the 6 mb/s mark. We currently have 20 mb/s on the ring and 6 mb/s with the t-1's. We've started moving our internet servers in house, and are getting ready to implement our new intranet to around 50 branch offices over the year. Those vpns combined with the 70 other vpns to our partners will put us well over 100 site to site vpns. We will also be implementing around 200 client vpns for our ae's notebook computers. We're currently using a sonicwall 4060 as the vpn concentrator, nat, gateway anti-virus and content filter for the corporate office and were thinking of upgrading it to an e class when necessary. We also do video conferencing and voip. We will be adding a large streaming media server also. The main connection will need to be able to handle at least 40 mb/s of heavy traffic. I would prefer it be able to truly handle 100 mb/s of heavy traffic. We have a ccie that wants to put in a 3845 and says it will handle 45 mb/s and it can be set up with bgp. The 3600 series is managed by the phone company.
What I would like to propose to the owners is a system that we can traffic shape all these services on the faster connection. When it goes down for some reason, I want it to switch to the t-1's and change the shaping to commit the necessary bandwidth to the critical services, and give non-critical much less priority. I would prefer not to have to buy the cisco stuff. It tends to be reliable, but it's way to expensive for the performance. That's why we standardized on the sonicwall stuff when we first opened. I also think it would be better for our company to work with a group that will actually customize the system based off our needs. I know this will probably need to be in a new bounty, but I would appreciate a little feedback so I can figure out what I really need to ask for. Also, we're in Lexington, KY, so we're pretty close to some of you.
-
Well about the failover and commited bandwidth you can do it. Just need to setup it properly.
But it is doable pretty easily. The new interface helps with that to.For the other things another thread would be appropriate so we can discuss.