Traffic shaper conflicting rules



  • Sorry its a bit messy but below is some rules that the traffic shapper automatically makes for edonkey and also for battlefield 2.  ( I modified t he Edonkey ports slightly but only by about 15 ports.  Either way if it was on defaults or not these two rules would conflict,  as BF2 is set to high priority p2p is set to low priority,  so what would happen?  I am assuming whichever rule is higher on the que list would always overide the one below,  so all my edonkey traffic would be set to a high priority as it is within the battlefield 2 ports range.

    Am I correct?  To avoid this is the best option to change everyones edonkey ports to a set port that is not within any range.  Conflicting rules should show a warning so we can easily avoid this.

    LAN
    TCP LAN net *
    Port: 4660 - 4672 qP2PUp/qP2PDown m_P2P EDonkey2000 outbound  [edit rule]
    [add a new rule based on this one]
    WAN
    TCP * LAN net
    Port: 4660 - 4672 qP2PDown/qP2PUp m_P2P EDonkey2000 inbound  [edit rule]
    [add a new rule based on this one]
    LAN
    UDP LAN net *
    Port: 1500 - 4999 qGamesUp/qGamesDown m_Game BF2-1500-4999 outbound  [edit rule]
    [add a new rule based on this one]
    WAN
    UDP * LAN net
    Port: 1500 - 4999 qGamesDown/qGamesUp m_Game BF2-1500-4999 inbound



  • @Jesse7:

    Sorry its a bit messy but below is some rules that the traffic shapper automatically makes for edonkey and also for battlefield 2.  ( I modified t he Edonkey ports slightly but only by about 15 ports.  Either way if it was on defaults or not these two rules would conflict,  as BF2 is set to high priority p2p is set to low priority,  so what would happen?  I am assuming whichever rule is higher on the que list would always overide the one below,  so all my edonkey traffic would be set to a high priority as it is within the battlefield 2 ports range.

    Am I correct?  To avoid this is the best option to change everyones edonkey ports to a set port that is not within any range.  Conflicting rules should show a warning so we can easily avoid this.

    Care to tell us what actually happened?  There's a warning in the shaper wizard for the BF2 port range to let you know that it uses a large range.

    –Bill



  • Yeh I noticed the warning after installing .94.12 the other day,  usually I just click on through the shapper pretty fast.  I was thinking more along the lines of a warning after you have setup all the rules as there is heaps of ports etc,  if something has different priorties and conflicting port ranges it's hard to easily spot it.  No biggy though.

    I don't actually know "what happend" as I don't know how to read the queues page,  I have no idea what any of the values (apart from Kbps) or even the red bars going back and forth mean, I'd only be guessing.

    But it appeared my P2P traffic wasn't getting shapped (as my BF2 priorty was set to highest at an attempt to have good pings) but that could have just been luck.



  • The only conflict there should be is any UDP connections your edonkey client makes on port 4672 would get a higher priority.  Since file transfer doesn't happen on UDP it shouldn't be a problem.

    Also, have you tried my 4-rule approach?  It wasn't until I started doing things that way that shaping started working real well for me.



  • @charincol:

    The only conflict there should be is any UDP connections your edonkey client makes on port 4672 would get a higher priority.  Since file transfer doesn't happen on UDP it shouldn't be a problem.

    Also, have you tried my 4-rule approach?  It wasn't until I started doing things that way that shaping started working real well for me.

    I didn't even notice one was UDP and one was TCP oops.  If we pretend they are all TCP would there then be a problem?

    I red the other thread you mentioned you 4 rule thing, and to be honest there are about 100000 things about the traffic shapper that I don't understand or know even if its working or set right or anything, and yeh your 4 rule thing just makes it all the more confusing to me.  I will probably give up on the traffic shapper till it is complete and the guide is completed because it would be nice to know a little more about what all the numbers and red bars moving backwards and forwards actually mean.



  • Yes there would be problems.  I think the order of the rules makes a difference, also. (I don't know for sure, I'm either guessing or got it from somewhere)  So if you had gaming traffic that was TCP port 4668 and your edonkey rule was first, it would get a lower priority because it falls in that range.

    I apologize if what I've written confuses you even more.  I was just as confused once too.  I don't think that traffic shaping will ever be easy to figure out.  It wasn't for me.



  • Traffic shaping is voodoo^W an artform.



  • @sullrich:

    Traffic shaping is voodoo^W an artform.

    No kidding…it's bad when the person who probably understands our shaping code the most gets it wrong half the time.  ALTQ is a real pain in the &&^% to set up right with the design requirements we put down.  It was certainly easier to punt to ipfw to assign traffic to queues, but in reality, it never worked quite right (and we want to pull ipfw from base).

    --Bill


Log in to reply