Traffic shaper changes [90% completed, please send money to complete bounty]

cabe · Feb 13, 2007, 8:43 AM

just a little update: The multiple interface shaping feature is starting to look a bit daunting, altq was not designed for it. The queuing hierarchy created on each interface are totally unrelated. So if you try to shape 1 wan interface over two lans then altq simple can't do it. Probably some combination of dummynet and altq would solve the problem, I'll post my opinions on the wiki later.

So does this mean that it's not possible to shape across multiple WAN interfaces? Or does it mean that we can't even shape across a bridged WAP and LAN connected to a single WAN.. ???

eickst · Feb 21, 2007, 1:19 AM

Any updates on this feature? Not multi-wan but at least multi-lan such as WAP and LAN.

sullrich · Feb 21, 2007, 1:28 AM

No.

cabe · Mar 6, 2007, 10:45 PM

@eickst:

Any updates on this feature? Not multi-wan but at least multi-lan such as WAP and LAN.

I'm probably going to just switch to the new beta of m0n0wall for that feature.

sullrich · Mar 6, 2007, 11:08 PM

@cabe:

@eickst:

Any updates on this feature? Not multi-wan but at least multi-lan such as WAP and LAN.

I'm probably going to just switch to the new beta of m0n0wall for that feature.

Have fun!

hoba · Mar 6, 2007, 11:11 PM

@cabe:

@eickst:

Any updates on this feature? Not multi-wan but at least multi-lan such as WAP and LAN.

I'm probably going to just switch to the new beta of m0n0wall for that feature.

This is really helpfull, I guess we have to question the whole project now that you are gone :o

techatdd · Mar 7, 2007, 12:58 AM

I will use this as a catch all qos bountys section.

I would join in with 200$ for a multi interfaces Qos and multi PPPoE Wan support. They are only useful together for me.
Additionally, I would pay 100$ for per IP bandwith limitations in the traffic shaper.
I know all this is not much for the lot of work it will require, but maybe others will join in.

Greetings,
techatdd

cabe · Mar 7, 2007, 1:10 AM

@hoba:

@cabe:

@eickst:

Any updates on this feature? Not multi-wan but at least multi-lan such as WAP and LAN.

I'm probably going to just switch to the new beta of m0n0wall for that feature.

This is really helpfull, I guess we have to question the whole project now that you are gone :o

Well I'm glad you think my comment was helpful, because I certainly intended for it to be! You shouldn't question the project though – It's a great project and I enjoy seeing it progress. Oh, and I'm not gone either :)

eickst was looking for a multi-lan traffic shaper, and I suggested m0n0wall. I know that it supports multi-lan traffic shaping, so it could be of use to him.

I also mentioned m0n0wall's new beta because it supports Atheros cards, and since I have an Atheros card, I haven't been able to use the latest version of m0n0wall since they switched back to 4.x since the 1.2x versions. I see that the new m0n0wall beta supports Atheros wireless cards, thus with no advancement in pfSense's multi-lan trafic shaper (and no complaints coming from me about that), I'm going to give m0n0wall a shot.

It's like using the appropriate tool for the job. Just because you choose to use a screwdriver to screw in a screw doesn't mean you think that hammers suck!

guigux · Mar 14, 2007, 9:46 AM

adding 100$ for shapper work on a dual wan balenced pool . (with failover of course ! :-)

rgrds

davidw · Jun 11, 2007, 7:51 PM

Is this bounty still open?

I'll pony up $100. An IP/MAC-based shaper would be my top request but any movement deserves a contribution.

Feel free to punt this late post if I've missed an update elsewhere.

mrt_ok · Jul 5, 2007, 7:40 PM

Can someone please summerize (maybe you Bill), what the current status is and what the problems are?

I think it would be easier for all to help….

thank you!

sanjay_arora · Jul 11, 2007, 8:46 PM

Can someone advise if this bounty is still open?

I would like to post an additional 50$ bounty for Wulti-Wan traffic shaping, with individual-WAN traffic-shaping settings alongwith a feature that allows one to add an undefined type of traffic by port or originating/destination IP and create a custom queue for it e.g. one can allocate lower priority for a protocol that has not been specifically defined in gui…say rsync or a lower priority for my software repository server updating its various repos continuously.

With best regards.
Sanjay.

antimatter · Jul 17, 2007, 10:03 AM

About the multi-wan, I got a question.

The multi-wan, would have two separate queue for each of the WAN interface, and they would be independent correct?

Is there any way that it could be possible to link them together? Let's say I have two WAN, and both goes over the same line, so if one WAN eats up 500kbps, that is 500kbps less that will be allocated to the other WAN, is this possible?

Guest · Aug 3, 2007, 12:46 AM

Hi,

As asked before, is this bounty still open?, I need this feature and I'll like to post some money, but I didn't see any comment from the bounty leader for a long time.

Regards
Alfredo

Guest · Aug 6, 2007, 4:40 PM

Could somebody tell me if this bounty is still open

Appreciate very much your comments.

Regards
Alfredo

hoba · Aug 9, 2007, 6:06 PM

This for sure is still a hot topic though not trivial to solve. Maybe we can discuss it during this years hackathon, which will take place in october, to get some things rolling.

Guest · Aug 12, 2007, 3:20 AM

Thanks Hoba,

And how can help with it?, I'm not an expert, but I can help testing and with some money, how can I send it?

Regards
Alfredo

joshk · Sep 16, 2007, 1:08 AM

Is multi-WAN traffic shaping still "under consideration"?

Also, is that under consideration for the feature of having a single queue for all outbound traffic? I would be happy enough for separate queues for each line and I feel that that should already be pretty easy to do (just change interface names and limits, reapply all rules)

eri-- · Nov 1, 2007, 10:53 AM

Can i ask if the people in pledged in this bounty consider their offer still valid?!

wcoolnet · Nov 1, 2007, 7:56 PM

I started this thread about a year ago, but have not been keeping track of pfsense. For my original problem I ended up using m0n0wall and that has worked out well enough. I am not as actively involved in the purchase decision process of the company that needed this solution as I was a year ago. If this feature does eventually get implemented into pfsense I will try my best at ponying up the $200 I had originally pledged. Should anyone need to contact me about receiving my pledge please leave a comment on http://blog.wtip.net/

techatdd · Nov 4, 2007, 11:14 AM

I dont only want to renew my offer, I will raise it again. 400$ for Multi-Interface QoS in combination with PPPoE on OPT-Interfaces. Also I raise my bounty for per-IP Traffic Shaping to 200$.

Greetings,
techatdd

Guest · Nov 4, 2007, 3:15 PM

I'm also highly interested in having traffic shapper running in multiwan, I can offer US$50, I know this is not to much, but is what I can do, and this is for personal use, not for business.

Saludos
Alfredo

tacfit · Dec 20, 2007, 8:12 PM

I'll put in 200$ for shaping unrestricted by number of WANs and LANs.

ltning · Dec 27, 2007, 9:09 PM

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

sullrich · Dec 27, 2007, 11:49 PM

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.

Guest · Dec 28, 2007, 1:23 AM

I'm still here, but I don't know how to send the money and when

heiko · Dec 30, 2007, 12:16 PM

I will pay 1000 $ for eris solution if a fully stable patch set exists for 1.2

sullrich · Dec 30, 2007, 11:57 PM

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.

heiko · Jan 1, 2008, 1:48 AM

Happy new year, my payment arise, now i will pay 1200 $ for a 1.2 patch set solution.

Perry · Jan 3, 2008, 2:49 PM

100$ on it's way

sullrich · Jan 3, 2008, 7:39 PM

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.

heiko · Jan 5, 2008, 7:55 PM

Ups, i have found 200 $, so my payment for a 1.2 fully stable patch set is now 1400 $

sullrich · Jan 5, 2008, 11:31 PM

Thank you heiko! Now where is everyone else?

mrt_ok · Jan 6, 2008, 1:25 PM

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

Guest · Jan 6, 2008, 1:31 PM

Hi,

I've never post any money via paypal to a bounty, exists an account or any reference to do it right?

mrt_ok · Jan 6, 2008, 4:04 PM

sure, see bottom of page http://www.pfsense.org/index.php?id=38

thomas

Nil Einne · Jan 10, 2008, 7:40 AM

Has anyone contacted wcoolnet via his/her blog as he/she said 2 months ago?

sullrich · Jan 10, 2008, 7:47 PM

@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?

Rich · Jan 12, 2008, 2:35 AM

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.

eri-- · Jan 12, 2008, 9:14 AM

@Rich:

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.