Traffic shaper changes [90% completed, please send money to complete bounty]
-
-
-
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 -
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!
- 7 days later
-
adding 100$ for shapper work on a dual wan balenced pool . (with failover of course ! :-)
rgrds
- 3 months later
-
Is this bounty still open?
I'll pony up $100. An IP/MAC-based shaper would be my top request but any movement deserves a contribution.
Feel free to punt this late post if I've missed an update elsewhere.
- 24 days later
-
Can someone please summerize (maybe you Bill), what the current status is and what the problems are?
I think it would be easier for all to help….
thank you!
-
Can someone advise if this bounty is still open?
I would like to post an additional 50$ 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. -
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?
- 17 days later
-
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 -
Could somebody tell me if this bounty is still open
Appreciate very much your comments.
Regards
Alfredo -
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.
-
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 - about a month later
-
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)
- 2 months later
-
Can i ask if the people in pledged in this bounty consider their offer still valid?!
-
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 $200 I had originally pledged. Should anyone need to contact me about receiving my pledge please leave a comment on http://blog.wtip.net/
-
I dont only want to renew my offer, I will raise it again. 400$ 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 -
I'm also highly interested in having traffic shapper running in multiwan, I can offer US$50, I know this is not to much, but is what I can do, and this is for personal use, not for business.
Saludos
Alfredo - 2 months later
-
I'll put in 200$ for shaping unrestricted by number of WANs and LANs.
- 7 days later
-
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.
-
Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but how is the rest of the process going to work ? It looks like people are sending there $$ in, when will the patch be release ? Once it is will it become part of the main project code or just exist as a patch ?
Read the "Bounty board rules and guidelines" post but that didnt seem to answer many questions.
-
The code has been commited to RELENG_1 and HEAD and is being rapidly tested and abused by us. We have identified a few major issues but all I can say is that this code is going to kick so much ass it's not even funny. You can select different schedulers per interface now and a bunch of other neat goodies. Stay tuned!