From: Church, Chuck (cchurch@USTA.com)
Date: Wed Oct 02 2002 - 19:24:21 GMT-3
There's nothing worse than playing Kingpin, launching a grenade, and having
your game hang due to traffic. Then it unhangs, you forget where you aimed
the grenade, and end up walking next to it as it blows up. Oh, the humanity
:)
Chuck Church
CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE
Sr. Network Engineer
Magnacom Technologies
140 N. Rt. 303
Valley Cottage, NY 10989
845-267-4000
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Snyder [mailto:msnyder@revolutioncomputer.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 4:51 PM
To: 'Church, Chuck'
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: dealing with fastrack (Kazaa et.al.)
Chuck, that's not the way I was viewing it.
First off, I think those precedence bits are mostly ignored once you get
to the real internet. I could be wrong, thought I doubt most carriers
would care if voice, and other high priority packets were prioritized
other than the value of zero.
Second, I thought it was a real sneaky way of getting WRED to do the
heavy lifting, without using CAR or CBWFQ.
Kind of self tuning, small packets less likely to be dropped, large
packets are more likely to be dropped.
BTW, when I'm playing starcraft, it is the most important traffic (big
grin)!
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Church, Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 3:19 PM
To: 'Michael Snyder'
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: dealing with fastrack (Kazaa et.al.)
So this ISP is going to try prioritizing traffic? Sounds like a can of
worms. Who's to say who's traffic is more important, outside of the
control
traffic, of course. You're not dealing with one customer. You're
dealing
with hundreds. Most cable providers limit your upload speed, which
might
help, but that's a policing thing, which is done on the cable modem
configs,
I think.
Chuck Church
CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE
Sr. Network Engineer
Magnacom Technologies
140 N. Rt. 303
Valley Cottage, NY 10989
845-267-4000
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Snyder [mailto:msnyder@revolutioncomputer.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 3:56 PM
To: 'McClure, Allen'; 'Church, Chuck'
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: dealing with fastrack (Kazaa et.al.)
Been thinking about this lately.
Got a local cable modem provider getting hammered by kazaa and it's
like.
The network admin of the provider is inept, and can barely put an access
list together. You would grin if you saw some of the configs I've had
to help with.
The reason I'm sharing the above info is that CAR, CBWFQ, & LLQ is out
of this guys grasp for now, and of course he wants to maintain it
himself.
Well, with the kiss method in mind, I think I have come up with a
possible solution.
The main router has multibundle T1's going out, and lan interfaces
coming in from the rest of the cable equipment.
My idea is to put WRED on the multibundle wan interfaces, because it's
much more likely to drop low precedence packets than high precedence
packets.
Then to use a route-map on the lan interfaces to set precedence on the
outgoing wan packets. Something like the following.
Set voice packets to set precedence to 5.
Set any packet with less than 384 bytes to precedence value 4, because
nearly any interactive ip services uses small packets, games, im,
ip-ack, etc.
Set any web or email packets to precedence value 3.
Set ftp and nntp to precedence value 1.
Leave everthing else (kazaa et.al) at precedence 0 to be dropped first.
What do you think? Haven't had time to lab it yet.
The two problems I can think of, first it only does outgoing packets,
thought that's where most of the problem is.
The other is the cpu cycles the route map will use.
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
McClure, Allen
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 1:11 PM
To: Ciscomonkey@aol.com
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: dealing with fastrack (Kazaa et.al.)
You may wish to learn a little more about the subject before you
criticize... It's not that easy. It actively works around firewalls and
ACLs. That's why Cisco has NBAR support for it rather than just saying
"block this port".
Allen McClure
MCSE, CCNP, CCDP
YUM! Brands, Inc.
Sr. Network Analyst
NEW E-Mail - mailto:allen.mcclure@yum.com
972-338-7494
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Nov 05 2002 - 08:35:37 GMT-3