shaping on both interfaces on the gateway for VoIP - TCP-IP

This is a discussion on shaping on both interfaces on the gateway for VoIP - TCP-IP ; Hi All, I want to shape both interfaces on an internet gateway. The gateweay is also acting as a file server, workgroup/domain controller + dhcp etc, and very soon Asterisk. The IP phones currently register with an external VoIP service ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: shaping on both interfaces on the gateway for VoIP

  1. shaping on both interfaces on the gateway for VoIP

    Hi All,
    I want to shape both interfaces on an internet gateway.
    The gateweay is also acting as a file server, workgroup/domain
    controller + dhcp etc, and very soon Asterisk.

    The IP phones currently register with an external VoIP service
    provider.

    My question is this:

    Can I just use "wondershaper" to shape both interfaces?

    In order to provide QoS, It is my understanding that I will not only
    need to de-prioritize all "bulk" traffic on the external interface in
    order to give "VoIP" traffic priority. But I will also need to shape
    the internal interface so that a few concurrent file copies to or from
    the server don't max out the bandwidth on that interface.

    Am I correct in thinking this?

    TIA

  2. Re: shaping on both interfaces on the gateway for VoIP

    On 10 Dec, 08:15, alt.testing@{g}mail.com wrote:
    > Hi All,
    > I want to shape both interfaces on an internet gateway.
    > The gateweay is also acting as a file server, workgroup/domain
    > controller + dhcp etc, and very soon Asterisk.
    >
    > The IP phones currently register with an external VoIP service
    > provider.
    >
    > My question is this:
    >
    > Can I just use "wondershaper" to shape both interfaces?
    >
    > In order to provide QoS, It is my understanding that I will not only
    > need to de-prioritize all "bulk" traffic on the external interface in
    > order to give "VoIP" traffic priority. But I will also need to shape
    > the internal interface so that a few concurrent file copies to or from
    > the server don't max out the bandwidth on that interface.
    >
    > Am I correct in thinking this?
    >
    > TIA


    If you really beleive that traffic-shaping can do anything for you
    have a look on the DUMMYNET feature of FreeBSD. It will allow
    traffic-shaping and ratelimiting on any interface.

    But, combining trafficshaping, file-services and asterix services in
    one box seems to be the wrong way to go. I'd suggest a separate
    Internet Gateway /Firewall running just Firewall and traffic-shape sw.

  3. Re: shaping on both interfaces on the gateway for VoIP

    On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:24:16 -0800 (PST), phn
    wrote:

    [..]
    >> TIA

    >
    >If you really beleive that traffic-shaping can do anything for you
    >have a look on the DUMMYNET feature of FreeBSD. It will allow
    >traffic-shaping and ratelimiting on any interface.


    ok, I have played with FreeBSD a little before, and - sounds good -
    will look into it, down the track, However;

    >But, combining trafficshaping, file-services and asterix services in
    >one box seems to be the wrong way to go. I'd suggest a separate
    >Internet Gateway /Firewall running just Firewall and traffic-shape sw.


    It's more trivial to instate another box as a Linux GW/Firewall router
    - as you mave mentioned - with shaping, custom FW + IDS et al. I can
    run services on a dedicated box. Currently a MITEL 7.2 server is
    acting as a gateway with mentioned services as the "first stage" of an
    implementataion plan (I'm sure you know of "SME Server").

    I'm in the practice of building Linux FW/Gataway units with
    wondershaper. So, having said all that, if I follow your advice and
    break up services to individual boxes - as planned anyway - can I
    still shape on both interfaces on the dedicated FW/Gateway? Or is this
    a fault-prone implementation of "wondershaper", to do on internal and
    external interfaces at the same time?

    thanks

+ Reply to Thread