Minimum (Cisco, obsolete) HW/SW for UBRL, QoS, Fairness, Weighted Fairness experimentation

Hi,

I share my DSL connection with my neighbor. %99 of the time it's all good,
but sometimes I think he plays games that hog up %95+ of the network
bandwith
and my "Internet Experience" slows to a crawl.

I'd like to experiment with fairness and bandwidth guarantee technologies.

Ultimately the behavior I would like is to allow my neighbor to use all of
the available
bandwidth unless I start needing it... at that point the router should be
more protective
of my traffic, up to and including limiting his bandwidth to about %50 of
overall
available.

I've spent a few hours browsing the web and have found a few technologies
that
would seem to help, though it is not immediatley apparent any of these
include the
feature of allowing a bandwidth-limited IP to use all the available
bandwidth if
there is no other trafiic.

My real questions are two. First is there anyone out there who has solved
this
prolem on his or her own network and is happy with the solution: what
combination
of acronyms/hardware worked for you?

The second, closely related question is what would be the recommended
minimum
Cisco HW and SW/packages if I were to want to explore these areas as freely
as
possible. Especially with respect to obsolete equipment that's available on
Ebay
cheap. I'm tempted to buy a 1700 series ie: 1721 or 175x and play with voip
too,
but would something like a 2600 series be better? Or do I really need
something pricier?

Power consumption and inititial costs are logically limited by the fact my
neigbor only pays
$10 a month/half the monthly bill. Maybe $15 if we upgrade. It quickly
becomes more cost
effective to just kick him off.

I use fixed IP addresses, a Zoom X5 4 port ethernet adsl modem/router in one
room and a
$15 4 port hub/switch in the other room. We run a 100' cat5 cable from the
hub/switch to his place,
I dunno if he has a hub/switch at his place. I'm assuming I'm either looking
for something
with two ethernet ports to sit between the Zoom modem/router and the
hub/switches, or
something with an ADSL port and an ethernet interface. It seems the 1700
series has trouble
running LLQ and RSVP over ethernet ports?

My background is that I was a pretty good Cisco/Sun consultant but gave it
up about 7
years ago... right when people started playing around with QoS. I guess I
don't remember
much if I forget where to go on Cisco's web site for a comprehensive model/
supported feature
matrix.

I think a lot of people would be interested in your answer(s).

-Jeff

Jeff Miller

On Mar 15, 12:36 am, "Jeff Miller" <cornheador...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I share my DSL connection with my neighbor. %99 of the time it's all good,
> but sometimes I think he plays games that hog up %95+ of the network
> bandwith
> and my "Internet Experience" slows to a crawl.
>
> I'd like to experiment with fairness and bandwidth guarantee technologies.
>
> Ultimately the behavior I would like is to allow my neighbor to use all of
> the available
> bandwidth unless I start needing it... at that point the router should be
> more protective
> of my traffic, up to and including limiting his bandwidth to about %50 of
> overall
> available.
>
> I've spent a few hours browsing the web and have found a few technologies
> that
> would seem to help, though it is not immediatley apparent any of these
> include the
> feature of allowing a bandwidth-limited IP to use all the available
> bandwidth if
> there is no other trafiic.
>
> My real questions are two. First is there anyone out there who has solved
> this
> prolem on his or her own network and is happy with the solution: what
> combination
> of acronyms/hardware worked for you?
>
> The second, closely related question is what would be the recommended
> minimum
> Cisco HW and SW/packages if I were to want to explore these areas as freely
> as
> possible. Especially with respect to obsolete equipment that's available on
> Ebay
> cheap. I'm tempted to buy a 1700 series ie: 1721 or 175x and play with voip
> too,
> but would something like a 2600 series be better? Or do I really need
> something pricier?
>
> Power consumption and inititial costs are logically limited by the fact my
> neigbor only pays
> $10 a month/half the monthly bill. Maybe $15 if we upgrade. It quickly
> becomes more cost
> effective to just kick him off.
>
> I use fixed IP addresses, a Zoom X5 4 port ethernet adsl modem/router in one
> room and a
> $15 4 port hub/switch in the other room. We run a 100' cat5 cable from the
> hub/switch to his place,
> I dunno if he has a hub/switch at his place. I'm assuming I'm either looking
> for something
> with two ethernet ports to sit between the Zoom modem/router and the
> hub/switches, or
> something with an ADSL port and an ethernet interface. It seems the 1700
> series has trouble
> running LLQ and RSVP over ethernet ports?
>
> My background is that I was a pretty good Cisco/Sun consultant but gave it
> up about 7
> years ago... right when people started playing around with QoS. I guess I
> don't remember
> much if I forget where to go on Cisco's web site for a comprehensive model/
> supported feature
> matrix.
>
> I think a lot of people would be interested in your answer(s).
>
> -Jeff

Your biggest problem is going to be downstream, not upstream. It
sounds to me like your neighbor is firing up an ftp or newsgroup
session, and the bandwidth is doing exactly what you are thinking.
QoS technology will allow you to prioritize outgoing traffic, and
while you can do it by IP address, its probably better to do it for
traffic classes themselves. In short, put Voip into a bucket that is
guaranteed 10% of bandwidth if in use, other protocols (http/https) in
a 20% bucket and let ftp/newsgroup/whatever sit in the default queue.
This would require switches that can effectively 'mark' the traffic,
and routers that will implement the traffic shaping.

However, and as I alluded to above, your problem may in fact be
download traffic, which there is absolutely nothing you can
do.....Unless your provider is 'shaping' back, its going to send the
traffic as its received from the internet.

That being said, I know a lot of the modern day routers (linksys, etc)
do support QoS and prioritizing traffic. I'm not sure how good their
solutions are, but I would look into those before I looked into
sinking dollars into a cisco infrastructure......If you find some cool
solutions on the home gateway stuff, keep me posted as I am not that
up to date on residential solutions.

If you do go the Cisco route, check out this:

http://articles.techrepublic.com.com...1-6136216.html

Trendkill

In article < .com>,
Trendkill <> wrote:
>However, and as I alluded to above, your problem may in fact be
>download traffic, which there is absolutely nothing you can
>do.....Unless your provider is 'shaping' back, its going to send the
>traffic as its received from the internet.

If you set a policer on download TCP traffic, dropping it when it
gets to your router, then although that may seem like a waste
("you've already paid for that bandwidth"), dropping it will
have the side effect of triggering TCP's congestion control.
In theory, the congestion control mechanisms should be able to
feed back to the point where the traffic is sustained below the
policed speed.

Policing downloaded UDP traffic is -generally- a waste, but if
the application has implimented its own sequencing and
flow control on top of UDP, then it might help. And if a lot of
the UDP goes missing, disrupting the perception of the application,
it will discourage people from using the heavy bandwidth application.

Walter Roberson

What about a small managed switch - most of them have QOS and rate limiting

"Jeff Miller" <> wrote in message
news:W24Kh.7492$ t...
> Hi,
>
> I share my DSL connection with my neighbor. %99 of the time it's all
> good,
> but sometimes I think he plays games that hog up %95+ of the network
> bandwith
> and my "Internet Experience" slows to a crawl.
>
> I'd like to experiment with fairness and bandwidth guarantee technologies.
>
> Ultimately the behavior I would like is to allow my neighbor to use all of
> the available
> bandwidth unless I start needing it... at that point the router should be
> more protective
> of my traffic, up to and including limiting his bandwidth to about %50 of
> overall
> available.
>
> I've spent a few hours browsing the web and have found a few technologies
> that
> would seem to help, though it is not immediatley apparent any of these
> include the
> feature of allowing a bandwidth-limited IP to use all the available
> bandwidth if
> there is no other trafiic.
>
> My real questions are two. First is there anyone out there who has solved
> this
> prolem on his or her own network and is happy with the solution: what
> combination
> of acronyms/hardware worked for you?
>
> The second, closely related question is what would be the recommended
> minimum
> Cisco HW and SW/packages if I were to want to explore these areas as
> freely
> as
> possible. Especially with respect to obsolete equipment that's available
> on
> Ebay
> cheap. I'm tempted to buy a 1700 series ie: 1721 or 175x and play with
> voip
> too,
> but would something like a 2600 series be better? Or do I really need
> something pricier?
>
> Power consumption and inititial costs are logically limited by the fact my
> neigbor only pays
> $10 a month/half the monthly bill. Maybe $15 if we upgrade. It quickly
> becomes more cost
> effective to just kick him off.
>
> I use fixed IP addresses, a Zoom X5 4 port ethernet adsl modem/router in
> one
> room and a
> $15 4 port hub/switch in the other room. We run a 100' cat5 cable from the
> hub/switch to his place,
> I dunno if he has a hub/switch at his place. I'm assuming I'm either
> looking
> for something
> with two ethernet ports to sit between the Zoom modem/router and the
> hub/switches, or
> something with an ADSL port and an ethernet interface. It seems the 1700
> series has trouble
> running LLQ and RSVP over ethernet ports?
>
> My background is that I was a pretty good Cisco/Sun consultant but gave it
> up about 7
> years ago... right when people started playing around with QoS. I guess I
> don't remember
> much if I forget where to go on Cisco's web site for a comprehensive
> model/
> supported feature
> matrix.
>
> I think a lot of people would be interested in your answer(s).
>
> -Jeff
>
>

Martin

On Mar 15, 3:36 pm, "Jeff Miller" <cornheador...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Ultimately the behavior I would like is to allow my neighbor to use all of
> the availablebandwidthunless I start needing it... at that point the router should be
> more protective
> of my traffic, up to and includinglimitinghisbandwidthto about %50 of
> overall
> available.
>
> I've spent a few hours browsing the web and have found a few technologies
> that
> would seem to help, though it is not immediatley apparent any of these
> include the
> feature of allowing abandwidth-limited IP to use all the availablebandwidthif
> there is no other trafiic.

Bandwidth Controller does dynamic allocation: http://bandwidthcontroller.com/enterprise.html
.. There is also Traffic Shaper XP which is a freeware program:
http://bandwidthcontroller.com/trafficShaperXp.html .

r72392@gmail.com