Andy <> wrote:
> In article <1ikupqg.1btga36vpyg1lN% >,
> (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
>
> > Hey Andy. What is the QoS like on your router? Is it harder than
> > assigning a port range a priority? I really want something I can
> > understand which is why Linksys was a total waste of time.
> >
> > TIA,
> > Jamie Kahn Genet
>
> Jamie,
>
> Are you looking at this from a perspective for prioritising data or
> voice traffic?
>
> Screenshots of the config screens as follows. This has purely been set
> up to allow better line quality when making/receiving a phone call
> (VoIP). I have no needs specific to data traffic:
>
> http://i38.tinypic.com/20ieupt.png
>
> The number in that last field is in fact '50'%.
>
> http://i36.tinypic.com/2ep3vyf.png
>
> Setting up for specific types of traffic, which by the sounds of it is
> what you're looking at doing:
>
> http://i38.tinypic.com/1zluek6.jpg
> http://i35.tinypic.com/b4j60p.png
>
> Not exactly straightforward I know. What are you looking at trying to
> achieve with QoS?
Thanks for the above.
As to what I want - I run BitTorrent, VoIP, various games, etc on my Mac
and want to control as much as possible so VoIP, IRC, Instant messaging
and games for example have higher priority over web browsing, FTP,
email, etc.
Put simply: if it uses a known set of ports and is either vital
communication and/or a significant fraction of my bandwidth, I want to
be able to assign the service priorities against others I've assigned
and against a default priority for unassigned ports. While there's more
sophisticated QoS that doesn't rely only on ports, I will settle for the
above (which is what my flakey ZyXEL P660H does).
Pity nothing seems to work for Skype, but you can't have everything and
Skype seems to work well anyway.
Regards,
Jamie Kahn Genet
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.