SYSTEM WARNING: 'date_default_timezone_get(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected the timezone 'UTC' for now, but please set date.timezone to select your timezone.' in '/usr/share/mantis/www/core.php' line 264
MantisBT - Endian Firewall |
| View Issue Details |
|
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
| 0002414 | Endian Firewall | QoS | public | 2009-11-13 09:17 | 2010-09-23 16:16 |
|
| Reporter | aender | |
| Assigned To | | |
| Priority | normal | Severity | major | Reproducibility | random |
| Status | acknowledged | Resolution | open | |
| Platform | | OS | | OS Version | |
| Product Version | 2.3 | |
| Target Version | | Fixed in Version | | |
| Customer Importance | |
| Customer Occurrences | |
| Queue | |
|
| Summary | 0002414: QoS not always working |
| Description | I have the rules in the attachment that should do the following.
1. High Priority for Citrix through my IPSec tunnel (local to head office)
2. Medium Priority for Citrix Printers through my IPSec tunnel (from head office to local)
3. Low Priority (Bluk Traffic) for the rest who goes to RED.
Now sometimes, not at all, it could happens that my citrix session are very slow while a download from internet. First and Third Rule should prevent this!
|
| Steps To Reproduce | |
| Additional Information | |
| Tags | No tags attached. |
| Relationships | | related to | 0002281 | acknowledged | peter-endian | unmatched traffic seems exclusive | | child of | 0003045 | confirmed | peter-endian | TODO: QoS rework - QoS collecting ticket |
|
| Attached Files |  Bildschirmfoto 2009-11-13 um 10.13.03.png (33,718) 2009-11-13 09:17
https://bugs.endian.com/file_download.php?file_id=304&type=bug
|
|
| Issue History |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
| 2009-11-13 09:17 | aender | New Issue | |
| 2009-11-13 09:17 | aender | File Added: Bildschirmfoto 2009-11-13 um 10.13.03.png | |
| 2009-11-25 12:25 | peter-endian | Relationship added | related to 0002281 |
| 2009-11-25 12:32 | peter-endian | Note Added: 0003375 | |
| 2009-11-25 12:32 | peter-endian | Status | new => feedback |
| 2009-11-25 12:49 | aender | Note Added: 0003376 | |
| 2009-11-25 14:00 | peter-endian | Note Added: 0003377 | |
| 2009-11-25 15:07 | aender | Note Added: 0003382 | |
| 2010-07-05 16:37 | peter-endian | Relationship added | child of 0003045 |
| 2010-09-20 17:24 | peter-endian | Category | Network related (VPN, uplinks) => QoS |
| 2010-09-23 16:16 | peter-endian | Status | feedback => acknowledged |
|
Notes |
|
|
|
first of all, it is necessary to prioritize also the ipsec tunnel itself.
This rule prioritizes only the printer traffic within the tunnel, but if the uplink is saturated the printer has no priority above the rest of the traffic outside of the tunnel.
Rest maybe fixed with resolution of 0002281
|
|
|
|
(0003376)
|
|
aender
|
|
2009-11-25 12:49
|
|
ähhmm
Maybe i´m to stupid to understand that correctly.
Can you explain me that in german? |
|
|
|
|
um traffic im ipsec tunnel zu priorisieren muss der ipsec tunnel selber auch priorisiert sein.
wenn der uplink durch irgendwelchen anderen traffic zugemüllt wird, sodass der ipsec tunnel zu wenig bandbreite kriegt hilft die priorisierung innerhalb des tunnels nichts.
priorisierung innerhalb des ipsec tunnels priorisiert nur im hinblick auf anderen traffic der im selben tunnel anfällt. |
|
|
|
(0003382)
|
|
aender
|
|
2009-11-25 15:07
|
|
Thanks a lot.
Now its clear.
I will try it and give you a response |
|