[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Advanced traffic shaping with iptables?
- To: or-talk@xxxxxxxx
- Subject: Advanced traffic shaping with iptables?
- From: Linus Lüssing <chinese_chater@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 02:32:44 +0200
- Delivered-to: archiver@xxxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: or-talk-outgoing@xxxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:32:55 -0400
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.de; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=eT1Vw1pSWcgjgaDRN+uxtN/RL9dqHNN7wjDIIMpAB/gQ/2JGY4Vigpy9m4WBSw0qDLTbGqjTtNvIc38FCC4ssY4Dccq1CRguZVUrzOQFwP17qsNUGZwVuU42fna9OwG58ubPyqG8tE5XtyT3eYAJcJCKaRSN8WbWar/i34SZvsY= ;
- Reply-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
Hi there!
My problem is, that I'm sharing the Bandwidth of my ADSL Internet
connection (50KiB/s upload) with TOR and some other applications (i.e.
online games, VPN-Server, small Teamspeak-Server, VoIP) as well. I've
read, that with iptables I could priorise the packages. At the moment
I'm just offering 25KiB/s, cause I need at least 25KiB/s for the other
applications. But for the most time, I'm using none of the other ones,
so I could theoretically offer 50KiB/s for TOR at these moments. It
would be really, really helpfull, if I could set up a bandwidth rule for
TOR with iptables, so I would get at least 10KiB/s but it could get all
the bandwidth, that would be wasted (remember the Task-Manager for
CPU-Usage-Priority, I need something like "low priority" for the
bandwidth). Maybe someone has already built something like this as a
shell script for example? Or maybe some links to good explained
tutorials would be usefull as well. Any help to get this done is
appreciated.
Greetings, Linus
PS: Or would this sort of dynamic bandwidth-offer harm the TOR-network
in any way, could this make things sort of "unstable", especially for
established and active routes?