IP Bandwidth Management
The success of the Internet is attributed mainly to the simplicity and robustness of the protocol that ties it together, IP (Internet Protocol). Lately, everyone wants to run on IP. Major drivers include telephone companies wishing to replace traditional circuit-switched voice networks by carrying voice on IP networks, and multi-site corporations wanting to replace their dedicated connections with virtual private networks (VPNs) over shared IP networks.
However, IP suffers a small handicap. Unlike protocols such as ATM, it treats everyone equally. All data that goes through IP networks is equally forwarded on a best-effort basis. What if I was willing to pay $2 more a month so customers could get my web pages loaded about half a second faster? What if I was willing to pay a little more so I could have a coherent audio conversation, across the Internet, with someone across the Atlantic? In both instances, those particular willing-to-pay-more packets will have to be treated more fairly for this to work, thus, IPs equality for all fails. Now, the new big buzzword is here: Quality of Service (QoS), that is, trying to streamline IP to meet these new requirements. Although not a new concept per se, QoS has gained more momentum lately due to the interest of large corporations in using IP.
QoS means different things to different people. An order of a burger and fries at McDonald's is cheaper than at a fancy restaurant, where you are served a glass of water and lots of courtesy before your order arrives. You pay more at the restaurant for the QoS. Someone might argue that the QoS is better at McDonald's because you get served faster. Another analogy is the airline model, where the same plane has economy and first-class customers. In simplistic terms, one can define QoS as paying more to get better service. As such, it is a good way for the Net to be self-sustaining.
An implication embedded in this is that the socialist days of the Internet are over. Socially, the advent of IP-QoS is already being blamed for introducing a caste system on the Internet: the “bit-haves” and “bit-have-nots” are becoming reality.
The ability to divvy up bandwidth owned by a service provider for QoS is referred to as “bandwidth management”. Several techniques have been proposed and implemented over the years. The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has in the past proposed integrated services, via RSVP, which is host driven. RSVP has failed to take off as a widely deployed standard, mainly due to scalability issues. Currently, the IETF is pushing a new solution known as differentiated services (diffserv), which gives more control of bandwidth management to network owners. This article will not delve into the details of the two techniques. The good news is that both are currently supported in Linux.
The unsung hero of the new 2.1.x Linux traffic control (TC) code (and much more) is Alexey Kuznetsov (email@example.com). Alexey invested a great deal of thought in the design in order to make it extremely flexible and extensible.
What I describe is just the tip of the iceberg of the possibilities presented by Linux traffic control, without going deep into detail. The intended scope is to show via a simple example how one could unleash the power of Linux traffic control.
The TC features give ISPs the ability to manage (or carve) their bandwidth as they see fit. In the past, there have been other less-organized ways of doing this. The ISP could bandwidth-limit the customer's access rate by selling services based on interface capabilities, e.g., 28.8 vs. 56Kbps modems or 1 vs. 3Mbps xDSL modems.
Another more innovative but less ambitious (relative to TC) way of rate-limiting bandwidth is to use Alan Cox's shaper device. The shaper device is first attached to an already configured network device (e.g., Ethernet) using the shapecfg utility, which is also used to configure the shaper's speed. The next step is to use the ifconfig utility to configure the shaper to have the same IP address as the device to which it is attached. The final step is to map the packets to be treated by the shaper; this is known as classification. This is done using the common route command, pointing the route in which the packets are to be conditioned to the shaper. The advantage of the shaper is that it also runs on the 2.0.x kernels (included from 2.0.36 onwards and available as a patch for earlier kernels). The shaper's limited classification capabilities can be enhanced in the 2.0.x kernels by using Mike McLagan's (firstname.lastname@example.org) patch to allow routes to be specified by source/destination pairs. The new TC capabilities encompass shaping as well as a great deal more.
Another technique to enable bandwidth management is to use the multi-routing table capabilities implemented by Alexey Kuznetsov. Linux 2.2 has a new feature that allows a single Linux box to have multiple routing tables. In essence, one could have a special routing table for a higher-paying customer and redirect their traffic through higher-bandwidth or less congested devices (e.g., to a T3 rather than an ISDN line, both of which are headed the same way). Perhaps the best-kept secret in Linux bandwidth management is that the Apache web server has a bandwidth limiting module, mod_throttle, to rate limit individual users as defined in a config file. For details, see http://www.bigrock.com/~mlovell/throttle/.
|PostgreSQL, the NoSQL Database||Jan 29, 2015|
|HPC Cluster Grant Accepting Applications!||Jan 28, 2015|
|Sharing Admin Privileges for Many Hosts Securely||Jan 28, 2015|
|Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.1 beta available on IBM Power Platform||Jan 23, 2015|
|Designing with Linux||Jan 22, 2015|
|Wondershaper—QOS in a Pinch||Jan 21, 2015|
- PostgreSQL, the NoSQL Database
- Sharing Admin Privileges for Many Hosts Securely
- HPC Cluster Grant Accepting Applications!
- Internet of Things Blows Away CES, and it May Be Hunting for YOU Next
- Ideal Backups with zbackup
- Wondershaper—QOS in a Pinch
- Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.1 beta available on IBM Power Platform
- Designing with Linux
- Slow System? iotop Is Your Friend
- January 2015 Issue of Linux Journal: Security
Editorial Advisory Panel
Thank you to our 2014 Editorial Advisors!
- Jeff Parent
- Brad Baillio
- Nick Baronian
- Steve Case
- Chadalavada Kalyana
- Caleb Cullen
- Keir Davis
- Michael Eager
- Nick Faltys
- Dennis Frey
- Philip Jacob
- Jay Kruizenga
- Steve Marquez
- Dave McAllister
- Craig Oda
- Mike Roberts
- Chris Stark
- Patrick Swartz
- David Lynch
- Alicia Gibb
- Thomas Quinlan
- Carson McDonald
- Kristen Shoemaker
- Charnell Luchich
- James Walker
- Victor Gregorio
- Hari Boukis
- Brian Conner
- David Lane