Bandwith Allocation Mangement=MTU Settings?

[Shinobi]

Some Sys Admin's have told me the only way that I could
allocate differn't internet bandwith to differn't computers is to make the MTU settings smaller with each client computer. This seems logical. Opinoins?
Thanks.
Shinobi.
P.S. "NetGuard" not a option.

[Stef]

Ever hear of Linux?

[PhyberOptix]

There is no truth to that. MTU size has nothing to do w/ how much bw a client can use. You can setup priority queing or custom queing, but that is used on Cisco 1600 series routers and up. I would do some research on the current router you are using to see if it has queueing options available.

[Stef]

Like I said, ever hear of Linux?

It's got more advanced routing features and packet filtering scalability then any other router on the market.

Stef

[PhyberOptix]

I'm sorry, what? Linux has more routing features and packet filtering scalabilty than a Cisco router?
As for packet filtering, I can filter by source ip, destination ip, source/destination ip, source ip/source port, source ip/destination port, source ip/destination ip/destination port, ipx source address, ipx destination address, ipx source and destination address, ipx address/destination port, SAP filters, filter by mac address, filter by protocol type code, filter decnet, and filter appletalk to name a few....
As for routing features, there are *hundreds* of books written on the numerous routing features such as RIP, RIP v2, IGRP, EIGRP, OSPF, IS IS, IBGP, EBGP, EGP, ISO-IGRP, Mobile, ODR, PIM, Multicast routing, DDR, Snapshot routing, policy routing, route maps, distribute list route filtering, floating static routes, protocol redistribution, route tagging, multicast routing, MLS, MPLS etc etc etc.
I don't doubt that Linux has some routing and packet filtering features, but it doesn't even come *close* to a Cisco, Bay, Juniper, Redback, etc. router.

[gmcd33]

Like Phyber said, a Cisco router would crap all over a linux router.

Juniper? Thats like comparing a tri-cycle to a monster truck. Those things are nuts.

[Stef]

http://www.aciri.org/floyd/ecn.html

http://www.zebra.org/rfc.html

http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/Adv-Routing-HOWTO-2.html#ss2.3

http://packetstormsecurity.org/UNIX/firewall/ipchains/netfilter/netfilter-HOWTO.html

http://www.linuxguruz.org/iptables/howto/ipnatctl-HOWTO.html

:D

Currently, the only protocols that the Linux kernel cannot filter are IPX/SPX and AppleTalk. However, IPX is dead and AppleShare is now used over TCP/IP.

Also, can you edit the source code on your fancy CISCO router? In Linux, if you don't like it, you re-write it!!


Stef

[PhyberOptix]

I looked over your links but that still doesn't come anywhere close to saying that a Linux box can hold a candle to a true router.
As for packet filtering, the fact of the matter is that Cisco's abilities are more robust. I don't think you dispute that based on you admittance that Linux still can't filter IPX or Appletalk. But it goes beyond being able to filter a protocol. As I stated preiviously, a Cisco router can filter by sa, da, sa/da, sa/sp, sa/dp, sa/da/sp, sa/da/dp, for almost every protocol. Now that's robust.
As for routing features....That's great that a Linux box can run OSPF, BGP, and RIP, but these are only routing protocols. We have a Nokia Checkpoint Firewall at work that can run the exact same things, but that's all it can do in the way of routing. What can you do when you need to twist the way a packet is routed in spite of a what your routing protocol says? Can you setup a route filter which will allow every advertised route *but* 20.2.2.0 to be added to your router? Can you set up a route map that says "any routing update originating from IP address 10.1.1.1 which has a current metric of 3, add 2 to that metric?". I can with a Cisco router. Can you create a policy route which states "Any packet with a SA of 100.1.1.1 heading to DA of 200.1.1.1, send out interface X even though OSPF is telling the router to send it out interface y" ?

The point is, just b/c a box can run routing protocols doesn't mean it can suddenly compete with the big boy dedicated routers. I'm not saying a Linux box can't run routing protocols and perform basic routing, but it doesn't have anywhere *near* the capabilities of Cisco, Juniper, Bay, Redback etc....