pfSense Gold Subscription

Author Topic: Traffic shaper changes [90% completed, please send money to complete bounty]  (Read 267183 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline billm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 731
  • Karma: +1/-1
    • View Profile
    • UCSecurity - Technology discovery and ramblings
This is a continuation of http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,2686.0.html

The following are proposed changes to the existing pfSense traffic shaper based on community interest, feasibility, and pledged dollars.  The list is somewhat out of order of proposals due to references made in the list to other items.
  • Multi-interface: Allow the shaper to work with multiple LAN (LAN, OPT1, OPTx) interfaces and a _single_ WAN connection.
  • Bridges:  Make the shaper code work with bridging - I'm sure I can do this for two interfaces, I'm not sure I can make this work in combination with multi-interface shaping or with more than two bridge interfaces.
  • Multi-WAN shaping: under consideration - I need to give this more thought, I'm not sure if it's feasible w/in the scope of our UI (or with how we have to get traffic into queues).
  • Wizard updates to make the above changes easy to configure.
  • UI updates to make the shaper settings easier (easier, not necessarily _easy_) to modify

I fully expect that we'll be able to get these changes in the next feature release, however there is no chance that they'll get into anything with a 1.0.x version and I think we're targetting 1.1 for a FreeBSD OS update.  This caveat is just to help set expectations so when we release a 1.0.2 or 1.1 nobody asks whether these changes made it in.

I'd like to ask that those that pledged in the other thread (that I'll merge into this one) please reply with an update on whether the proposal meets their expectations and an updated pledge which I'll add to the above list.

There is no "price tag" for this feature enhancement, nor is there a time frame other than what I mentioned above (it'd still have to be debugged and thoroughly tested even if I wrote the code in a day).  The $10k pledge drive that was initiated was to drive interest, not as a price tag.  All I ask is for those that are interested to put their $$$ where their mouths are and help get this going.  I've put up with a lot of crap over the existing code and am kind of tired of people bitching about it; if people want it to work better, I need to see it.  Some people have certainly showed interest, with the amount of people that have downloaded and are using pfSense, I'm hoping others will help the cause here and won't leave this up to the half dozen that have already showed their interest.

Bounties pledged to date:
  • $50 - pfSense
  • $100 - sai
  • $200 - wcoolnet
  • $500 - mrt_ok (received in paypal account)
  • $100 - Delphinus
Total pledged: $950

Remember, pledging is only part of the equation, we don't want to be told we're going to get X amount of dollars and not get it after all the work is done.  I request that at least 50% of each pledge be escrowed in the pfSense account (you'll have to trust that I don't have access to it and that Scott isn't going to go and get really really drunk with it).  Thanks


Update - 11/22/2006 - I've been working on the pf.conf side of this change a bit and think I've made some progress.  I should begin coding these changes shortly as it's getting quite painful to make any further progress by hand.  As soon as I have something that can be tested, I'll contact those that have made pledges on this bounty to allow them to test.

--Bill
« Last Edit: February 01, 2008, 06:58:24 pm by sullrich »
pfSense core developer
blog - http://www.ucsecurity.com/
twitter - billmarquette

Offline sai

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Traffic shaper changes
« Reply #1 on: November 09, 2006, 06:36:57 am »
$100.

Multi-wan is interesting, but what do you mean by that? If you mean 1 shaper with multiple WANs then I dont remember seeing it in any of the HFSC docs (not that I studied too hard). It would probably be very difficult to visualise and use  - most unlikely anyone would want it.
If you mean a separate shaper for each WAN then that makes more sense. Should be possible to fit it into the gui without complications.

Time line: are we talking 6 months, 1 year (+/- x months)?  I know that this is open source so no release dates set in advance, but some sort of ETA ?


Offline billm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 731
  • Karma: +1/-1
    • View Profile
    • UCSecurity - Technology discovery and ramblings
Re: Traffic shaper changes
« Reply #2 on: November 09, 2006, 08:10:44 am »
$100.

Multi-wan is interesting, but what do you mean by that? If you mean 1 shaper with multiple WANs then I dont remember seeing it in any of the HFSC docs (not that I studied too hard). It would probably be very difficult to visualise and use  - most unlikely anyone would want it.
If you mean a separate shaper for each WAN then that makes more sense. Should be possible to fit it into the gui without complications.

Yep, multiple WANs.  It's all about queue definition and how traffic get's assigned to the queue.  I'm not 100% sure I can make it work in our case.  Policy based multi-wan routing would likely be possible, but based on how we assign traffic to queues (which won't be changing...it's the only way we can do it without major pf hacks) it's likely that load balanced WANs won't be able to shape.  There are some other items I have in the works as I get to them (kernel side is done...I think) that will allow for layer7 requeueing of traffic (ie. traffic starts off in the default queue or something and get's moved to HTTP once it recognizes HTTP in the packet payload).  I'm not including that as part of this bounty/feature enhancement.

Time line: are we talking 6 months, 1 year (+/- x months)?  I know that this is open source so no release dates set in advance, but some sort of ETA ?

We're planning on starting work on RELENG_2 shortly and I'm (personally) hopeful that we'll be able to push a 6 month release cycle out (but depending on bugs in new features, that might stretch).  With that said, you'll be able to see the new code in the alpha releases as soon as it's commited.  I don't expect that it'll take me more than a week or two to get the new shaper code to a point where I can commit it and get people pounding on it.

--Bill
pfSense core developer
blog - http://www.ucsecurity.com/
twitter - billmarquette

Offline wcoolnet

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Traffic shaper changes
« Reply #3 on: November 09, 2006, 11:18:49 am »
$200

Offline mrt_ok

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Traffic shaper changes
« Reply #4 on: November 09, 2006, 01:42:57 pm »
$500

Offline aldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Traffic shaper changes
« Reply #5 on: November 09, 2006, 03:42:28 pm »
bill the changes you are proposing sound very interesting. if interfaces could be extended to support all the ng interfaces loaded on the pppoe server we have another 200 for your bounty.

it can nearly do it now. with a bit of a hack to it but gets it's white spacings wrong.

would you think this is supportable in the multiple interfaces area of your plan

Offline billm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 731
  • Karma: +1/-1
    • View Profile
    • UCSecurity - Technology discovery and ramblings
Re: Traffic shaper changes
« Reply #6 on: November 09, 2006, 05:02:55 pm »
bill the changes you are proposing sound very interesting. if interfaces could be extended to support all the ng interfaces loaded on the pppoe server we have another 200 for your bounty.

it can nearly do it now. with a bit of a hack to it but gets it's white spacings wrong.

would you think this is supportable in the multiple interfaces area of your plan

I _think_ so - do PPPOE server interfaces show up as individual interfaces in the Rules (or even interfaces) screen?  I'm thinking it doesn't, but I haven't really seen how the PPPoE server works either.  I'll try and spend some time tonight, I agree, it's likely possible, but I don't know enough about how that section of code works to be able to say for sure.  If it comes up as individual interfaces that rules can be created on, then I'm reasonably confident that it'll "just work".

--Bill
pfSense core developer
blog - http://www.ucsecurity.com/
twitter - billmarquette

Offline sullrich

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5110
  • Karma: +7/-2348
    • View Profile
    • pfSense
Re: Traffic shaper changes
« Reply #7 on: November 09, 2006, 05:06:43 pm »
Only major problem is ngX is dynamic.  The ordering may shift.

Offline billm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 731
  • Karma: +1/-1
    • View Profile
    • UCSecurity - Technology discovery and ramblings
Re: Traffic shaper changes
« Reply #8 on: November 09, 2006, 05:41:26 pm »
Only major problem is ngX is dynamic.  The ordering may shift.

Good point.  Although I don't think ngX necessarily _has_ to be dynamic.  But making major interface changes, while on my own personal list of things to do, aren't necessarily compatible within the scope of this change.  If these are truly dynamic and _not_ tied to the standard rules editor, then I don't think we'll be able to make it part of this change.  Although this change should set the stage for this feature in the future.

--Bill
pfSense core developer
blog - http://www.ucsecurity.com/
twitter - billmarquette

Offline sullrich

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5110
  • Karma: +7/-2348
    • View Profile
    • pfSense
Re: Traffic shaper changes
« Reply #9 on: November 09, 2006, 08:20:59 pm »
Nope, its not associated unfortunately.


Offline aldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Traffic shaper changes
« Reply #10 on: November 10, 2006, 02:35:04 am »
ok that was confusing could you clarify these points.
is it possible?
would you include it?
all i am trying to do is hfsc with them no other gaurentees all have equal preferance.

well look forward to the clarification

Offline billm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 731
  • Karma: +1/-1
    • View Profile
    • UCSecurity - Technology discovery and ramblings
Re: Traffic shaper changes
« Reply #11 on: November 10, 2006, 08:49:12 am »
ok that was confusing could you clarify these points.
is it possible?

Possible, yes.  With the current way interfaces are configured, no.  The shaper changes I'm working on won't directly help here, but would be considered a prereq to being able to do this.

would you include it?

One thing at a time :)  If PPPoE server 'nics' (all the ng interfaces) were already individually assignable for rule management in pfSense, you'd get the shaper changes "for free" so to speak.  The changes I'm looking at would just come along for the ride.  As it sits, I'd consider this a different project, but one that relies on this change before it can be seriously thought of.  Depending on how the code ends up getting written, it may be possible to hack up a config.xml that'll create the correct rules - not sure, I'm still researching the proper way to do the queues as it is (it's looking like we'll have a number of nasty recursive loops).

all i am trying to do is hfsc with them no other gaurentees all have equal preferance.

well look forward to the clarification

Hope that helps.

--Bill
pfSense core developer
blog - http://www.ucsecurity.com/
twitter - billmarquette

Offline sullrich

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5110
  • Karma: +7/-2348
    • View Profile
    • pfSense
Re: Traffic shaper changes
« Reply #12 on: November 14, 2006, 11:24:14 am »
Not sure that we can accept Pakistan funds without Big Bubba getting down and angry with us.

Offline eric

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Traffic shaper changes
« Reply #13 on: November 15, 2006, 01:14:28 am »
i too would be willing to throw some money your way for this, however seeing as I'm pretty close to broke it wouldn't be much. 

Offline Delphinus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Traffic shaper changes
« Reply #14 on: November 17, 2006, 05:25:20 pm »
I'll donate $100. Let me know when you need it.