ClearFoundation

thanks Mr. Burgess, to reach some ideas. What I want is to limit the bandwidth for the voyage, that is, upon opening pages, for example, images (hi5, facebook, etc) or music (youtube) do not consume all the bandwidth, but always keeping the proxy cache, since it is of great help.
there lies the problem with online gaming, to produce what we commonly call "lag."
Thanks for taking the time to address my question.
Greetings from Lima - Peru .

Have a look at my bandwidth "hacks" on the first page that prioritise small ACK packets. This helps reduces lag. If you find out which ports your games use and create a rule for these they should also have minimal lag under a full loaded connection.

I can play Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 with a torrent running at 90% of my upload and still have minimal lag, simply by reserving traffic to / from my PS3 IP. It will never be perfect but it can be acheived with a bit of tweaking and ensuring your upload limits are below your *actual* bandwidth capacity.

Hi Tim.
..
I also have problems like Mr. Waldir.

To solve this, it can be classified as ports and limiting bandwidth per port,like you says.

Only, I think so, is there any kind of additional program or patch, so that bandwidth managers can recognize the ip client though traffic is passed through a proxy server?

I have read about TProxy , which are able to make squid to be bridged, so that clients ip can be recognize by the bandwidth manager (not NAT)

Is it possible, be installed directly into the ClearOS squid, because to do the installation TProxy must perform kernel patching and squid patching itself.

Just about the idea .. Who knew It could solve this problem.

Or from the developer there another solution? improvements, perhaps? for the next version?

Hi Andi,

TProxy combined with Squid looks interesting with TPROXY being used as the iptables target instead of REDIRECT.
wiki.squid-cache.org/Features/Tproxy4

I've been trying to think of some other creative ways of implenting IP based bandwidth control using the existing setup,

So far I have:-
1. Using iptables conntrack to mark packets that match certain LAN ip addresses. These marks are kept as they traverse the chain through the mangle table, so you could then write a bandwidth filter rule that matches the packet mark

2. Or creating an additional IMQ device between the LAN and ClearOS so that local LAN traffic can be throttled by IP before it gets to the proxy, however this would also limit speeds to and from the gateway (but could be restricted to just web traffic). Which is OK if all you want to do is use the internet, but not good for transferring files on /off the server.

The second option would require a lot of hacking to the firewall to get it to work as the IMQ module limits the number of IMQ devices when the firewall is loaded. This limit at the moment is obtained from the number of WAN interfaces present...

Hi Tim
If ClearOs perform the function of transparent proxy and bandwidth management at the same time would be great.
I would appreciate help us with creating the iptables to control bandwidth while maintaining the LAN IP address.

I am more interested in the first way , because the second way looks difficult. It would be nice if you made a simple step tutorial how to configuration, so many will try.

The limitation bandwidth per ip client issue is a lot I have encountered during the installation to the office where the manager wanted the limitations on bandwidth for each clients ip, while the proxy server is still run to support the lack of available internet bandwidth.

UPDATE: app-bandwidth-monitor-5.1.7 is now available, and multiwan friendly

Can someone with Multi WAN confirm that this works ok? I don't have two to test properly. My limited testing in my VM seems to be OK in terms of formatting however it doesn't have live traffic. Things to check for are the rule nicknames, and that you end up with two tables - one for each WAN

i.e.
WAN1 - eth1
Upload - imq0
Download - imq2

WAN2 - eth2
Upload - imq1
Download - imq3

Andi & Waldir, i'm still looking at this one using conntrack / and tc filters.

off-topic: Mr. Tim, it's you?! No more Wiley E. Coyote?

OT: Yup - it's me! I feel like Clark Kent removing his glasses...or something. Wiley may make a return someday, mainly because my son likes him, or I get fedup with looking at my own face on the forum