edit
UP
What does your question even mean?
Could you give a more detailed example of a situation, and what you want RouterOS to do on it?
edit
+UP
We still do not understand what you are trying to do. Try to use more words to be more specific and detailed about what you are trying to do. Just bumping the post without added details of clarity is less likely to get a good answer.
edit
Look, the problem here is your use of the word “priority”. A queue’s “priority” is not used to say “allocate more speed for this”. It’s used to say “If two queues on the same level match the same target, prefer the limits that are specified in this one, as opposed to that one”.
Prioritizing traffic in terms of “allocate more speed” requires two separate queues - one that matches based on the packet mark, and another one that matches the same IP, but without the packet mark (located just below the marked quque).
And even then, you’re not “prioritizing” in terms of “Have the same speed, but allocate it differently”, you’re saying “You have this speed for this AND another speed for that”. You need a 3rd queue as a parent to specify the overall limits, and then use limit-at on the “priority” queue to guarantee a certain speed on it when there’s a particular packet mark.
If you don’t understand the above… We’ll need some concrete examples to give you more concrete example instructions. Like, a sample target, a sample IP you’ve marked, the sample mark name…
Boen is all true what you said, I taken for granted the 2 queue implementation, so one for marked connection to the IP that have to be priorized AMD one for the other packet. My question is if I can use only the optional priority in the queues and leave the max limit “unlimited” because I want that only userman give the max limite forma download and upload.
You can leave the marked queue with max-limit being unlimited IF you have a parent queue that actually sets the max-limit.
Otherwise, you’ll be saying that marked traffic has absolutely unlimited speed, and you’ll potentially take away from the speed of other customers.
The queue that limit the clients speed is on the pppoe server and not on the cpe, so i can’t set it as parent queue. Is that a problem?
In general, you want your speed restrictions to all be defined on a single router… in this case, the PPPoE server… not in different routers. The only time it makes sense to let restrictions on client routers is when you’ve allocated a total limit for them that they then decide how to divide between themselves, outside of the server’s control.
Yes but how I can do it on the pppoe server?
These are the rules in the cpe and attached to the post there is the dinamically created queue by userman.
Mangle:
0 X chain=prerouting action=mark-connection new-connection-mark=10.5.0.1_conn
passthrough=yes dst-address=10.5.0.1
1 X chain=prerouting action=mark-packet new-packet-mark=10.5.0.1_packet
passthrough=no connection-mark=10.5.0.1_conn
2 X chain=prerouting action=mark-connection new-connection-mark=other_conn
passthrough=yes dst-address=!10.5.0.1
3 X chain=prerouting action=mark-packet new-packet-mark=other_packet
passthrough=no connection-mark=other_conn
Queue:
0 X name=“Priority 1 Traffic” target=“” parent=none
packet-marks=10.5.0.1_packet priority=1/1
queue=default-small/default-small limit-at=0/0 max-limit=0/0
burst-limit=0/0 burst-threshold=0/0 burst-time=0s/0s
1 X name=“Other Traffic” target=“” parent=none packet-marks=other_packet
priority=8/8 queue=default-small/default-small limit-at=0/0 max-limit=0/0
burst-limit=0/0 burst-threshold=0/0 burst-time=0s/0s
It looks like it’s all OK, and the only thing you need is to specify the “master QUEUE” as a parent. In the same place where you define the queue’s max-limit/limit-at, there should be a separate argument/field about the parent that the queue should have.