Community discussions

MikroTik App
 
User avatar
Hugh Hartman
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: Fort Kent, Maine

destination vs target address for bandwidth queues

Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:30 pm

When using simple queues for bandwidth management is there any advantage in using target address over destination address?
 
bfair
just joined
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:35 pm
Location: Oklahoma

Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:03 pm

My disclaimer is simple: i know nothing.

But here are my thoughts -

you are an ISP and you want to give higher priorities to packets travelling from your billing server (so people can view their bills with quicker data rates than they can download files).
 
User avatar
[ASM]
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 284
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:59 am
Location: Sofia, Bulgaria
Contact:

Re: destination vs target address for bandwidth queues

Wed Mar 30, 2005 10:07 am

When using simple queues for bandwidth management is there any advantage in using target address over destination address?
The target-address is used to specify the host thay you want to shape...

Destination-address is for more advanced shapeing... for example to shape someone's access to a specific server
 
User avatar
normis
MikroTik Support
MikroTik Support
Posts: 26322
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:04 am
Location: Riga, Latvia

Wed Mar 30, 2005 10:11 am

yes, ASM is right.

target-address is the address of (for example) your client who's speed you are about to limit.

dst-address is the server to which this client will connect (if you like to limit his speed only when he connects to this one specific server)
 
BelWave
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 184
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 12:49 am

Sun Apr 03, 2005 8:10 pm

yes, ASM is right.

target-address is the address of (for example) your client who's speed you are about to limit.

dst-address is the server to which this client will connect (if you like to limit his speed only when he connects to this one specific server)
In our experience the only difference between putting the client IP to be throttled in the Target vs. Destination slot is tx/rx orientation. For example:

Target Address: 192.168.1 100/32
Dst Address: 0.0.0.0/0
Limit At (tx/rx): 128000/1600000
Max Limit (tx/rx): 128000/1600000

The above example will give the client with 192.168.1.100 a download speed of approx 1.6MB and an upload speed of 128K.

Target Address: 0.0.0.0/0
Dst Address: 192.168.1.100/32
Limit At (tx/rx): 1600000/128000
Max Limit (tx/rx): 1600000/128000

Again this example will give the client with 192.168.1.100 a download speed of approx 1.6MB and an upload speed of 128K.

So, which is the correct method? Both examples provide the same end result.

Best,

Brad
 
User avatar
normis
MikroTik Support
MikroTik Support
Posts: 26322
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:04 am
Location: Riga, Latvia

Mon Apr 04, 2005 9:53 am

read my other post. correct is `target` to be your client.
 
User avatar
macsrwe
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1007
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:43 am
Location: Arizona, USA
Contact:

Re: destination vs target address for bandwidth queues

Tue Jan 03, 2017 9:13 am

So if I specify the address (range) of my NOC equipment in the destination field, and the entire address range of the AP's subscribers in the target field, and unlimited speed, and put the rule up top, will that let me ship files from the NOC to the customer's CPE faster than his contract bandwidth rate?
 
PackElend
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 269
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2020 6:05 pm

Re:

Sat May 27, 2023 5:52 pm

Target Address: 0.0.0.0/0
Dst Address: 192.168.1.100/32
Limit At (tx/rx): 1600000/128000
Max Limit (tx/rx): 1600000/128000

Again this example will give the client with 192.168.1.100 a download speed of approx 1.6MB and an upload speed of 128K.
It's a very old topic, but I stumbled across it the other day.
How did you test traffic from 0.0.0.0/0 to 192.168.1.100/32 still hit the rule

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: edielson_atm, syslog and 115 guests