CISCO ROUTER

No, you can't do a bandwith share in the
router. To do this, you will need to use a
special unit to limit the bandwith allocated
to all other machines, and then have the
one you want to have a bigger chunk of
the bandwith plugged straigth in. This is
an ackward solution - And you can design
nicer solutions for this problem - such as
having one dedicated line for that
particular computer, and set the default
gateway for that machine to point to that
router. However, that may give you
problems with the firewall. You may -
depending on what firewall you use, add
a dedicated port for the high-bandwith
area of your network, and then run the
low-bandwith part of your network through
the original port. Alternatively, you can put
most machines on the network on
separate switches, and the
high-bandwith unit on a dedicated switch.
By having the router plugged in on the
dedicated switch, and have a 10 Mbit
cross over from the mainswitches to the
router / high bandwith switch, there will be
a bottleneck in the crossover, hence there
will be more bandwith available for the
computer requiring high bandwith.

There isn't an easy way to do this at the router level. The previous poster offered some good suggestions, but they are less than elegant, and there really isn't a reason to relegate your client PCs to only 10 Mbps of bandwidth.

Depending on thesophisication of your remaining network infrastructure, you might be able to telnet into your SNMP managed switches, and program VLANs. Most managed switches will also allow you to set a traffic "priority" to specific ports and/or VLANs, and by this method, you could maximize bandwidth to a specific port and/or VLAN by giving it a higher traffic priority. What this does is tell the switch that traffic destined for a specific port in the switch will get it's traffic first, and all other packets within the switch wait. This would be a more elegant way to throttle bandwidth between say, your router and network servers, and the client PCs. You could put your servers, along with the router on VLAN1, for instance, and give those ports in theswitch the highest traffic priority setting. Then aggregate your clients into VLAN2 in the switch, and give those ports a lower traffic priority. To complete the operation, within the switch, set up a virtual circuit between VLAN1 and VLAN2, and then set it's traffic priority to a level between what you've given VLAN1, and VLAN2.

Good luck.

THe nearest thing to what you have suggested is called Cisco's Quality of Service (QoS). QoS will prioritize traffic, based on your configuration, and can dedicate a certain percentage of bandwidth to certain traffic, such as HTTP or FTP.

I thinkthere was somewhere where you could actually specify priority for a user, but can't remember if this was true or a dream!

Use Cisco's QoS (Quality of Service) features. You can either dedicate a percentage of the bandwidth to a group of hosts or ports, or you can specify the hosts/ports have low, medium, or high priority. I recommend the latter for your application.Simply make ftp and ftp-data ports low priority.

You can prioritize your own IP address but it will help only while uploading (traffic from your net to internet). There is no way to prioritize traffic from inet to your PC.
So your downloads will remain slow.
There was a good suggestion to give low priority to ftp transfer (it will improve overall network performance)
w.

You could setup priority queueing on the router, and create an queue list to allow certain users traffic to be sent before other users traffic. Be careful with this, because of the way Cisco queueing works, if you set somebody to the low priority, and the link is always busy, the low priority traffic might never be transfered. If you have any questions about this I would be happy to answer them, just go ahead and email me.

The best thing to do is to implement "custom queueing" rather than "priority queueing". It allows you to specify a percentage of bandwidth that you want to allocate to a particular machine/subnet.
Drop me a mail if you want details about specifics on implementing different queueing methods.

This question was auto closed due to inactivity