eculp escreveu:
Quoting Mike Makonnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Daniel Dias Gonçalves wrote:
You will go to develop a version to work with PF ?
I don't know what's needed to get it to work with pf, but if it's not too
much work, sure.
That would be great, Mike. I'm seeing more and more bandwidth being
used with p2p that I haven't been able to control with pf. The thought
has entered my mind to change back to ipfw that I used for many years
before changing to pf maybe 3 years ago. I also found dummynet to be
easy and practical to set up for both incoming and outgoing
connections. Something else I haven't figured out how to do the same
with altq, if even possible. In fact, if I am able to control p2p with
pf I may not even need bidirectional bandwidth limits.
Thanks for sharing your very practical solution to a real world
problem. Have a great weekend.
If it could be rewritten as a netgaph node, maybe it could tag the
classified packets, and tagging be compatible with both pf and ipfw
(under discretionary user choice with configuration switchs), so both
ipfw or pf could be used.
However a lot of work has to be done before. It works better on i386
than amd64 right now, wont compile on RELENG_6 without modifying some
gcc tweaks, etc.
I hope enhacing it can be a GSoC project in the future, or we
(community) can raise some funds to make it happen faster. It is really
a long-time needed feature to FreeBSD.
--
Patrick Tracanelli
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
