Quoting Peter Jeremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 2008-Dec-02 10:42:27 +0200, Andrei Kolu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That description sounds like it simplifies to "limit bandwidth based on
IP address" - which is fairly trivial for ipfw+dummynet or pf+altq.
ipfw+dummynet is really ugly traffic "shaper" (let's face it there is no
shaping going on), because instead of limiting bandwidth it will drop
packets to simulate bad connection.
I've been using ipfw+dummynet for traffic shaping for 7 or 8 years
without problems (and have recently moved to pf+dummynet). I don't
understand your comment about limiting bandwidth: An incoming packet
is put on a queue that is emptied at no more than the (simulated)
available outbound bandwidth. If the queue is full then incoming
packets will be dropped. This is the same behaviour as any other
router (or switch).
What do you want/expect?
I hear many years about "trivial"
configuration per user bandwidth limit with pf+altq but never saw ANY
code...
Note that I never mentioned per-user bandwidth with pf+altq - though
it looks possible. There are some trivial traffic-shaping examples in
pf.conf(5) but I will admit that I've never tried to actually use altq
- I use dummynet because I need functionality that isn't present in
altq.
I had forgotten that dummynet can be used with pf. Maybe i should
start this with a new subject but it is directly related in that I
need bandwidth control again that I don´t have since changing to pf.
o- What needs to be patched/done to make them work together
on Current and Releng?
o- Are you happier with the combination of dummynet with pf
than with IPFW?
DummyNet was one of the reasons that I was slow to leave IPFW.
Thanks and I am really not trying to hijack this thread, be glad to
start a new one.
ed
_______________________________________________
freebsd-pf@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-pf
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
