Re: dummynet (user confused)

2001-11-04 Thread Bill Fumerola
On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 04:06:38AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I am somewhat confuse on *how* to really use dummynet for bandwidth limitation. > > Im my (mis)understanding, ipfw functions act in a 'hit and run' way, > say: the first one which corresponds to 'this' packet will be the only

Re: dummynet (user confused)

2001-11-04 Thread murthy kn
>This is not always true...in some cases packet is passed again to the >firewall code, starting from next rule. > > > dummynet needs ipfw to build a pipe.. but if this rule is hit does it >means that any other will have no effect at all?? > >When "pipe" action is found that correspondes with pack

Re: dummynet (user confused)

2001-11-04 Thread David Delibasic
On Sun, 4 Nov 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Im my (mis)understanding, ipfw functions act in a 'hit and run' way, say: the first >one which corresponds to 'this' packet will be the only to be followed, there are no >new verification on this packet with the next rule. This is not always true.

dummynet (user confused)

2001-11-04 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am somewhat confuse on *how* to really use dummynet for bandwidth limitation. Im my (mis)understanding, ipfw functions act in a 'hit and run' way, say: the first one which corresponds to 'this' packet will be the only to be followed, there are no new verification on this packet with the next