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
-On [20011102 02:30], Luigi Rizzo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>Would people object to doing a similar change to the code
>in STABLE ?
No, I wouldn't mind.
--
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven/Asmodai asmodai@[wxs.nl|freebsd.org|xmach.org]
Documentation nutter/C-rated Coder, finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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.
>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
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
