On 2/22/06, Jon Simola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Leave out the linkshare and bandwidth, just use realtime and
> upperlimit. And the priority of the queues matters, in the above each
> of the queues can go as high as 81Mb (90% of 90Mb) but if more than
> one tries to go above 45Mb, the one with t
On 2/22/06, Christopher McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jon Simola wrote:
>
> >On 2/22/06, Christopher McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>I might be going about this the wrong way, but, this is ultimately what
> >>I'm trying to do. One queue has guaranteed 3Mb, another has a
> >>g
Jon Simola wrote:
On 2/22/06, Christopher McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I might be going about this the wrong way, but, this is ultimately what
I'm trying to do. One queue has guaranteed 3Mb, another has a
guaranteed 4Mb, another has 3Mb guarantee, which leaves about 90Mb as a
pool for
On 2/22/06, Christopher McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I might be going about this the wrong way, but, this is ultimately what
> I'm trying to do. One queue has guaranteed 3Mb, another has a
> guaranteed 4Mb, another has 3Mb guarantee, which leaves about 90Mb as a
> pool for all of them. If
Bill Marquette wrote:
On 2/22/06, Christopher McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jon Simola wrote:
On 2/22/06, Christopher McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've been trying to get hfsc working properly, but I'm obviously doing
something wrong because I keep getting errors like
On 2/22/06, Christopher McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jon Simola wrote:
>
> >On 2/22/06, Christopher McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I've been trying to get hfsc working properly, but I'm obviously doing
> >>something wrong because I keep getting errors like this:
> >>
> >>pfctl:
Jon Simola wrote:
On 2/22/06, Christopher McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've been trying to get hfsc working properly, but I'm obviously doing
something wrong because I keep getting errors like this:
pfctl: link-sharing sc exceeds parent's sc
Yeah, the percentages in link-sharing
On 2/22/06, Christopher McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been trying to get hfsc working properly, but I'm obviously doing
> something wrong because I keep getting errors like this:
>
> pfctl: link-sharing sc exceeds parent's sc
Yeah, the percentages in link-sharing are calculated against t
On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 14:42 +, Greg Hennessy wrote:
> Have you tried adding a /32 route to the remote end through the tunnel
> interface ?
Yes, the route is like this:
route delete 10.8.0.0 &> /dev/null
route add -net 10.8.0.0 -netmask 255.255.255.0 192.168.0.253 &>/dev/null
192.168.0.253
I've been trying to get hfsc working properly, but I'm obviously doing
something wrong because I keep getting errors like this:
pfctl: link-sharing sc exceeds parent's sc
Here's my current configuration:
altq on $ext_if bandwidth 100Mb hfsc queue { queue1, queue2, queue3 }
queue queue1 bandwid
Tiago Cruz wrote:
> Following this link: http://www.nimlabs.org/~nim/dirtynat.html
> I learn that I can do some "dirty NAT trick" with my firewall to make
> this:
Read pf.conf(5), especially the parts about binat. This is probably
what you want.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital sign
Have you tried adding a /32 route to the remote end through the tunnel
interface ?
> The problem is more detailed here:
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/2006-February/0
09645.html
>
> Whats happen? If my network is 192.168.0.0/22 and the network
> for my client is 192.168.0.0/
On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 13:26 +, Greg Hennessy wrote:
> How is this a problem ? Surely the default route is through the tunnel
> interface when the tunnel is up ?
>
> I fail to see how this 'breaks things horribly'.
The problem is more detailed here:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebs
How is this a problem ? Surely the default route is through the tunnel
interface when the tunnel is up ?
I fail to see how this 'breaks things horribly'.
>
> "You have a corporate LAN. You want to set up a VPN (in this case
> OpenVPN) into the LAN for your road-warriors. However, your
> LAN i
Hello guys,
Following this link: http://www.nimlabs.org/~nim/dirtynat.html
I learn that I can do some "dirty NAT trick" with my firewall to make
this:
"You have a corporate LAN. You want to set up a VPN (in this case
OpenVPN) into the LAN for your road-warriors. However, your LAN is
numbered with
15 matches
Mail list logo
