On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 05:25:35PM -0700, Kurt Buff wrote:
> All,
>
> Wondering if the following scenario at all rational/feasible:
>
> [fw-a]---
> |
> |
> [switch]---[freebsd]---[router]---[many subnets]
> |
> |
> [fw-b]---
>
> F
Hi,
I'm trying to get ftp working from behind a pf firewall. I'm using pftpx
on FreeBSD 6.2 for this. I believe i have passive working, one of my windows
boxes goes passive and dies on active. I've got three questions. First,
portupgrade uses fetch for retrieval correct, if so i want it to u
All,
Wondering if the following scenario at all rational/feasible:
[fw-a]---
|
|
[switch]---[freebsd]---[router]---[many subnets]
|
|
[fw-b]---
Fw-a fronts our current T1, and that ties our other two offices
together with IPSec,
On 5/17/07, Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
This isn't bandwidth issue, but filling the network buffer more than
anything else, so there are no more free sockets, and I can't connect
to the server via ssh, it's not syn as well.
But mass connect to IRC server with s
Hello,
This isn't bandwidth issue, but filling the network buffer more than
anything else, so there are no more free sockets, and I can't connect
to the server via ssh, it's not syn as well.
But mass connect to IRC server with small bw, and the server isn't
lagged at all.
Rate: 245,919 Packets
Hello,
Is pf and altq a right combo for bandwidth limiting? What I'm trying to do
is limit each IP or block of IPs to predefined bandwidth. I'm not doing
traffic shaping, just wanting to prevent servers from hogging all the
bandwidth.
My setup is as follow:
LAN {test server} -> xl1 {FreeBSD} x
