On 7/29/2019 7:39 PM, Nikos Vassiliadis wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2019-07-29 19:06, mike tancsa wrote:
> Maybe you could use pipe viewer (pv in ports or packages) on the
> ZFS host to limit the bandwidth in userspace.
Thanks, the replication is being done via TLS+Certs/Zepl. It has an
option to use O
> On 29 Jul 2019, at 22:15, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> >> On 29 Jul 2019, at 20:22, mike tancsa wrote:
> >>> On 7/29/2019 1:51 PM, Kristof Provost wrote:
> >> In general I?d expect quality of service and bandwidth limits to only
> >> be effective in the upstream direction (when going from a fast lin
Hi,
On 2019-07-29 19:06, mike tancsa wrote:
I have a box I need to shape inbound and outbound traffic. It seems altq
can only shape outbound packets and not limit inbound ? If thats the
case, what is the current state of mixing ipfw, dummynet and pf ?
Writing large complex firewall rules works
On 29 Jul 2019, at 22:15, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
>> On 29 Jul 2019, at 20:22, mike tancsa wrote:
>>> On 7/29/2019 1:51 PM, Kristof Provost wrote:
>> In general I?d expect quality of service and bandwidth limits to only
>> be effective in the upstream direction (when going from a fast link to a
>>
> On 29 Jul 2019, at 20:22, mike tancsa wrote:
> > On 7/29/2019 1:51 PM, Kristof Provost wrote:
> >>
> >> Also beware of gotchas with things like IPv6 fragment handling or
> >> route-to.
> >>
> >> I do not consider mixing firewalls to be a supported configuration.
> >> If
> >> it breaks you get to
On 7/29/2019 2:38 PM, Kristof Provost wrote:
>
> On 29 Jul 2019, at 20:22, mike tancsa wrote:
>
> On 7/29/2019 1:51 PM, Kristof Provost wrote:
>
> Also beware of gotchas with things like IPv6 fragment handling or
> route-to.
>
> I do not consider mixing firewalls to be a
On 29 Jul 2019, at 20:22, mike tancsa wrote:
On 7/29/2019 1:51 PM, Kristof Provost wrote:
Also beware of gotchas with things like IPv6 fragment handling or
route-to.
I do not consider mixing firewalls to be a supported configuration.
If
it breaks you get to keep the pieces.
Thanks, I was w
On 7/29/2019 1:51 PM, Kristof Provost wrote:
>
> Also beware of gotchas with things like IPv6 fragment handling or
> route-to.
>
> I do not consider mixing firewalls to be a supported configuration. If
> it breaks you get to keep the pieces.
Thanks, I was worried about that! Is there a way to get
Thanks, I have pf compiled in for now, and then load dummynet and ipfw
as a kld.
On 7/29/2019 1:44 PM, Paul Webster wrote:
>
> You can mix ipfw and pf, but beware of the order they are loaded (The
> first one loaded is inside the second one loaded) – it may be better
> in fact to compile them bot
> On 2019-07-29 18:44:00 (+0100), Paul Webster via freebsd-pf
> wrote:
> >
> > Sent from Mail for Windows 10
> >
> > From: mike tancsa
> > Sent: 29 July 2019 17:06
> > To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org
> > Subject: pf and dummynet
> >
> > I have a box I need to shape inbound and outbound traffic. It
You can mix ipfw and pf, but beware of the order they are loaded (The first one
loaded is inside the second one loaded) – it may be better in fact to compile
them both in the kernel.
You basically end up with: (pf)(ipfw)(system)(ipfw)(pf) – assuming pf was
loaded first
Sent from Mail for Windo
I have a box I need to shape inbound and outbound traffic. It seems altq
can only shape outbound packets and not limit inbound ? If thats the
case, what is the current state of mixing ipfw, dummynet and pf ?
Writing large complex firewall rules works better from a readability POV
(for us anyways)
12 matches
Mail list logo
