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
<mailto:m...@sentex.net>
> *Sent: *29 July 2019 17:06
> *To: *freebsd-pf@freebsd.org <mailto:freebsd-pf@freebsd.org>
> *Subject: *pf and dummynet
>
>
>
> I have a box I need to shape inbound and outbound traffic. It seems altq
>
> can only shape outbou
> 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
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 seems altq
can only shape outbound packets and not limit inbound ? If thats the
case, what is the current state of mixing ipfw
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
