On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 14:24:34 -0500, Kenneth D. Merry wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 15:20:26 -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> > I need to do some simple traffic shaping, but whenever I try and use
> > altq, I dont seem to have any luck-- I mean zero.
>
> It took me a whil
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 14:36:22 -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> On 12/17/2015 2:24 PM, Kenneth D. Merry wrote:
> > It took me a while to get ALTQ working. More below..
>
> Thank you very much for the detail! Are you running any patches ? I
> seem to recall over the years the pfsense folks with patc
On 12/17/2015 2:24 PM, Kenneth D. Merry wrote:
> It took me a while to get ALTQ working. More below..
Thank you very much for the detail! Are you running any patches ? I
seem to recall over the years the pfsense folks with patches to pf to
get it to play well. However, I dont know if thats rele
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 15:20:26 -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> I need to do some simple traffic shaping, but whenever I try and use
> altq, I dont seem to have any luck-- I mean zero.
It took me a while to get ALTQ working. More below..
> I like the management of pf via pf.conf, but
l.
>
Thanks, I have indeed used dummynet with great success. What I am trying
to find out is can I still use pf for all the firewall rules, and then
just use ipfw+dummynet for traffic shaping safely.
---Mike
--
---
Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400
Sentex Communicat
On 12/16/2015 15:02, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> On 12/16/2015 3:22 PM, Karl Denninger wrote:
>> On 12/16/2015 14:20, Mike Tancsa wrote:
>>> I need to do some simple traffic shaping, but whenever I try and use
>>> altq, I dont seem to have any luck-- I mean zero.
>>&
On 12/16/2015 3:22 PM, Karl Denninger wrote:
>
> On 12/16/2015 14:20, Mike Tancsa wrote:
>> I need to do some simple traffic shaping, but whenever I try and use
>> altq, I dont seem to have any luck-- I mean zero.
>>
>> I like the management of pf via pf.co
On 12/16/2015 14:20, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> I need to do some simple traffic shaping, but whenever I try and use
> altq, I dont seem to have any luck-- I mean zero.
>
> I like the management of pf via pf.conf, but miss the simplicity of
> dummynet and ipfw. Has anyone used pf and i
I need to do some simple traffic shaping, but whenever I try and use
altq, I dont seem to have any luck-- I mean zero.
I like the management of pf via pf.conf, but miss the simplicity of
dummynet and ipfw. Has anyone used pf and ipfw together in RELENG10 ?
Any tips / caveats ? Or am I better
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 07:00:23PM +0200, Folkert Saathoff wrote:
Hello lists,
in order to evaluate the latency penalty induced by mobile IPv6,
i need some way to simulate different latencies between two nodes
in a laboratory environment.
Is it p
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 07:00:23PM +0200, Folkert Saathoff wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Hello lists,
>
> in order to evaluate the latency penalty induced by mobile IPv6,
> i need some way to simulate different latencies between two nodes
> in a laboratory enviro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello lists,
in order to evaluate the latency penalty induced by mobile IPv6,
i need some way to simulate different latencies between two nodes
in a laboratory environment.
Is it possible at the moment to shape IPv6 traffic with KAME SNAP
2005091
Martin Hudec wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I have question regarding ipfw traffic shaping:
>
> This were default settings:
> 4: 2.000 Mbit/s0 ms 30 sl. 1 queues (1 buckets) droptail
> mask: 0x00 0x/0x -> 0x/0x
> BKT Prot ___S
## Peter Jeremy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> ipfw/dummynet pipes only handle a single flow direction: If you
> have something like
> ipfw NUMBER pipe 1 ip from any to any via ifX
> then both incoming and outgoing traffic share the pipe and you are
> limiting the combined uplink and downlink traffic
On 2002-Oct-06 16:19:08 +0200, Christoph Moench-Tegeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>## Daniel O'Connor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
>> Actually, if you limit incoming TCP it will adapt to the correct speed.
>> I do this at home without hassle (except the latency in games goes up
>> from ~40 to ~100 but
## Daniel O'Connor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Actually, if you limit incoming TCP it will adapt to the correct speed.
> I do this at home without hassle (except the latency in games goes up
> from ~40 to ~100 but it is still acceptable)
How much do you have to limit TCP for the desired effect? I nev
On Sun, 2002-10-06 at 22:56, Christoph Moench-Tegeder wrote:
> Limit the maximum usage of your line to about 90% to 95%. This prevents
> usage of the queue in your modem. However, this will not work if
> queueing on the remote side is the problem (bulk transfers like downloads
> come to mind); you
## Maarten de Vries ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> I could do with some hints regarding traffic shaping. My homenetwork is
> hooked up to an assymetrical (1536/256) ADSL line, using a FreeBSD 4.6
> system which provides the usual NAT/Gateway/Firewall services. I'm using
> dummynet to c
Hi all,
I could do with some hints regarding traffic shaping. My homenetwork is
hooked up to an assymetrical (1536/256) ADSL line, using a FreeBSD 4.6
system which provides the usual NAT/Gateway/Firewall services. I'm using
dummynet to control the amount of bandwidth used by certain hosts o
As much as I hate to toot my own horn, I'll do it. I've just published a
script for doing WF2Q+ traffic shaping at http://bsdvault.net. This
script may be overkill for what you need, but it could help you in other
ways and serve as an example of how to do implement traffic shaping.
20 matches
Mail list logo
