Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 16:19:57 +0300 From: Nikos Vassiliadis <nvass@teledomenet.gr> To: Norberto Meijome <freebsd@meijome.net> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Packet loss simulation with ALTQ Message-ID: <200609201619.57845.nvass@teledomenet.gr> In-Reply-To: <20060920225010.3eec8ef7@localhost> References: <20060920012401.3cfbb715@localhost> <200609201420.19407.nvass@teledomenet.gr> <20060920225010.3eec8ef7@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 15:50, Norberto Meijome wrote: > gotcha, so i may end up using 2 firewalls anyway... :-) I think I may go > with ipfw and dummynet to keep it to one set.... I'll have to read on some > comparisons before making up my mind... Perhaps you can combine ipfw/dummynet and pf/ALTQ. I know for sure that you can use pf and ipfw at the same time. The filtering is done in a serial way(packets that are allowed through the first packet filter, go through the second etc). You can load the modules in any order you like and this will be the order packets flow through the packet filters... Don't know if that's the case with dummynet and ALTQ... Also, ipfw can "inject" packets to altq. You still have to use pf for setting up the queues. HTH, Nikos
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200609201619.57845.nvass>