Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 10:39:21 -0800 From: rick norman <rick.norman@lmco.com> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> Cc: Alex <freebsd-reply@akruijff.dds.nl>, freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: dummynet pipes Message-ID: <3CAC9DD9.4F136FF2@lmco.com> References: <3CAA0C05.5062D5A7@lmco.com> <20020402120303.A87723@iguana.icir.org> <3CAA5615.21490755@lmco.com> <1182697969.20020403114246@dds.nl> <20020403015059.A92886@iguana.icir.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thanks for the efforts to clarify. It is still not quite there though. If I create a pipe via 'ipfw add pipe n from any to any', I get both a rule and a pipe. If I then do 'ipfw pipe flush', from what you said, the pipe goes away but the rule remains, just dumping the pkts since the pipe is gone. ' ipfw list' looks the same before and after the pipe flush. How does one detect the difference ? 'ipfw pipe list' doesn't show me anything before or after, 'ipfw list' shows me the same list before and after. Rick Norman Luigi Rizzo wrote: > While I appreciate the attitude to help, how about trying things > before mailing out incorrect explainations ? > > You do not need to remove the rule before the pipe, because enforcing > this would be a nightmare when you want to reconfigure pipes or > in general your ipfw configuration. > > Instead, you can have rules which point to non-existing pipes (which > can be a temporary or permanent condition). When such a rule matches, > and the pipe is not existing, the packet is just dropped. > > cheers > luigi > > On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 11:42:46AM +0200, Alex wrote: > .... > > Consider something like this: > > > > ipfw pipe 1 config bw 100kb/s > > ipfw pipe 2 config bw 200kb/s > > ipfw add 100 pipe 1 ip from any to any > > > > A pipe gets connected to ip-packets via rules. In this case you may > > need to remove the rule before you remove the pipe because of the > > dependency between them. > > > > 1) ipfw pipe flush > > 2) ipfw flush > > 3) ipfw pipe flush > > > > 1) Pipe 1 still has a dependency. So you should be only able to remove > > pipe 2, as this isn't connected to anything > > 2) This will remove all rules, thus removing the connections between > > all pipes. > > 3) This will remove any remaining pipes. This could also be done at > > 2 if ipfw remembers you want to remove the pipes. > > > > I didn't try this out, it just seem logical to me this way. I hope > > this is any help. > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Alex mailto:freebsd@akruijff.dds.nl > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > > with "unsubscribe freebsd-ipfw" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ipfw" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3CAC9DD9.4F136FF2>