From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 14 13:19:27 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59E9B16A4CE for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:19:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw.dgrp.sk (mailgw.dgrp.sk [195.28.127.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21E6243D41 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:19:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from koren@tempest.sk) Received: by mailgw.dgrp.sk (Postfix, from userid 1003) id 0FD854FDA0; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:19:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from domino1.tempest.sk (unknown [195.28.100.38]) by mailgw.dgrp.sk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CBB54FD9F; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:19:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from lk106.tempest.sk ([195.28.109.36]) by domino1.tempest.sk (Lotus Domino Release 6.5.1IF1) with ESMTP id 2004041422192291-1370 ; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:19:22 +0200 Received: from lk106.tempest.sk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lk106.tempest.sk (8.12.10/8.12.5) with ESMTP id i3EKJFBp081501; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:19:15 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from koren@lk106.tempest.sk) Received: (from koren@localhost) by lk106.tempest.sk (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i3EKJEmT081498; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:19:14 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from koren) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:19:14 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <200404142019.i3EKJEmT081498@lk106.tempest.sk> From: Ludo Koren To: tscrum@aaawebsolution.com In-reply-to: <001201c4223f$ad443930$6466a8c0@wolf> (tscrum@aaawebsolution.com) X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on Domino1/DGRP(Release 6.5.1IF1|March 16, 2004) at 14.04.2004 22:19:23,at 14.04.2004 22:19:24, Serialize complete at 14.04.2004 22:19:24 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.61 (1.212.2.1-2003-12-09-exp) on mailgw X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.61 X-Spam-Level: cc: ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: Re: limiting bandwith X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 20:19:27 -0000 > Using keep-state "is" the most efficient way to do it. The > config that I sent would still allow smtp and pop through, but > limited as to the weight of the queue. Maybe I am > misunderstanding what you are saying. > Are you saying that the mail is traversing unabated by the > ruleset? No. It seems, when I am using the rule with keep-state flag, each packet is counted twice. So if I set bw to 256Kbit/s, I get only 128Kbit/s. Luigi wrote, in keep-state rules there are not valid in, out, xmit, rule flags, if I understood him correctly... Regards, lk