From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Apr 14 13:38:30 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 A964D16A4CE
	for <ipfw@freebsd.org>; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:38:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xorpc.icir.org (xorpc.icir.org [192.150.187.68])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B50A43D39
	for <ipfw@freebsd.org>; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:38:30 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from rizzo@icir.org)
Received: from xorpc.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.9p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i3EKcSgd016118;
	Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:38:28 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from rizzo@xorpc.icir.org)
Received: (from rizzo@localhost)
	by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.9p1/8.12.3/Submit) id i3EKcS0E016117;
	Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:38:28 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from rizzo)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:38:28 -0700
From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org>
To: Ludo Koren <lk@tempest.sk>
Message-ID: <20040414133828.A16025@xorpc.icir.org>
References: <001201c4223f$ad443930$6466a8c0@wolf>
	<200404142019.i3EKJEmT081498@lk106.tempest.sk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
In-Reply-To: <200404142019.i3EKJEmT081498@lk106.tempest.sk>;
	from lk@tempest.sk on Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 10:19:14PM +0200
cc: ipfw@freebsd.org
cc: tscrum@aaawebsolution.com
Subject: Re: limiting bandwith
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions <freebsd-ipfw.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ipfw>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 20:38:30 -0000

On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 10:19:14PM +0200, Ludo Koren wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>      > 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...

i said a different thing, please re-read my msg carefully.

and i am done with this thread, sorry!
luigi