Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 18:18:58 -0500 From: "Travis H." <solinym@gmail.com> To: "Adam Clark" <adam.clark@ngv.vic.gov.au> Cc: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ALTQ on a process on the router Message-ID: <d4f1333a0607121618i2b54a54cva48b186f45a41042@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <ACEAA9DD35C4EE4E93ED9553B193E70C67BBB2@TITIAN.boh.ngv.local> References: <ACEAA9DD35C4EE4E93ED9553B193E70C67BBB2@TITIAN.boh.ngv.local>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 7/12/06, Adam Clark <adam.clark@ngv.vic.gov.au> wrote: > I want to make bittorrent lowest priority traffic. > > It's a shame that you cant do inbound queuing, to implement rate > limiting there. Deja vu. While I didn't think about TCP window size modulation, the canonical answer to this is that there are no queues on inbound packets because the processor processes them immediately. Certainly with UDP traffic, which bittorrent now uses, there's virtually no point. Dropping the inbound packets will not help keep your WAN link from saturating, because they've already passed through it, and apart maybe from ICMP source quench, there's no mechanism for rate limiting the remote peers. -- Resolve is what distinguishes a person who has failed from a failure. Unix "guru" for sale or rent - http://www.lightconsulting.com/~travis/ -><- GPG fingerprint: 9D3F 395A DAC5 5CCC 9066 151D 0A6B 4098 0C55 1484
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?d4f1333a0607121618i2b54a54cva48b186f45a41042>