Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 16 Aug 2003 02:58:12 -0700
From:      Luigi Rizzo <>
To:        Peter Losher <>
Subject:   Re: piping killing performance on 5.1-REL-p2
Message-ID:  <>
In-Reply-To: <>; from on Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 01:16:21AM -0700
References:  <>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
well... i don't understand what do you think is wrong here.

A 64-byte (512 bits) packet in a 10Kbit/s pipe will take roughly 50ms
to go through, and this is exactly what you are reporting.~

I suspect your 4.x configuration was not passing the packets
through the pipe and/or had the bandwidth configured differently.

[As an aside, by using "mask src-ip 0xffffffff" you are basically
making yourself a wonderful candidate for DoS attacks as
any IP will create a new pipe. I'd rather have one pipe (or a small
number of pipes) for outsider and if someone is saturating them
you'll still be able to provide service inside.


On Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 01:16:21AM -0700, Peter Losher wrote:
> Hi - 
> On several of our servers that provide name service to the local network, 
> we normally have pipes in our ipfw/ipfw2 rules as such:
> add     pipe 1          udp     from any to any 53 in
> pipe 1  config  mask src-ip 0xffffffff buckets 1024 bw 10Kbit/s queue 3
> add     pipe 2          tcp     from any to any 53 in
> pipe 2  config  mask src-ip 0xffffffff buckets 1024 bw 100Kbit/s queue 3
> to make sure outsiders don't slam us too hard, etc... This setup has worked 
> fine for us in the past under 4.x, but we have now turned up our first 
> 5.1-REL box (5.1-REL-p2 to be exact) and while the pipes work, they are 
> killing the response times.  dig queries that normally take a couple of 
> milliseconds from another host on the same subnet now take 40-50 
> milliseconds.  Remove the rules, and the response time goes back 
> down to a couple of milliseconds.   Note that this same configuration on a 
> 4.x system shows very little degradation with the pipes on-line.
> Has the syntax changed between ipfw and ipfw2, and have others experienced 
> this "slowness" issue.  (I looked in the archives beforehand)
> Best Wishes - Peter
> -- 
> | ISC | OpenPGP 0xE8048D08 | "The bits must flow"
> _______________________________________________
> mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to ""

Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>