Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 21:15:59 -0400 From: "Allen Smith" <easmith@beatrice.rutgers.edu> To: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>, kev@lab321.ru (Eugeny Kuzakov) Cc: mike@smith.net.au, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, ipfilter@postbox.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Packet/traffic shapper ? Message-ID: <9809192115.ZM18727@beatrice.rutgers.edu> In-Reply-To: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> "Re: Packet/traffic shapper ?" (Sep 12, 9:46pm) References: <199809121124.NAA20742@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sep 12, 9:46pm, Luigi Rizzo (possibly) wrote: > shouldn't take too much to patch ipfilter to return a different action > than pass/drop and thus cause packets to be passed through the > bw limiter. I've taken a look at getting ALTQ and ipfilter to work together. However, the most obvious way to get ipfilter to interface with ALTQ (namely, having ipfilter figure out under which ALTQ class packets should go, so that you're not examining the packets twice) unfortunately has the problem that the ALTQ classes are only distinguished via a human-comprehensible form (numbering) until they go into the kernel; they're then no longer numbered. Otherwise, you could just have an ipfilter action to put them into the appropriate class via an added mbuf field or whatever. -Allen -- Allen Smith easmith@beatrice.rutgers.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9809192115.ZM18727>