Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 24 Oct 2004 11:38:32 +0300
From:      Martes Wigglesworth <martes.wigglesworth@earthlink.net>
To:        Matej Puntar <matej.puntar@guest.arnes.si>
Cc:        ipfw-mailings <freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: advanced bandwidth limiting
Message-ID:  <1098607107.89582.26.camel@Mobile1.276NET>
In-Reply-To: <417B5950.9070403@guest.arnes.si>
References:  <417AC21F.1030905@guest.arnes.si> <417B5950.9070403@guest.arnes.si>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
Nope. This method escapes the "keep-state" trap, which runs the traffic
through twice, one up, and once down.  That is not desireable, since it
will limit a packet on the in recv, and out xmit stages.  I just use
explicit route definitions, to avoid this bottleneck, because it will
give the enduser half of the specified bandwidth, or in the worst case,
I have seen it devided by four.

Hope this helps.
-- 


M.G.W.
Wiggtekmicro, Corp.

System:
Asus M6N 
Intel Dothan 1.7
512MB RAM
40GB HD
10/100/1000 NIC
Wireless b/g (not working yet)
BSD-5.2.1
KDE-3.1.4



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1098607107.89582.26.camel>