From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jan 21 21:46:49 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 054F716A4CE; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:46:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [216.240.41.2])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 1646943D2F; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:46:48 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com)
Received: from apollo.backplane.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	i0M5kl82018461;	Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:46:47 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com)
Received: (from dillon@localhost)
	by apollo.backplane.com (8.12.9p2/8.12.9/Submit) id i0M5kkPf018458;
	Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:46:46 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from dillon)
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:46:46 -0800 (PST)
From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>
Message-Id: <200401220546.i0M5kkPf018458@apollo.backplane.com>
To: "Daniel O'Connor" <doconnor@gsoft.com.au>
References: <6.0.1.1.2.20040122120552.0293bd20@202.179.0.80>
	<200401221512.49260.doconnor@gsoft.com.au>
cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
cc: Ganbold <ganbold@micom.mng.net>
cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Bandwidth limiting for eMule ports
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: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 05:46:49 -0000


    Oops... sorry, I gave bad advise.  I'm looking at the code.  It recognizes
    'K' or 'k' so your specification was right.  It's the 'b' verses 'B' that
    it's sensitive to, so if you say:  kbytes/sec it will think it's kbits/sec,
    and if you say kBits/sec it will think it's kBytes/sec.  

    One thing I have noticed, however, is that the ipfw pipes seem rather
    sensitive to configuration changes, especially if there are packets
    already in the pipe.  I've never been able to pin it down.

						-Matt