From owner-freebsd-current Mon Apr 27 03:33:48 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA09476 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 03:33:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from firewall.ftf.dk (root@mail.ftf.dk [129.142.64.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id DAA09469 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 03:33:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from regnauld@deepo.prosa.dk) Received: from mail.prosa.dk ([192.168.100.2]) by firewall.ftf.dk (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA20117; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 14:30:25 +0200 Received: from deepo.prosa.dk (deepo.prosa.dk [192.168.100.10]) by mail.prosa.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5/prosa-1.1) with ESMTP id MAA06216; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 12:53:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from regnauld@localhost) by deepo.prosa.dk (8.8.7/8.8.5/prosa-1.1) id MAA16259; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 12:32:13 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <19980427123213.48494@deepo.prosa.dk> Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 12:32:13 +0200 From: Philippe Regnauld To: Luigi Rizzo Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bandwidth throttling etc. References: <199804221213.VAA28109@hotaka.csl.sony.co.jp> <199804270809.KAA24661@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mutt 0.88e In-Reply-To: <199804270809.KAA24661@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>; from Luigi Rizzo on Mon, Apr 27, 1998 at 10:09:40AM +0200 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 2.2.5-RELEASE i386 Organization: PROSA Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Luigi Rizzo writes: > > $fwcmd add pipe 4 tcp from any to ${ip} 80 > $fwcmd add pipe 5 tcp from ${ip} 80 to any > > $fwcmd pipe 4 configure bandwidth 64k buffers 10 delay 400ms > $fwcmd pipe 5 configure bandwidth 128k buffers 10 delay 200ms The "pipe" notion is very interesting. It's very much like a flow -- that would make FW rule writing much easier. > i.e. the "pipe X" option acts much like a divert, only difference > is that packets are passed to the specified "pipe" which is > configurable in bandwidth, buffers and delay. Yes! I like this very much. We would then be able to have "flows" from one point to another, and to control their max. throughput -- what about "garanteed" or minimum bandwidth ? For example, I use V/IP (voice over IP cards) running on UDP, and the software relies on the intermediate routers supporting RSVP in case the traffic gets heavy. A workaround was to hardwire the port numbers and "reserve" them in the 3Com routers -- but this is static approach... -- -[ Philippe Regnauld / sysadmin / regnauld@deepo.prosa.dk / +55.4N +11.3E ]- «Pluto placed his bad dog at the entrance of Hades to keep the dead IN and the living OUT! The archetypical corporate firewall?» - S. Kelly Bootle To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message