From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jan 21 21:51:32 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 5E3F516A4CE; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:51:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [216.240.41.2])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 5EB5A43D1D; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:51:31 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com)
Received: from apollo.backplane.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	i0M5pV82018500;	Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:51:31 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com)
Received: (from dillon@localhost)
	by apollo.backplane.com (8.12.9p2/8.12.9/Submit) id i0M5pUdE018499;
	Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:51:30 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from dillon)
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:51:30 -0800 (PST)
From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>
Message-Id: <200401220551.i0M5pUdE018499@apollo.backplane.com>
To: "Daniel O'Connor" <doconnor@gsoft.com.au>,
	freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org, Ganbold <ganbold@micom.mng.net>,
	freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
References: <6.0.1.1.2.20040122120552.0293bd20@202.179.0.80>
	<200401220546.i0M5kkPf018458@apollo.backplane.com>
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 05:51:32 -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

    Cripes, wrong again.  Batting 0 tonight!

    It does understand 'by', so it will do 'kbytes' or 'kBytes' or
    'KBytes' properly.  It doesn't understand 'KBits'.... it will
    think 'KBits' are actually KBytes.  It also has no clue about
    MBits... it will think that means MBytes.

    The code is aweful.  I think I'm going to rewrite it for DFly.

						-Matt