From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 2 13:21:59 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 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 0A63816A41F for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2006 13:21:59 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from asstec@matik.com.br) Received: from msrv.matik.com.br (msrv.matik.com.br [200.152.83.14]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3C8643D5E for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2006 13:21:55 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from asstec@matik.com.br) Received: from anb (anb.matik.com.br [200.152.83.34]) by msrv.matik.com.br (8.13.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k02DLtrw070575 for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2006 11:21:55 -0200 (BRST) (envelope-from asstec@matik.com.br) From: AT Matik Organization: Infomatik To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 11:21:49 -0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.3 References: <43B875FD.6000102@gmail.com> <43B921A9.7070109@roamingsolutions.net> <43B926CC.6080101@roamingsolutions.net> In-Reply-To: <43B926CC.6080101@roamingsolutions.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200601021121.49433.asstec@matik.com.br> X-Filter-Version: 1.11a (msrv.matik.com.br) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.86.2, clamav-milter version 0.86 on msrv.matik.com.br X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: route selection and ipfw forwarding X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 13:21:59 -0000 On Monday 02 January 2006 11:12, G Bryant wrote: > I used the different groups (e.g. $u512k) to split the internal IP range > into IP groups that get different bandwidth according to personal > preference or whatever. > Currently it is not being used as the whole range is being covered by > the $u256k group. i.e. I gave everyone 256k bandwidth. > So yes - those rules are currently senseless. > none of your bw rules are having any effect because the related IPs do not= =20 exist on you external/outside interface of the server you divert them so any of the internal IP is reperesented by the IP of the= =20 natd IF/address (outside IP) so if you do bw control for inside IPs you must do it on the inside interfa= ce Jo=E3o A mensagem foi scaneada pelo sistema de e-mail e pode ser considerada segura. Service fornecido pelo Datacenter Matik https://datacenter.matik.com.br