From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 2 13:37:03 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 C2E6D16A41F for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2006 13:37:03 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bsd@roamingsolutions.net) Received: from basillia.speedxs.net (basillia.speedxs.net [83.98.255.13]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA84F43D49 for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2006 13:37:02 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bsd@roamingsolutions.net) Received: from ongers.net (ongers.speedxs.nl [83.98.237.210]) by basillia.speedxs.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D03E7603B; Mon, 2 Jan 2006 14:19:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from (165.146.229.241 [165.146.229.241]) by MailEnable Inbound Mail Agent with ESMTP; Mon, 02 Jan 2006 14:45:35 +0100 Message-ID: <43B92D07.9010203@roamingsolutions.net> Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 15:39:19 +0200 From: G Bryant User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: AT Matik , freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org References: <43B875FD.6000102@gmail.com> <43B921A9.7070109@roamingsolutions.net> <43B926CC.6080101@roamingsolutions.net> <200601021121.49433.asstec@matik.com.br> In-Reply-To: <200601021121.49433.asstec@matik.com.br> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0552-4, 2005/12/30), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: 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 13:37:03 -0000 AT Matik wrote: 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 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 natd IF/address (outside IP) so if you do bw control for inside IPs you must do it on the inside interface Joćo Thank you for your input, but this setup is currently working correctly. This is a bit off the original topic though. Do you have any specific questions I can help you with?