From owner-freebsd-net Fri Sep 8 6:11:58 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from walhalla.sin.khk.be (ns.sin.khk.be [194.7.78.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 473F437B422 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 06:11:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (fatman@localhost) by walhalla.sin.khk.be (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA07883; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 15:11:53 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: walhalla.sin.khk.be: fatman owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 15:11:53 +0200 (CEST) From: Ramses Smeyers X-Sender: fatman@walhalla.sin.khk.be To: Paul Herman Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: useripacct In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hi, > Other than that, I can imagine an optional external daemon similar to > natd(8) which enforces network quotas via a "divert" ipfw rule. > Whether or not network quotas are a good thing(tm) is a whole other > question all together... :) first off all, I will certainly look up this stuff in the archives. Then second, it is a good things. Large shell servers, (we are speaking in the size of workspot and co), have to deal with 40k local users which are generating huge amounts of traffic. 'Some' of those users are not your average users ;), they generate a large amount of traffic and spoil the fun of the entire group. For those 100 users, you have to imply rules on all your users. So yes, this features does have a future and I would like to see this in the FreeBSD system, if you people don't like it, I just do it ;), ys, Ramses Smeyers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message