From owner-freebsd-isp  Thu Jun  5 03:54:58 1997
Return-Path: <owner-isp>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id DAA07655
          for isp-outgoing; Thu, 5 Jun 1997 03:54:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stingray.ivision.co.uk (stingray.ivision.co.uk [194.154.62.72])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id DAA07649
          for <freebsd-isp@freebsd.org>; Thu, 5 Jun 1997 03:54:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stingray.ivision.co.uk [194.154.62.72] 
	by stingray.ivision.co.uk with smtp (Exim 0.53 #1)
	id E0wZaBP-0004XO-00; Thu, 5 Jun 1997 11:54:19 +0100
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 11:54:19 +0100 (BST)
From: Manar Hussain <manar@ivision.co.uk>
To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ETinc's Bandwidth limiter
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.93.970605115357.25125g-100000@stingray.ivision.co.uk>
Organisation: Internet Vision
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-isp@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>Please try ftp.hilink.com.au:/pub/FreeBSD/bandd.tgz and let me know what 
>you think.  It requires FreeBSD 2.2 with IPFIREWALL IPDIVERT options.
>
>There is no documentation.

code looks straight forward enough. It doesn't allow for burstability
though ... might not be too hard to add in and it would be nice to be using
something we have the source for rather than a commercial binary ...

Anyone got any views about bandd versus emerging technology's product?
Guess we should have a good play over the w/e to at least get a good idea
of the installation/features if not performance ober time / under load.

Manar