From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Aug 15 18:37:55 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9C7E16A4CE for ; Sun, 15 Aug 2004 18:37:55 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mproxy.gmail.com (mproxy.gmail.com [216.239.56.243]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A941B43D31 for ; Sun, 15 Aug 2004 18:37:55 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from galaxy.ranger@gmail.com) Received: by mproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id x17so16333cwb for ; Sun, 15 Aug 2004 11:37:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.11.120.63 with SMTP id s63mr70816cwc; Sun, 15 Aug 2004 11:31:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4a1299a4040815113178caa332@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 11:31:07 -0700 From: Fargo Holiday To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <20040815104243.GA43915@shellma.zin.lublin.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable References: <4a1299a404081414287a9ecbc@mail.gmail.com> <20040815104243.GA43915@shellma.zin.lublin.pl> Subject: Re: [FreeBSD 5.2] Bandwith and packet throttling X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Fargo Holiday List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 18:37:55 -0000 On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 12:42:43 +0200, Pawel Malachowski wrote: > On Sat, Aug 14, 2004 at 02:28:36PM -0700, Fargo Holiday wrote: >=20 > > Here are the rules I've been trying, let me know if this not correct: > > > > ipfw pipe 1 config bw 50Kbit/s queue 10 delay 2000ms #outbound > > ipfw pipe 2 config bw 150Kbit/s queue 10 delay 2000ms #inbound > > ipfw add deny icmp from any to any >=20 > Blocking all ICMP traffic is a Very Bad Thing. >=20 > > ipfw add pipe 1 all from 10.0.0.8 to any > > ipfw add pipe 2 all from any to 10.0.0.8 > > > > The painful delay was to test if the pipes were actually working, but > > never seemed to make a difference. >=20 > Try: > ipfw show > ipfw pipe show 1 > ipfw pipe show 2 > and look at counters. >=20 > -- > Pawe=C5=82 Ma=C5=82achowski >=20 Thanks for the reply. The ICMP was more experiment than anything, I've sinced removed it. Here are the results of the show commands: cramster# ipfw show 00050 14819576 8458459132 divert 8668 ip from any to any via dc0 00100 250 32470 allow ip from any to any via lo0 00200 0 0 deny ip from any to 127.0.0.0/8 00300 0 0 deny ip from 127.0.0.0/8 to any 65000 44478701 31835950367 allow ip from any to any 65100 0 0 pipe 1 ip from 10.0.0.8 to any 65200 0 0 pipe 2 ip from any to 10.0.0.8 65535 0 0 deny ip from any to any cramster# ipfw pipe show 1 00001: 50.000 Kbit/s 2000 ms 10 sl. 0 queues (1 buckets) droptail mask: 0x00 0x00000000/0x0000 -> 0x00000000/0x0000 cramster# ipfw pipe show 2 00002: 150.000 Kbit/s 2000 ms 10 sl. 0 queues (1 buckets) droptail mask: 0x00 0x00000000/0x0000 -> 0x00000000/0x0000 Are those masks valid? Do I need to configure a queue explicitly before passing these commands? Thanks again, Fargo