From owner-freebsd-questions Tue May 15 23:37:48 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from dan.emsphone.com (dan.emsphone.com [199.67.51.101]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07DCA37B42C; Tue, 15 May 2001 23:37:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dan@dan.emsphone.com) Received: (from dan@localhost) by dan.emsphone.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f4G6bGo04788; Wed, 16 May 2001 01:37:16 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from dan) Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 01:37:16 -0500 From: Dan Nelson To: "Patrick O'Reilly" Cc: ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG, Holtor , questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bandwidth Limiting per IP Message-ID: <20010516013716.B26749@dan.emsphone.com> References: <20010516024156.89744.qmail@web11604.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.17i In-Reply-To: ; from "Patrick O'Reilly" on Wed May 16 08:29:46 GMT 2001 X-OS: FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In the last episode (May 16), Patrick O'Reilly said: > Your conclusion is correct - you do need a pipe for each IP with > 100kbit per pipe. If you only have 1 pipe then all the IPS will > SHARE the 100 kbit, which is not what you want. Actually, you can get away with one pipe, but use the pipe mask keyword to tell the pipe code to count each internal IP separately. See the bottom of the the ipfw manpage; there is an example that does almost exactly what you're asking, I think. -- Dan Nelson dnelson@emsphone.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message