Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:22:00 +0100 From: Thomas Vogt <turbo23@gmx.net> To: "::::Carlos:::Ariel:::Canta::::::::" <admin@redy.net.ar> Cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: p2p traffic Message-ID: <20040226152200.4d3efb04@bert.mlan.solnet.ch> In-Reply-To: <opr3zct8m5g5bkrx@smtp.redynet.com.ar> References: <20040226143350.24a35dc1@bert.mlan.solnet.ch> <opr3zct8m5g5bkrx@smtp.redynet.com.ar>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Carlos Thats sounds nice. But as far as I know Altq does not work with our intel gigabit ethernet cards (em0). But thanks for your information. regards Thomas On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:52:46 -0300 "::::Carlos:::Ariel:::Canta::::::::" <admin@redy.net.ar> wrote: > I'm work in a ISP in Argentina, and we limit the P2p traffic with a > FreeBSD 4.8+bridge+altq. It a very good solution for us. > > > Carlos Canta > > On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:33:50 +0100, Thomas Vogt <turbo23@gmx.net> > wrote: > > > Hello > > > > I'm thinking about the p2p network problem. P2p creates a lot of > > traffic. I don't care if my backbone is full but not only with p2p > > traffic. Atm I do some queueing with dummynet for the well known p2p > > ports. But this looks not sufficient. Is there another, perhaps > > better solution to decrease the p2p traffic? Blocking is no > > alternative. Another problem is that new p2p clients uses port 80. > > So it's very difficult to reconize the p2p traffic. > > > > regards > > Thomas Vogt > > _______________________________________________ > > freebsd-isp@freebsd.org mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-isp > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > > "freebsd-isp-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > > > > > -- > Carlos Ariel Canta > Dto. Tecnico Redynet S.R.L >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040226152200.4d3efb04>