From owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 26 06:22:11 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1D2416A4CE for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 06:22:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.gmx.net (pop.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EC4E643D2D for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 06:22:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from turbo23@gmx.net) Received: (qmail 9966 invoked by uid 65534); 26 Feb 2004 14:22:09 -0000 Received: from bert.mlan.solnet.ch (HELO bert.mlan.solnet.ch) (212.101.1.83) by mail.gmx.net (mp001) with SMTP; 26 Feb 2004 15:22:09 +0100 X-Authenticated: #627573 Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:22:00 +0100 From: Thomas Vogt To: "::::Carlos:::Ariel:::Canta::::::::" Message-Id: <20040226152200.4d3efb04@bert.mlan.solnet.ch> In-Reply-To: References: <20040226143350.24a35dc1@bert.mlan.solnet.ch> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.9claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd5.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: p2p traffic X-BeenThere: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Services Providers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:22:11 -0000 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::::::::" 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 > 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 >