From owner-freebsd-ipfw Thu Apr 4 10:42:39 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Received: from mailgw3a.lmco.com (mailgw3a.lmco.com [192.35.35.24]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EAC237B417 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 10:42:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from emss01g01.ems.lmco.com ([129.197.181.54]) by mailgw3a.lmco.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g34IgT529419; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 13:42:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON by lmco.com (PMDF V5.2-33 #38886) id <0GU200J013YQBQ@lmco.com>; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 10:42:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from lmco.com ([129.197.20.43]) by lmco.com (PMDF V5.2-33 #38886) with ESMTP id <0GU200IDN3YOCT@lmco.com>; Thu, 04 Apr 2002 10:42:24 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 10:39:21 -0800 From: rick norman Subject: Re: dummynet pipes To: Luigi Rizzo Cc: Alex , freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Message-id: <3CAC9DD9.4F136FF2@lmco.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (WinNT; U) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en References: <3CAA0C05.5062D5A7@lmco.com> <20020402120303.A87723@iguana.icir.org> <3CAA5615.21490755@lmco.com> <1182697969.20020403114246@dds.nl> <20020403015059.A92886@iguana.icir.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Thanks for the efforts to clarify. It is still not quite there though. If I create a pipe via 'ipfw add pipe n from any to any', I get both a rule and a pipe. If I then do 'ipfw pipe flush', from what you said, the pipe goes away but the rule remains, just dumping the pkts since the pipe is gone. ' ipfw list' looks the same before and after the pipe flush. How does one detect the difference ? 'ipfw pipe list' doesn't show me anything before or after, 'ipfw list' shows me the same list before and after. Rick Norman Luigi Rizzo wrote: > While I appreciate the attitude to help, how about trying things > before mailing out incorrect explainations ? > > You do not need to remove the rule before the pipe, because enforcing > this would be a nightmare when you want to reconfigure pipes or > in general your ipfw configuration. > > Instead, you can have rules which point to non-existing pipes (which > can be a temporary or permanent condition). When such a rule matches, > and the pipe is not existing, the packet is just dropped. > > cheers > luigi > > On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 11:42:46AM +0200, Alex wrote: > .... > > Consider something like this: > > > > ipfw pipe 1 config bw 100kb/s > > ipfw pipe 2 config bw 200kb/s > > ipfw add 100 pipe 1 ip from any to any > > > > A pipe gets connected to ip-packets via rules. In this case you may > > need to remove the rule before you remove the pipe because of the > > dependency between them. > > > > 1) ipfw pipe flush > > 2) ipfw flush > > 3) ipfw pipe flush > > > > 1) Pipe 1 still has a dependency. So you should be only able to remove > > pipe 2, as this isn't connected to anything > > 2) This will remove all rules, thus removing the connections between > > all pipes. > > 3) This will remove any remaining pipes. This could also be done at > > 2 if ipfw remembers you want to remove the pipes. > > > > I didn't try this out, it just seem logical to me this way. I hope > > this is any help. > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Alex mailto:freebsd@akruijff.dds.nl > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > > with "unsubscribe freebsd-ipfw" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ipfw" in the body of the message