From owner-freebsd-net Mon Nov 5 11:19: 4 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from silby.com (cb34181-a.mdsn1.wi.home.com [24.14.173.39]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2125637B419 for ; Mon, 5 Nov 2001 11:19:02 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 30409 invoked by uid 1000); 5 Nov 2001 19:19:00 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 5 Nov 2001 19:19:00 -0000 Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 13:19:00 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Silbersack To: Guido van Rooij Cc: Subject: Re: patch regarding icmp bandwidth limiting In-Reply-To: <20011105180418.A32828@gvr.gvr.org> Message-ID: <20011105131741.T29695-100000@achilles.silby.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Guido van Rooij wrote: > On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 10:23:42AM -0600, Mike Silbersack wrote: > > The first number is the rate at which the machine would be responding > > without limiting enabled. The second number tells you the rate at which > > it is responding. Changing from a pre to a post increment isn't going to > > change what you're seeing. > > > > I was thinking the same, but still the message puzzled me. > > How about changing it from: > Limiting icmp ping response to %d packet per second for %d received > > -Guido I'm not sure that's any more clear. If you can find a wording which is more clear for all the types of limiting, I'll be happy to commit it, but I don't think you're there yet. Mike "Silby" Silbersack To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message