From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Nov 19 04:52:56 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id EAA02861 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 04:52:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from veda.is (ubiq.veda.is [193.4.230.60]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id EAA02848 for ; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 04:52:51 -0800 (PST) Received: (from adam@localhost) by veda.is (8.8.3/8.7.3) id MAA03409; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 12:53:42 GMT From: Adam David Message-Id: <199611191253.MAA03409@veda.is> Subject: Re: split speed sio port? In-Reply-To: <199611190823.SAA28360@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> from Michael Smith at "Nov 19, 96 06:53:48 pm" To: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au (Michael Smith) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 12:53:40 +0000 (GMT) Cc: davidn@blaze.net.au, hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL28 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > Adam David stands accused of saying: > > > > Will FreeBSD allow this scenario currently? :) > > (I know, I know. Try it and see ;) Mike Smith says: > Why do people keep trying to do bandwidth-throttling with hardware? It's > far too much of a pain in the backside! > > Use the spiffo 'divert socket' stuff and write a management program that > tracks how much data it has forwarded for each of the classes in a given > period. This gives you total flexibility, and saves us from trying to > second-guess harebrained ideas 8) This is all very well, but when upstream is not (yet?) willing to implement such measures themselves and will not trust software that is located outside of their direct control, one has to make do with what is available. Of course, a proven product might catch their interest in terms of suitability. -- Adam David