From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Feb 14 09:44:25 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 450B016A4CE
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 09:44:25 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from postfix3-2.free.fr (postfix3-2.free.fr [213.228.0.169])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5CE943D1F
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 09:44:24 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from tataz@tataz.chchile.org)
Received: from tatooine.tataz.chchile.org
	(vol75-8-82-233-239-98.fbx.proxad.net [82.233.239.98])
	by postfix3-2.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7659FC0CF;
	Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:44:22 +0100 (CET)
Received: by tatooine.tataz.chchile.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id D7498407C; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:43:53 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:43:53 +0100
From: Jeremie Le Hen <jeremie@le-hen.org>
To: David Gilbert <dgilbert@dclg.ca>
Message-ID: <20050214094353.GX82324@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org>
References: <16911.51264.86063.604597@canoe.dclg.ca>
	<200502140157.36085.max@love2party.net>
	<16912.11613.216501.589279@canoe.dclg.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <16912.11613.216501.589279@canoe.dclg.ca>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.7i
cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: altq for vlans?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 09:44:25 -0000

> Anyways, the _real_ problem is that traditionally, I'd used firewall
> rules for accounting as well as security.  To that end, labels are
> very cool.  However, they have one rather large defect:
> 
> If you're dealing with keep state rules, there seems to be no obvious
> way to account for incoming vs. outgoing traffic.  The label only
> reports total traffic for the state matching the rule... which is both
> in and out.

This is a workaround, but I found that ipfw's count rules are pretty
useful for this purpose.  This would however add processing overhead
for each packet especially using gigabit Ethernet.

Regards,
-- 
Jeremie Le Hen
jeremie at le-hen dot org