Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 07:03:43 -0600 From: eculp <eculp@encontacto.net> To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd-pf <freebsd-pf@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PF + ALTQ - Bandwidth per customer Message-ID: <20081202070343.34221p9405nzs76s@econet.encontacto.net> In-Reply-To: <20081202092204.GU51761@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <20081124180411.0b065be5@wolwerine> <705757.42117.qm@web38504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <11167f520812011508u46b04e7dmb1d5d22675dc778d@mail.gmail.com> <20081202075634.GT51761@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <4934F4F3.1030808@bsd.ee> <20081202092204.GU51761@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au>:
> On 2008-Dec-02 10:42:27 +0200, Andrei Kolu <antik@bsd.ee> wrote:
>>> That description sounds like it simplifies to "limit bandwidth based on
>>> IP address" - which is fairly trivial for ipfw+dummynet or pf+altq.
>>>
>> ipfw+dummynet is really ugly traffic "shaper" (let's face it there is no
>> shaping going on), because instead of limiting bandwidth it will drop
>> packets to simulate bad connection.
>
> I've been using ipfw+dummynet for traffic shaping for 7 or 8 years
> without problems (and have recently moved to pf+dummynet). I don't
> understand your comment about limiting bandwidth: An incoming packet
> is put on a queue that is emptied at no more than the (simulated)
> available outbound bandwidth. If the queue is full then incoming
> packets will be dropped. This is the same behaviour as any other
> router (or switch).
>
> What do you want/expect?
>
>> I hear many years about "trivial"
>> configuration per user bandwidth limit with pf+altq but never saw ANY
>> code...
>
> Note that I never mentioned per-user bandwidth with pf+altq - though
> it looks possible. There are some trivial traffic-shaping examples in
> pf.conf(5) but I will admit that I've never tried to actually use altq
> - I use dummynet because I need functionality that isn't present in
> altq.
I had forgotten that dummynet can be used with pf. Maybe i should =20
start this with a new subject but it is directly related in that I =20
need bandwidth control again that I don=B4t have since changing to pf.
o- What needs to be patched/done to make them work together
on Current and Releng?
o- Are you happier with the combination of dummynet with pf
than with IPFW?
DummyNet was one of the reasons that I was slow to leave IPFW.
Thanks and I am really not trying to hijack this thread, be glad to =20
start a new one.
ed
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20081202070343.34221p9405nzs76s>