From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 20 16:20:50 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55A8B16A41F for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:20:50 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from vladone@spaingsm.com) Received: from mail.spaingsm.com (llwb135.servidoresdns.net [217.76.137.82]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5E3243D48 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:20:49 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from vladone@spaingsm.com) Received: from xeon.mshome.net (unknown [84.243.99.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.spaingsm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69EB724C869 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 18:02:29 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:20:26 +0300 From: vladone X-Mailer: The Bat! (v3.0.1.33) Professional X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1135123196.20050920192026@spaingsm.com> To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <20050920152714.GF24643@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> References: <97663975.20050917141303@spaingsm.com> <20050919122154.GM51142@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <477488950.20050920130453@spaingsm.com> <20050920152714.GF24643@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re[2]: dummynet patch X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: vladone List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:20:50 -0000 I know what is WF2Q, but still dont see what is the problem for wich dont't exist a possibility to limit bandwidth that is given to a queue, with queue settings. And exist a precedent, "queue" paramater that exist for pipe and queue. For example, if a "bw" parameter is not used for queue, then bandwidth is given only acording with they weight, so use this option who want, like anothers parameters ("dst-ip, mask, queue, even weight"). And my suggestion isn't a caprice. For example: if i have multiple users, that acces internet throught an freebsd gateway. How split bandwidth? I have two clear solutions: 1. assign for each host an pipe. But i dont know if in this mode, in conditions of heavy traffic, bandwidth is well splited. Is possibil for an user to take more bandwidth (according with his pipe), and another user remain without bandwidth. 2. share total bandwidth, to different hosts, with queue. This is more efficient but have a little problem. If an user is alone on traffic can get all bandwith. For this reason, i want (and i think many admins) an possibility to limit bandwidth that is given to a queue. I don't think that passing packets to multiple pipe and queue is e efficiently for traffic flow. My sugestion about "bw" parameter for queue is only for convenience. U can named how you want, so i dont see problem about "... pipes and queues are two distinct objects which have different semantics."