Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:17:47 +0200 From: jeremie le-hen <le-hen_j@epita.fr> To: Corey Frang <gnarf@gnarf.net> Cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Using IPFW as a traffic limiting solution? Message-ID: <20030731201747.GD17861@carpediem.epita.fr> In-Reply-To: <EB66DF04-B5A3-11D7-A7E1-0003937C4FC4@gnarf.net> References: <EB66DF04-B5A3-11D7-A7E1-0003937C4FC4@gnarf.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> A) I want to be able to INSURE bandwidth without limiting it in dead > times. In other words, 10.1.0.0/16 should be able to always have > 250kbit/sec available, but if noone else is using bandwidth, allow it > to go as high as possible. AFAIK, dummynet(4) is not able to achieve this kind of requiements : you can set a higher threshold for traffic speed, you can prioritize traffic, but ensuring a minimum bandwidth is not possible. But Luigi will maybe stick out from his hat a cunning way to achieve this kind of stuff... ;-) Otherwise, ALTQ in conjunction with IPFilter will certainly be your friend, but I'm not aware of any documentation on this. > B) I want to be able to mark some clients as always limited. dummynet(4) is perfect for this. > C) I want to be able to set up multiple "classes" (right now using > 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, etc) with their own insurance on bandwidth. See the "mask" keyword in DUMMYNET part from ipfw(8) manpage. -- Jeremie aka TtZ/TataZ jeremie.le-hen@epita.fr
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030731201747.GD17861>