Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 12:15:44 -0500 From: Brian Fundakowski Feldman <green@freebsd.org> To: Marko Cuk <cuk@cuk.nu> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Tun and ALTQ Message-ID: <20051108171544.GI37350@green.homeunix.org> In-Reply-To: <4370AA76.8000309@cuk.nu> References: <436FDC90.3020108@cuk.nu> <20051108013645.GE37350@green.homeunix.org> <4370AA76.8000309@cuk.nu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 02:39:02PM +0100, Marko Cuk wrote: > It seems that it work. Thanks. > > Damn, for vlan's ( 802.1Q) you should specify "em", for "tun", vice > versa... what a mess, hehe. No prob; I don't see why using the em(4) backing the tun(4) wouldn't work for ALTQ _IF_ you actually tagged the (PPPoE?) traffic on em(4). I think that might be really hard, though, so for ALTQ you should probably just specify the "logical" interface that you intend to limit (that would be the IP tun(4) rather than the PPPoE em(4)). Do you have suggestion on what would be good text to go into pf.conf(5) so that this particular case is documented? -- Brian Fundakowski Feldman \'[ FreeBSD ]''''''''''\ <> green@FreeBSD.org \ The Power to Serve! \ Opinions expressed are my own. \,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051108171544.GI37350>