Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 15:12:44 +0200 From: G Bryant <bsd@roamingsolutions.net> To: AT Matik <asstec@matik.com.br>, freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: Re: route selection and ipfw forwarding Message-ID: <43B926CC.6080101@roamingsolutions.net> In-Reply-To: <43B921A9.7070109@roamingsolutions.net> References: <43B875FD.6000102@gmail.com> <43B8D510.2010908@gmail.com> <43B8EF40.7020508@roamingsolutions.net> <200601021020.14349.asstec@matik.com.br> <43B921A9.7070109@roamingsolutions.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
AT Matik wrote: >On Monday 02 January 2006 07:15, G Bryant wrote: > > ># Users with 512Kb / 256Kb access (in) >$cmd 4200 pipe 10 ip from any to $u512k in via $ext_if1 >$bwm 10 config mask dst-ip 0x000000ff bw 512Kbit/s queue 4KBytes ># Users with 256Kb / 128Kb access >$cmd pipe 20 ip from any to $u256k in via $ext_if1 > > > >I was wondering how do you pipe rfc1918 on the outside of a natd router for >incoming traffic > >Joćo > > > > > My external interface is connected to a DSL modem which also nats. > Gray >_______________________________________________ >freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org mailing list >http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw >To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ipfw-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > > > Let me explain more clearly: I used the different groups (e.g. $u512k) to split the internal IP range into IP groups that get different bandwidth according to personal preference or whatever. Currently it is not being used as the whole range is being covered by the $u256k group. i.e. I gave everyone 256k bandwidth. So yes - those rules are currently senseless. Gray
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43B926CC.6080101>