Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 00:15:34 +0100 From: "Rogier R. Mulhuijzen" <drwilco@drwilco.nl> To: Erwan Arzur <erwan@netvalue.com>, Roman Le Houelleur <roman@IPricot.com> Cc: freebsd-ipfw <freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG>, freebsd-net <freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: bandwidth analyser Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20010130000929.00c80a20@mail.bsdchicks.com> In-Reply-To: <3A755C23.AE8D79E1@netvalue.com> References: <3A6C7FD0.7E2ABD65@IPricot.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Moreover, concerning the bridge, I was wondering if
> > there is a way not to put a third interface in promiscous
> > mode. As this third nic exists only for management purposes
> > I don't want it to participate to the bridge in any way.
Use the ng_bridge node if you want to have precise control over which
interfaces are being bridged.
There's one downside though. You can get statistics from the bridge node on
packets and octects passed through the different parts of the bridge
setyup, but it's not IP based. Also using that bridging code there's no
bandwidth throttling or IPFW rule matching yet.
Vitaly Belekhov wrote BW throttling and ipfw netgraph nodes for 3.X, and I
will be porting those to 5.X-CURRENT over the next few weeks.
Using those you could get statistics really quickly by using libnetgraph
and querying the nodes yourself with some C code instead of shell/perl
scripting.
DocWilco
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ipfw" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.3.2.7.0.20010130000929.00c80a20>