From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 4 21:43:22 2005 Return-Path: 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 0D8AE16A4CF for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 21:43:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from wproxy.gmail.com (wproxy.gmail.com [64.233.184.203]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67C7E43D49 for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 21:43:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jsimola@gmail.com) Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 69so813671wri for ; Fri, 04 Mar 2005 13:43:20 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=PN/V3lNyDsZJBefq/hlXh4l1AkK2ULdJ6GK+mo392NSPC6yOI2HE1BKwzfmFTxkKZw5yxmTBL0nxaVyiFuwSnamMgrRNAWhQgnO2AJrgO18Auwvnaurqu7p4Vfz36/ISGjJxKIW3vSXnz5udF4MG7t4lrQHZbsB5sZOphD9VI30= Received: by 10.54.8.67 with SMTP id 67mr36312wrh; Fri, 04 Mar 2005 13:43:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.54.39.34 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 13:43:04 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <8eea040805030413431f2c1b03@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 13:43:04 -0800 From: Jon Simola To: Kris McElroy In-Reply-To: <20050304153503.SM01228@KrisLaptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <20050304153503.SM01228@KrisLaptop> cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ipfw+dummynet X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: jon@abccomm.com List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 21:43:22 -0000 On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 15:34:21 -0600, Kris McElroy wrote: > We are wanting to do Bandwidth Shaping for our wireless users, I have read > that FreeBSD with ipfw+Dummynet is one way to do this. Is anyone on this > list using IPFW + Dummynet in a WISP environment that has advice that they > would like to share, should we go this route or is there something that you > would recommend over doing this? I've done similar, and it works great. Just remember that you can't control the rate that the wireless customer sends, only how fast you send data to them. So if/when they get infected with a virus that blasts traffic out, it will render any traffic shaping at the head end worthless. If you've been doing wireless for a while, you probably already know that, though :) -- Jon Simola Systems Administrator ABC Communications