From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 24 22:36:25 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 364FB16A4CE for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 22:36:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mailtoaster1.pipeline.ch (mailtoaster1.pipeline.ch [62.48.0.70]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49CF543D58 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 22:36:24 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from andre@freebsd.org) Received: (qmail 64919 invoked from network); 24 Jun 2004 22:35:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO freebsd.org) ([62.48.0.54]) (envelope-sender ) by mailtoaster1.pipeline.ch (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 24 Jun 2004 22:35:36 -0000 Message-ID: <40DB5737.36CBB21E@freebsd.org> Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 00:35:35 +0200 From: Andre Oppermann X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Takashi Okumura References: <40D8FF41.6392C8F7@cs.pitt.edu> <40D92F33.7B54B5C4@cs.pitt.edu><40DA247A.BE7213FB@cs.pitt.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: Paul Querna cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Rate Limiting Per-Socket X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 22:36:25 -0000 Takashi Okumura wrote: > > so, if you know any japanese friend, or if there are japanese-speaking > subscriber in the mailing list, we would really appreciate your help. > (we may even support the activities financially, this year). that way, > we would be able to provide the community much more information about our > efforts. if the topic is beyond scope of the ML, i sincerely apologize for > the inappropriateness, and may move to our sf.net BBS, or to netnice > developer's ML. > > http://sourceforge.net/projects/netnice/ > > i would appreciate any suggestions, comments, feedback, etc. I haven't looked at the code. Although my question is why do you use the proc interface? Can't you make netnice use the socket options interface to configure the bandwidth limiting? Honestly I think this would be much more natural for the task at hand (limiting connections from the application). -- Andre