Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 15:12:49 +1030 From: "Daniel O'Connor" <doconnor@gsoft.com.au> To: Ganbold <ganbold@micom.mng.net>, freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bandwidth limiting for eMule ports Message-ID: <200401221512.49260.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.2.20040122120552.0293bd20@202.179.0.80> References: <6.0.1.1.2.20040122120552.0293bd20@202.179.0.80>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday 22 January 2004 14:49, Ganbold wrote: > Am I doing right? For what NIC should I implement filtering, outside or > inside interface? > When I see MRTG graphs for ipfw it still shows bandwidth more than it > supposed to:( A few points.. - The nic is not really relevant except as a way of selecting packets more accurately. - Incoming packets (from the outside world to you) are more difficult to limit because the other end sends them and the gateway can only do the limiting after they are already received. That said it DOES work but it tends to lag behind reality a little. I use dummynet to limit TCP traffic when playing games and I use the following rules.. ipfw pipe 1 config bw 1kbyte/sec queue 10kbytes ipfw pipe 2 config bw 5kbyte/sec queue 10kbytes ... ipfw add 01900 pipe 1 tcp from any to any out xmit tun0 ipfw add 02000 pipe 2 tcp from any to any in recv tun0 ... ie I limit incoming(downloads) to 5k/sec and outgoing(uploads) to 1k/sec. I use in/out because I only want to limit packets across my tun0 (PPPoE) interface. Hope that helps. -- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum GPG Fingerprint - 9A8C 569F 685A D928 5140 AE4B 319B 41F4 5D17 FDD5
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200401221512.49260.doconnor>