Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 17:06:58 +0800 From: "bycn82" <bycn82@gmail.com> To: "'Dewayne Geraghty'" <dewayne.geraghty@heuristicsystems.com.au>, <freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: kern/189720: [ipfw] [patch] pps action for ipfw Message-ID: <000001cf7caf$afca3760$0f5ea620$@gmail.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>=20 > What is the "use case" of this addition? Is this objective to limit = the mischief > on a certain port, for example ntp or port 53? >=20 > I can appreciate the need to limit the number of packets during, say a = DDOS > event, but I'm struggling with why I would want less that 1 packet per = second. >=20 The original propose is "packet per second", I met this kind of = requirement , for example ,if you network appliance want to support 10 = queries per second, then you cannot use dummynet because the query = packets are not fixed size. > Is the idea of pps meant to remove the need of dummynet where it is = used > in almost trivial cases? Though if this were the case, then bps (bits = per > second) may be more useful? >=20 So in the beginning , the option is named =E2=80=9CPPS=E2=80=9D, and it = accepts only 1 parameter. But Luigi said =E2=80=9C10 per = second=E2=80=9D is different from =E2=80=9C1 per 100 ms=E2=80=9D and = =E2=80=9C1 per 100 ms=E2=80=9D should be better! =20 > Dewayne. >=20
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?000001cf7caf$afca3760$0f5ea620$>