Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 07:56:44 -0700 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> To: Ludo Koren <lk@tempest.sk> Cc: tscrum@aaawebsolution.com Subject: Re: limiting bandwith Message-ID: <20040414075644.A95599@xorpc.icir.org> In-Reply-To: <200404141451.i3EEpjJH069188@lk106.tempest.sk>; from lk@tempest.sk on Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 04:51:45PM %2B0200 References: <004e01c4221d$12e96c60$6466a8c0@wolf> <200404141451.i3EEpjJH069188@lk106.tempest.sk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 04:51:45PM +0200, Ludo Koren wrote: > > > > I do not believe there is a way to "postpone" traffic with > > dummynet other than what is available with queues, not to > > mention I don't think you'd ever want to, really. The config > > below will give mail a lower priority to all of the other > > traffic, both in and out. > > > Nat interactive addresses? Hmmm... you mean you want ipfw to > > forward local addresses using nat? you want to dole out local > > ip addresses, dhcp? Not really sure of the question here, but > > I'm sure its answered by following the link below to the > > freebsd handbook. > > > I wrote `interactive' (ticks), and I meant addresses that are used to > connect to ssh, web, etc (interactive processes). All these addresses > are NAT-ed. For these, your setup is working fine. Thank you very > much. > > The problem, I still have, is the following: the SMTP is flowing > through, I am not relaying e-mail on this host. It seems to me, I > cannot put together a rule which pass the traffic and add it to the > queue except when I use keep-state flag. In this setup (keep-state), > Luigi wrote it does not work. i said your configuration does not work the way you want. It is possible to write a proper configuration that does what you want but it is left as an exercise to the reader. cheers luigi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040414075644.A95599>