Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 12:32:13 +0200 From: Philippe Regnauld <regnauld@deepo.prosa.dk> To: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bandwidth throttling etc. Message-ID: <19980427123213.48494@deepo.prosa.dk> In-Reply-To: <199804270809.KAA24661@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>; from Luigi Rizzo on Mon, Apr 27, 1998 at 10:09:40AM %2B0200 References: <199804221213.VAA28109@hotaka.csl.sony.co.jp> <199804270809.KAA24661@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Luigi Rizzo writes:
>
> $fwcmd add pipe 4 tcp from any to ${ip} 80
> $fwcmd add pipe 5 tcp from ${ip} 80 to any
>
> $fwcmd pipe 4 configure bandwidth 64k buffers 10 delay 400ms
> $fwcmd pipe 5 configure bandwidth 128k buffers 10 delay 200ms
The "pipe" notion is very interesting. It's very much like
a flow -- that would make FW rule writing much easier.
> i.e. the "pipe X" option acts much like a divert, only difference
> is that packets are passed to the specified "pipe" which is
> configurable in bandwidth, buffers and delay.
Yes! I like this very much. We would then be able to have
"flows" from one point to another, and to control their
max. throughput -- what about "garanteed" or minimum bandwidth ?
For example, I use V/IP (voice over IP cards) running on UDP, and the
software relies on the intermediate routers supporting RSVP in
case the traffic gets heavy. A workaround was to hardwire
the port numbers and "reserve" them in the 3Com routers -- but
this is static approach...
--
-[ Philippe Regnauld / sysadmin / regnauld@deepo.prosa.dk / +55.4N +11.3E ]-
«Pluto placed his bad dog at the entrance of Hades to keep the dead
IN and the living OUT! The archetypical corporate firewall?»
- S. Kelly Bootle
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980427123213.48494>