From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Nov  7 11:02:21 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id LAA10794
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 11:02:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alpo.whistle.com (alpo.whistle.com [207.76.204.38])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA10778
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 11:02:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from current1.whistle.com (current1.whistle.com [207.76.205.22]) by alpo.whistle.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) with SMTP id KAA23376; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 10:52:44 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <32822FEA.2781E494@whistle.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 10:52:26 -0800
From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>
Organization: Whistle Communications
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (X11; I; FreeBSD 2.2-CURRENT i386)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Julian Assange <proff@suburbia.net>
CC: hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: limiting bandwidth on a port via forwarding
References: <199611070409.PAA23969@suburbia.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Julian Assange wrote:

> I'm more interested in the forwarding situation. Dynamic modification of the
> tcp window size according to ipfw rules and the current amount of backed up
> data seems like something that wouldn't be hard to impliment. Darren?

As archie said...
the divert code in ipfw would make this very doable..