Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 05:05:32 +0200 (MET DST) From: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> To: julian@whistle.com (Julian Elischer) Cc: kjc@csl.sony.co.jp, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bandwidth throttling etc. Message-ID: <199804240305.FAA20329@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> In-Reply-To: <353BD29C.2C67412E@whistle.com> from "Julian Elischer" at Apr 20, 98 03:56:09 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I've been looking at the package mentionned below and find that it > really is very good fro outgoing, however there is no literature at this > time for lomitting INCOMING bandwidth. Below I make a proposal. On this issue: i am looking at the integration of my dummynet stuff within the ipfw code (mainly to use the classifier and ipfw control routines already there). looking at the ip_fw_chk routine, it returns a 32-bit identifier which is currently 0, -1, or the port number (extended to 32-bit) for divert. This value is used in case of divert also to avoid that the same rule is applied twice. I was thinking to change the return value from the divert port number to the pointer (index ?) to the matching rule in the firewall check (and since this is a 16-bit number, the remaining bits can be used as flags for keep, discard, ...). This would have a number of advantages in my opinion, including the ability to do more complex processing since the rule can contain specific info on what to do on the packet, and maybe even faster/better processing when a packet has to do multiple pass through the classifier (as in the case of the divert, but also dummynet, or bandwith limiters). > What I wnat to do is to add a field to the mbuf pkhdr field that > can hold a reference to a flow label or a CBQ class (as a > specific example) so that the classification of a packet is > available at any time once made. I then want to add code to > the IPFW classifier to allow it to make that classification. could you use the pointer to the rule as flow label ? And how hard (i.e. impact to the rest of the code) would it be to put the flow label in the mbuf header ? > Incoming flow control will only really work for TCP, but that is enough should you rather say "will only really work for responsive flows" ? cheers luigi -----------------------------+-------------------------------------- Luigi Rizzo | Dip. di Ingegneria dell'Informazione email: luigi@iet.unipi.it | Universita' di Pisa tel: +39-50-568533 | via Diotisalvi 2, 56126 PISA (Italy) fax: +39-50-568522 | http://www.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/ _____________________________|______________________________________ 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?199804240305.FAA20329>