From owner-freebsd-net Sun Jul 18 6:18:57 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from labinfo.iet.unipi.it (labinfo.iet.unipi.it [131.114.9.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7CD2014C58 for ; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 06:18:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it) Received: from localhost (luigi@localhost) by labinfo.iet.unipi.it (8.6.5/8.6.5) id MAA18101; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 12:52:11 +0200 From: Luigi Rizzo Message-Id: <199907181052.MAA18101@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> Subject: Re: dummynet -> rate limiting To: lconrad@Go2France.com (Len Conrad) Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 12:52:10 +0200 (MET DST) Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.56.19990718124838.02eaa9d0@go2france.com> from "Len Conrad" at Jul 18, 99 12:59:44 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 960 Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > Luigi > With dummynet you can achieve almost the same effect by setting a > pipe with a very low bit rate, and yes, this will penalize big packets > > But if we could filter and rate-limit by protocol type, ie, icmp, smtp, > ftp, then we could slice our pipe to fit our needs (icmp very low, smtp > low, http hi, ftp wherever). that's exactly what you can do with ipfw -- write reasonably detailted rulesets to filter on protocols, port, addresses, flags or not, etc. and use different limitations (= dummynet pipes) for the various things. I'll stay out of the bw-mgr/dummynet discussion since dummynet is my (third) baby and have never used bw-mgr. cheers luigi > I'm trying to decide between ET's bw-mgr or dummynet. > > Anybody here leaning on ET's bw-mgr in T1 and better throughputs with lotsa > rules? > > Len > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message