Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 15:19:10 +0300 (EEST) From: Dmitry Pryanishnikov <dmitry@atlantis.dp.ua> To: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> Cc: VANHULLEBUS Yvan <vanhu_bsd@zeninc.net>, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: tcpdump and ipsec Message-ID: <20060402151039.R51461@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> In-Reply-To: <20060402113516.D76259@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> References: <442D8E98.6050903@vineyard.net> <20060331222813.GA29047@zen.inc> <20060331223613.GD80492@spc.org> <20060402130227.G99958@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> <20060402113516.D76259@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello! On Sun, 2 Apr 2006, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: >> Why not? IMHO it will be very useful feature: think about e.g. traffic >> shaping for several different networks which are routed via the same >> ipsec tunnel. Without the enc0, you can only shape them together, e.g.: > > why not shaping on the internal interface in case this is a gateway? > You know src and dst there too. Gateway can also contain sources of traffic, and we should be able to shape all outgoing or incoming traffic (not only transit packets, but also locally-originated). > The only difference enc0 makes is for host-only-setups or if you want > to see all your unencrpyted ipsec traffic on a gateway in one place. It seems to me that it's also useful for general traffic shaping/accounting/filtering purposes. Sincerely, Dmitry -- Atlantis ISP, System Administrator e-mail: dmitry@atlantis.dp.ua nic-hdl: LYNX-RIPE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060402151039.R51461>