Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 19:45:47 +0100 From: Clemens Hermann <haribeau@gmx.de> To: Martin Eggen <martin@copyleft.no> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bandwith limitation Message-ID: <20010116194547.A1319@ramses.local> In-Reply-To: <20010116173846.A27210@unity.copyleft.no> von Martin Eggen <martin@copyleft.no> am 16.Jan.2001 um 17:38:46 (%2B0100) References: <20010115222805.A1276@ramses.local> <20010116173846.A27210@unity.copyleft.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am 16.01.2001 um 17:38:46 schrieb Martin Eggen: Hi Martin, thanks a lot for your hints. > You might want to take a look at ALTQ[0] from the KAME people, or just use > ipfw with a default pass all rule (or IPFIREWALL_DEFAULT_ACCEPT), so that > it's only used for bw limiting. (The packets will then first go through > ipfw, and then through ipf, IIRC). so it is definitely impossible that a packet that passes ipfw (as every packet does) enters the system even if ipf says "no", right? I have some additional questions concerning the ipfw approach: - is it in general a bad thing to have ipf/ipfw together running on one machine or ist it just o.k. to have ipf as firewall and IP-accounting and ipfw for bandwith limitations? - is there a performance loss worth mentioning in using both tools compared to only have ipfw running for all purposes? - does the bandwith-limitation that ipfw/dummynet offer tear down the effective bandwith of my server? - does the bandwith-limitation (ipfw) cost a lot of cpu/memory performance? thanks a lot for your help /ch To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010116194547.A1319>