what a bullshit. you have no clue what you are talking about. piss off. On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 09:25:20AM -0700, Dennis wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kent R. Spillner) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... > > Dennis wrote: > > > "FREE" isnt really cheaper when you spend $1000's worth of your time > > > to make it work, and then end up with an inferior solution when you're > > > done. > > > > -1, Troll > > > > This is a pf list. pf does not require investing $1000s worth of your > > time to "make it work." pf is not an inferior solution. > > > > Go peddle your "p2p sniffer" and your lies elsewhere. > > openbsd-pf is a good firewall. But as a bandwidth management tool it's > quite inferior. Priority queuing is an archaic, inferior technology, > if you can call it a technology. > > The subject here is "pf/altq" on a fast link. How does it perform on a > gigabit wire with stats gathering and limits configured for 5000 > hosts? How does granular, duration controlled bursting work? does it > automatically pace traffic to reduce queue depths when a point of > congestion is reached? > > There's nothing wrong with an open-source firewall. But an ISP need a > separate bandwidth management box. Anyone that thinks they can do it > with the free stuff is settling for a trivial solution that will cost > them in the long run. The ethical thing to do, when someone asks about > using pf/altq for a high-volume business, is to tell them the truth. > They need something a bit better. > > DB > >
-- Henning Brauer, BS Web Services, http://bsws.de [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity. (Dennis Ritchie)
