Matthew Toseland writes:
> The disadvantage is that it can't possibly work because TCP does not
> provide a way beyond the most crude imaginable to tell the other end to
> use a given bandwidth.
(Nor does freenet.) Both work though, contrary to what you state. TCP
handles constipated connections
Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The disadvantage is that it can't possibly work because TCP does not
> provide a way beyond the most crude imaginable to tell the other end to
> use a given bandwidth.
(Nor does freenet.) Both work though, contrary to what you state. TCP
handles cons
Matthew Toseland (toad at amphibian.dyndns.org) wrote:
> The disadvantage is that it can't possibly work because TCP does not
> provide a way beyond the most crude imaginable to tell the other end to
> use a given bandwidth.
That's irrelevant. My download speed is twice my upload speed, and I
co
Matthew Toseland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> The disadvantage is that it can't possibly work because TCP does not
> provide a way beyond the most crude imaginable to tell the other end to
> use a given bandwidth.
That's irrelevant. My download speed is twice my upload speed, and I
consider that
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 10:59:07PM +0100, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> Matthew Toseland writes:
>
> > > I'd urge people who are serious about bandwidth shaping to look into
> > > their operating system's capabilities instead of relying on the
> > > applications to do the right thing. The OS is usua
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 10:59:07PM +0100, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > I'd urge people who are serious about bandwidth shaping to look into
> > > their operating system's capabilities instead of relying on the
> > > applications to do the right thi
Matthew Toseland writes:
> > I'd urge people who are serious about bandwidth shaping to look into
> > their operating system's capabilities instead of relying on the
> > applications to do the right thing. The OS is usually far more
> > reliable in this area.
> The OS is operating at the wrong l
Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'd urge people who are serious about bandwidth shaping to look into
> > their operating system's capabilities instead of relying on the
> > applications to do the right thing. The OS is usually far more
> > reliable in this area.
> The OS is opera
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 07:58:11PM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> Matthew Toseland (toad at amphibian.dyndns.org) wrote:
>
> > BUT this will then count under the bandwidth limiter, i.e. be very very
> > slow.
>
> I don't use the bandwidth limiters. ;-)
>
> > Do we want to count certain IP ranges
Matthew Toseland (toad at amphibian.dyndns.org) wrote:
> BUT this will then count under the bandwidth limiter, i.e. be very very
> slow.
I don't use the bandwidth limiters. ;-)
> Do we want to count certain IP ranges as local and not limit them,
> or do we want to never limit mainport connection
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 07:58:11PM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> Matthew Toseland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > BUT this will then count under the bandwidth limiter, i.e. be very very
> > slow.
>
> I don't use the bandwidth limiters. ;-)
>
> > Do we want to count certain IP ranges as local an
Matthew Toseland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> BUT this will then count under the bandwidth limiter, i.e. be very very
> slow.
I don't use the bandwidth limiters. ;-)
> Do we want to count certain IP ranges as local and not limit them,
> or do we want to never limit mainport connections, or what?
12 matches
Mail list logo
