On 2009-Feb-13 16:58:39 -0200, Nenhum_de_Nos wrote:
>if you get to use pf+dummynet for real please broadcast. I once searched
>for it but no luck in finding :)
I'm using it at work to do WAN simulation for system testing. The
patches are a but rough around the edges but mostly work. The major
c
> Tom, thanks for confirming all that I had hoped was not true;) I'm
> going to look a bit closer at using dummynet with altq or just go back
> to IPFW.
if you get to use pf+dummynet for real please broadcast. I once searched
for it but no luck in finding :)
it may help me do some things at home
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 3:56 AM, Sam Fourman Jr. wrote:
>>> So I would like to hear some ideas on how we could use FreeBSD or any other
>>> BSD
>>> to limit bandwidth per customer( say one customer (with root access)
>>> per server )
>>>
>> There was not much to report at that point. However, p
>> So I would like to hear some ideas on how we could use FreeBSD or any other
>> BSD
>> to limit bandwidth per customer( say one customer (with root access)
>> per server )
>>
> There was not much to report at that point. However, pfSense 2.0 has
> per user bandwidth ported from DragonFlyBSD.
Quoting Tom Uffner :
eculp wrote:
Thanks for responding. As I read your answer and my question. I'm
pretty sure that I probably didn't ask the question properly. What
I need to do is be intermediary between my upstream ISP's and my
customers and would like to control the bandwidth hogs.
eculp wrote:
Thanks for responding. As I read your answer and my question. I'm
pretty sure that I probably didn't ask the question properly. What I
need to do is be intermediary between my upstream ISP's and my customers
and would like to control the bandwidth hogs.
Basically, I want certa
Quoting Tom Uffner :
eculp wrote:
I don't remember why but for some reason I have the idea that
pf+altq is not bidirectional. Am I mistaken?
no solution that does not involve cooperation from your upstream
connection(s) is truly bidirectional. it is easy to limit/shape
your outbound traffi
eculp wrote:
I don't remember why but for some reason I have the idea that pf+altq is
not bidirectional. Am I mistaken?
no solution that does not involve cooperation from your upstream
connection(s) is truly bidirectional. it is easy to limit/shape
your outbound traffic. on the other hand it
, but that list grows faster than I can get things
done...
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Andrei Kolu
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 11:42 AM
To: Peter Jeremy; freebsd-pf@freebsd.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: PF + ALTQ - Bandwidth per
42 AM
To: Peter Jeremy; freebsd-pf@freebsd.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: PF + ALTQ - Bandwidth per customer
ipfw+dummynet is really ugly traffic "shaper" (let's face it there is no
shaping going on), because instead of limiting bandwidth it will drop
packets to simulate
Sam Fourman Jr. wrote:
>> I had forgotten that dummynet can be used with pf. Maybe i should start this
>> with a new subject but it is directly related in that I need bandwidth
>> control again that I don´t have since changing to pf.
>>
>> o- What needs to be patched/done to make them work togethe
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Kahlil Erwin Talledo
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sam Fourman Jr. wrote:
>>> I had forgotten that dummynet can be used with pf. Maybe i should start this
>>> with a new subject but it is directly related in that I need bandwidth
>>> control again that I don´t have s
> I had forgotten that dummynet can be used with pf. Maybe i should start this
> with a new subject but it is directly related in that I need bandwidth
> control again that I don´t have since changing to pf.
>
> o- What needs to be patched/done to make them work together
> on Current and Relen
Quoting Peter Jeremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 2008-Dec-02 10:42:27 +0200, Andrei Kolu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That description sounds like it simplifies to "limit bandwidth based on
IP address" - which is fairly trivial for ipfw+dummynet or pf+altq.
ipfw+dummynet is really ugly traffic "sha
TECTED] On
Behalf Of Andrei Kolu
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 11:42 AM
To: Peter Jeremy; freebsd-pf@freebsd.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: PF + ALTQ - Bandwidth per customer
ipfw+dummynet is really ugly traffic "shaper" (let's face it there is no
shaping going on), because in
On 2008-Dec-02 10:42:27 +0200, Andrei Kolu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That description sounds like it simplifies to "limit bandwidth based on
>> IP address" - which is fairly trivial for ipfw+dummynet or pf+altq.
>>
>ipfw+dummynet is really ugly traffic "shaper" (let's face it there is no
>s
Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2008-Dec-01 17:08:40 -0600, "Sam Fourman Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So I would like to hear some ideas on how we could use FreeBSD or any other BSD
to limit bandwidth per customer( say one customer (with root access)
per server )
That description sounds like
On 2008-Dec-01 17:08:40 -0600, "Sam Fourman Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So I would like to hear some ideas on how we could use FreeBSD or any other BSD
>to limit bandwidth per customer( say one customer (with root access)
>per server )
That description sounds like it simplifies to "limit band
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Sam Fourman Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You should consider a commercial product rather than relying on
>> old and somewhat unreliable technology. We've been able to squeeze a
>> lot more customers onto our network for a $3500. investment. It paid for
>> itself
> You should consider a commercial product rather than relying on
> old and somewhat unreliable technology. We've been able to squeeze a
> lot more customers onto our network for a $3500. investment. It paid for
> itself in 2 months. We have a dual-core 2.33Ghz system passing 95Mb/s
> with 12000 ru
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 08:26:57 -0800 (PST)
David Roseman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> mentioned:
> It also has a traffic monitor that is indispensable in tracking down
> DOS attacks, worms and out of control servers. I'd pay $500. just for the
> monitor. I have
statistics no matter how large your network is.
David
--- On Sat, 11/29/08, Sebastian Tymków <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Sebastian Tymków <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: PF + ALTQ - Bandwidth per customer
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org,
k
2008/11/29 David Roseman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>
> --- On Mon, 11/24/08, Marcello Barreto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > From: Marcello Barreto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: PF + ALTQ - Bandwidth per customer
> > To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org
--- On Mon, 11/24/08, Marcello Barreto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Marcello Barreto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: PF + ALTQ - Bandwidth per customer
> To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Monday, November 24, 2008, 4:04 PM
> Hello Folks,
Hello Folks,
I believe you have heard this several times, but I'm new to FreeBSD and
i'm trying to change my bandwidth control from Linux (iptables + TC + iproute)
to Freebsd (PF + ALTQ).
I read about PF and I was very interested on it, but I want to limit
the bandwidth (Download
25 matches
Mail list logo
