On 01/14/2011 04:48:48 AM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> I'm not sure what the 3.9 docs said, this is what the current OS has
> to say about "queue...on" in pf.conf(5):
>
> on
>Specifies the interface the queue operates on. If not
> given, it
>operates on all matching i
On 2011/01/14 00:24, Bonnie Packet wrote:
> Bingo! Thank you Kelley and (especially again) StuartH.
>
> Seems I was confused because the "queue" directives will work without
> specifying an explicit interfaceso I assumed it just used the
> interface given in the most recent "altq" given above
Bingo! Thank you Kelley and (especially again) StuartH.
Seems I was confused because the "queue" directives will work without
specifying an explicit interfaceso I assumed it just used the
interface given in the most recent "altq" given above it. But that's
not the case - and it seems it works
From the faq:
The syntax for the queue directive is:
queue name [on interface] bandwidth bw [priority pri] [qlimit qlim] \
scheduler ( sched_options ) { queue_list }
Specify on which interface you are assigning each queue.
queue bob on fxp0
queue bob on fxp1
Kelley Reynolds
Presiden
On 2011/01/12 08:40, Bonnie Packet wrote:
> altq on $int_if cbq bandwidth 5000Kb queue { std, slow, fast, tcpack }
> queue std bandwidth 1200Kb priority 1 cbq(default borrow)
you're looking for this format:
queue std on $int_if bandwidth 1200Kb priority 1 cbq(default borrow)
..etc..
I don't reca
If you look at the posting from yesterday, you'll see the attempted
setup is on two different interfaces, yes. That's been the case from
the start.
However, when I try to do the setup suggested by folks here several
times now (same queue name repeated on another interface) pf complains
bitterly an
On Jan 11, 2011, at 1:35 AM, Bonnie Packet wrote:
> Note that I know PF reasonably well and have altq queuing / rate
> limiting working perfectly already in ONE direction (right now, the
> high-bandwidth download side) - I just can't figure out how to get it
> working in both directions, up and do
On Jan 11, 2:44=A0pm, s...@spacehopper.org (Stuart Henderson) wrote:
> On 2011/01/11 12:46, Bonnie Packet wrote:
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 the question is how to manage it simultaneously with th=
e
> > download direction when those packets already part of an established,
> > stateful TCP connection tha
On 2011/01/11 12:46, Bonnie Packet wrote:
> the question is how to manage it simultaneously with the
> download direction when those packets already part of an established,
> stateful TCP connection that bypasses the firewall rules.
the PF state is associated with queue by name - you can u
All you need to do is specify the queue to be the same name in inbound and
outbound. Once you label a state/packet as part of a queue, it's sticky. If
it's on the way out interface A and it has a queue named 'bob' and you've
assigned it to the 'bob' queue, it'll be queued. If you create a queue
On 01/11/2011 01:17:02 PM, Kyle Lanclos wrote:
> Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> > There are may proofs that throttling TCP works, starting
> > with the original paper (Van Jacoson) in 1988 through
> > to the many products today that _do_ manage to reserve enough
> > inbound bandwidth that, e.g., VOIP works
Although I respect the theoretical argument that "you can't shape/
limit inbound packets", my observations agree with those of with Karl
that it's simply not true in the real world. If you read my original
posting, I am effectively limiting inbound traffic as far as the user
is concerned (inbound =
Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> There are may proofs that throttling TCP works, starting
> with the original paper (Van Jacoson) in 1988 through
> to the many products today that _do_ manage to reserve enough
> inbound bandwidth that, e.g., VOIP works reliably. I once
> promised on this list to setup a test
On 01/11/2011 09:23:48 AM, Daniel Staal wrote:
>
> On Tue, January 11, 2011 1:35 am, Bonnie Packet wrote:
> The problem with trying to throttle incoming bandwidth is that no
> matter
> what you do, you have already received the packets. As long as your
> internal network is faster than the exte
On Tue, January 11, 2011 1:35 am, Bonnie Packet wrote:
> I have an 12mbit down/1mbit up ADSL connection, an OpenBSD router-
> firewall, and several Net-hungry roommates connecting through it.
> So...I want to give each roomie a guaranteed bandwidth allotment, but
> not let them hog the ADSL pipe i
15 matches
Mail list logo
