Ok--
I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, but I am wondering if something
obvious has perhaps been overlooked here.
It has been said several times by the pfSense folks that traffic shaping
combined with bridging doesn't work. However, there are folks claiming
to be using it with success.
I've
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Traffic Shaping/Bridge
On 3/22/07, Dimitri Rodis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, but I am wondering if something
obvious has perhaps been overlooked here.
It has been said several times by the pfSense folks
On 3/22/07, Dimitri Rodis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course it's a code thing (what isn't ;) .. I was trying to gain some
technical insight as to why it doesn't function, and why it works with
NAT as opposed to a bridge. From my (I'm sure, oversimplified)
impression, if packets are passing
Message-
From: Bill Marquette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 9:28 AM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Traffic Shaping/Bridge
On 3/22/07, Dimitri Rodis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course it's a code thing (what isn't ;) .. I was trying to gain
On 3/22/07, Dimitri Rodis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't mean the traffic shaper *wizard*, I'm talking about the traffic
shaper itself. (I can config the rules myself if that means it will
function on bridged connections)
I know what you're asking. Since the wizard is the supported method
for us (and a couple of customers).
Thanks for the clarification.
-Original Message-
From: Bill Marquette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 1:31 PM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Traffic Shaping/Bridge
On 3/22/07, Dimitri Rodis [EMAIL PROTECTED
