RE: [pfSense Support] Traffic Shaping/Bridge

2007-03-22 Thread Dimitri Rodis
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

Re: [pfSense Support] Traffic Shaping/Bridge

2007-03-22 Thread Bill Marquette
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

RE: [pfSense Support] Traffic Shaping/Bridge

2007-03-22 Thread Dimitri Rodis
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

Re: [pfSense Support] Traffic Shaping/Bridge

2007-03-22 Thread Bill Marquette
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

RE: [pfSense Support] Traffic Shaping/Bridge

2007-03-22 Thread Dimitri Rodis
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