We were doing quite a bit with our 3640 but from my experience the box
did not hold up well under load. Be cautious when considering doing
traffic shaping with your 3640. Watch the memory and CPU load closely.
Scriv
John Thomas wrote:
Mark, go over to
We use bandwidth shaping on *nix. works fine. currently the profile for
one site manages 500+ IP based up and downstream. Its one of our few
home-brew items. Of course, its all open source, so I don't need to
worry about support on this particular item.
John Thomas wrote:
Mark, go over to
wisp!64.146.146.12 (net meeting)www.odessaoffice.com/wirelesswww.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
- Original Message -
From:
Mark Nash
To: WISPA General List
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 8:25
PM
Subject: [WISPA] P2P Worm
Monitoring/Alerting/Control
I'm
fan club member
- Original Message -
From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 10:30
Subject: Re: [WISPA] P2P Worm Monitoring/Alerting/Control
Like the others that have spoken up here we use MT
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005, Tom Andrews wrote:
I can't say enough about the guys at Imagestream. I'm a proud
customer, host their servers and have put my business in their
hands on more times than I have things to count them on. I've never
I like the Imagestream product as well. It is a really
I'm at the point on my network now that I really
need to control unnecessary bandwidth usage. The biggest problem is the
p2p users with their excessive upload, and worms come in a close
second.
My network is comprised of a Cisco 3640, Cisco
C4840G L3 switch for segmenting, and Dell 3324
Must agree with Butch. MikroTik works well and scales well. It is all
we use for P2P, firewalling, NAT, rate limiting and logging.
Blair Davis
West Michigan Wireless ISP
269-686-8648
Butch Evans wrote:
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, Mark Nash wrote:
I'm needing to implement a solution that will
