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 from one interface to another thru pfSense packet filtering mechanisms (a process which queues packets for shaping when enabled), what difference does it make that pfSense is doing regular ip routing, bridging, or NATting?
Thanks Bill... -----Original Message----- From: Bill Marquette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 5:45 AM 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 that traffic > shaping combined with bridging doesn't work. However, there are folks > claiming to be using it with success. > > I've also checked the m0n0 mailing list archives and someone said the > following: Traffic Shaping with bridging DOES work (in monowall-- the > post was quite old) so long as you have the option "Enable Filtering Bridge" > checked. > > Does that option make any difference in pfSense with respect to > traffic shaping a bridged connection? (I'm trying to get a feel for > *why* or *why > not* here). It's not a matter of can or cannot - it can work, it does not. It's a code thing. It'll get fixed at some point. m0n0's shaper is also _completely_ different from pfSense's both in technology used and method of shaping. --Bill --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
