Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Ed White [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-01-23 20:34]:
What is the opinion of PF developers here in ml ?
don't like.
limiting bytes per state is useless. bytes total and the like are not
pf's business, it's the business of some daemon that removes/changes
On Wednesday 21 January 2004 16:56, Armin Wolfermann wrote:
This is a first cut at this idea. It implements a per-state traffic
limit like this:
pass in proto tcp from any to any port = 25 \
flags S/SA keep state (bytes 10)
This could be easily extended to per-rule or
* Ed White [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-01-23 20:34]:
What is the opinion of PF developers here in ml ?
don't like.
limiting bytes per state is useless. bytes total and the like are not
pf's business, it's the business of some daemon that removes/changes
the rules once a certain limit is reached.
* Ed White [EMAIL PROTECTED] [19.01.2004 16:14]:
I would like to know if there is any plan to limit the number of bytes
a TCP connection can transfer. The idea is to drop/close the
connection after $SIZE bytes have been transferred.
This is a first cut at this idea. It implements a per-state
ehm...
I would like to know if there is any plan to limit the number of bytes a TCP
connection can transfer. The idea is to drop/close the connection after $SIZE
bytes have been transferred.
Why ?
1) Hosting/housing can limit file sizes (need to remove the support for
resumed download on
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:07:30PM +0100, Ed White wrote:
Please note also that it could be extended to disable a rule after $SIZE is
exceeded. This is good for Housing/Hosting who want to sell X Gb of bandwidth
for each IP. With a single rule like this:
pass in quick on $gw_ext inet from
