On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 07:58:11PM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: > Matthew Toseland (toad at amphibian.dyndns.org) wrote: > > > BUT this will then count under the bandwidth limiter, i.e. be very very > > slow. > > I don't use the bandwidth limiters. ;-) > > > Do we want to count certain IP ranges as local and not limit them, > > or do we want to never limit mainport connections, or what? Which is the > > best solution? > > My thought is that anything talking to mainport (or nodestatus) > should never be limited artificially. This may break down in the > pathological case where people use allowedHosts=* (e.g. for a > public Freenet gateway). But I think *most* people are only going > to allow LAN and loopback connections to mainport. > > I'd urge people who are serious about bandwidth shaping to look into > their operating system's capabilities instead of relying on the > applications to do the right thing. The OS is usually far more > reliable in this area. The OS is operating at the wrong level. TCP cannot be shaped without cooperation from the other end at a higher level than TCP. > > -- > Greg Wooledge | "Truth belongs to everybody." > greg at wooledge.org | - The Red Hot Chili Peppers > http://wooledge.org/~greg/ |
-- Matthew Toseland toad at amphibian.dyndns.org amphibian at users.sourceforge.net Freenet/Coldstore open source hacker. Employed full time by Freenet Project Inc. from 11/9/02 to 11/11/02. http://freenetproject.org/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20021029/3eaed8da/attachment.pgp>
