On Sat, Apr 29, 2006, Daniel Hartmeier wrote: >> I know this is possible because IPFW with dummynet doesn't have any >> problems. If everyone loves PF because of its elegance why can't it do >> something as simple as queue download traffic? > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/htdig/freebsd-pf/2005-November/001657.html
| But it wouldn't change anything, because the congestion is upstream of | your ALTQ box. You can drop as many packets as you like after you | received them, that doesn't free up any bandwidth on your downlink. It surely has its caveats, but has its use, too. I'm stuck with ipfw on one last machine, because I can't limit bulk TCP traffic with pf. Of course, downstream limiting will never throttle DoS attacks, ICMP or 'dumb' UDP traffic with no acknowledgements, but works just fine for everything else. Even on ipfw's contemptible 'dummynet'. | If you want to do this with ALTQ, you can do so by limiting outgoing | packets on the "other" interface, assuming the box is forwarding all | packets between two interfaces. I can speak for myself - I can't afford both the hardware and the electricity bill for a separate machine. Maybe downstream limiting isn't very robust, but IMO is the biggest thing pf/altq lacks. -- sh
pgpapWeAMPhkf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
