amending my remark... UID matching is problematic. Why are you trying to
classify packets based on that?
On Sunday, September 11, 2011, Michael Sierchio wrote:
> You don't seem to have any rules that match packets. This won't work.
>
> On Sunday, September 11, 2011, alexus wrote:
>> su-4.2# grep
104 3 595 00
0
> su-4.2#
>
> why is it seeing source ip/port as 0/0 and dest 0/? i dont understand
> that at all
>
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Michael Sierchio
wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 3:38 PM, alexus wrote:
>>> thanks, but did u ac
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Michael Sierchio wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 3:38 PM, alexus wrote:
>> thanks, but did u actually tried it?
>
> If what you're asking is, "does traffic shaping work?" the answer is
> yes. There are some provisos - you must
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 3:38 PM, alexus wrote:
> thanks, but did u actually tried it?
If what you're asking is, "does traffic shaping work?" the answer is
yes. There are some provisos - you must create an outbound pipe and
an inbound pipe that accurately reflect th
ts not working for me, so maybe i'm doing something off, so
a> thats why i wanted to see a working example from someone's system
a> 2011/9/11 Коньков Евгений :
>> Здравствуйте, alexus.
>>
>> Вы писали 12 сентября 2011 г., 1:18:10:
>>
>> a> can someon
.
>
> Вы писали 12 сентября 2011 г., 1:18:10:
>
> a> can someone provide a real (working) live example of traffic shaping with
> ipfw
> a> i just can't get mine to work no matter what...
>
>
> you can try this
> http://translate.google.com.ua/tran
Здравствуйте, alexus.
Вы писали 12 сентября 2011 г., 1:18:10:
a> can someone provide a real (working) live example of traffic shaping with
ipfw
a> i just can't get mine to work no matter what...
you can try this
http://translate.google.com.ua/translate?hl=ru&sl=ru&
can someone provide a real (working) live example of traffic shaping with ipfw
i just can't get mine to work no matter what...
--
http://alexus.org/
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/fr
Hi
I'm trying to do traffic shaping with FreeBSD, here are my rules
su-3.2# ipfw pipe show
1: 1.000 Mbit/s0 ms 50 sl. 1 queues (1 buckets) droptail
mask: 0x00 0x/0x -> 0x/0x
BKT Prot ___Source IP/port Dest. IP/port Tot_pkt/bytes Pkt/
I am trying to do traffic shaping using a bridge on FreeBSD 7.1.
I have the bridge configured and it works fine. It looks like this:
rest of network <-> xl0 <-> bridge0 <-> xl1 <-> side to be shaped
It works with the following set of ipfw rules (pipes in but
unlimit
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:24:37 +1100 (EST)
Ian Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:42:23 + RW
> > A traffic shaper could efficiently regulate downloads by proxying
> > TCP. And even though PF does some limited TCP proxying,
> > unfortunately dummynet and altq work at the IP level.
>
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:42:23 + RW wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:13:16 +0200
> Brent Clark wrote:
>
> > Hiya
> >
> > I got this question to ask, and I was hoping the TCP/IP gurus would be
> > able to help me understand this.
> >
> > K you know how with traffic shapping you can co
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:13:16 +0200
Brent Clark wrote:
> Hiya
>
> I got this question to ask, and I was hoping the TCP/IP gurus would be
> able to help me understand this.
>
> K you know how with traffic shapping you can control only the traffic
> leaving you, how it is that torrent clients say
Olivier Nicole wrote:
Maybe torrent protocol includes something where by the client tells
its peers to send data at a slower rate.
Traffic shaping is done at IP or TCP level, while the up/down load
speed is managed at the client level.
Bests,
Olivier
Hi
I posted the same Q on netfilters
where by the client tells
its peers to send data at a slower rate.
Traffic shaping is done at IP or TCP level, while the up/down load
speed is managed at the client level.
Bests,
Olivier
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd
Hiya
I got this question to ask, and I was hoping the TCP/IP gurus would be
able to help me understand this.
K you know how with traffic shapping you can control only the traffic
leaving you, how it is that torrent clients say they can control the
download as well as the upload. I would think th
Hi Luke,
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:40:04 -0700 (PDT), Luke Dean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Zbigniew Szalbot wrote:
>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I would like to implement traffic shaping using pf. I know I need to
>> recompile ker
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Zbigniew Szalbot wrote:
Hello,
I would like to implement traffic shaping using pf. I know I need to
recompile kernel to be able to achieve this but I have a more general
question. I used to have pf with traffic shaping on a Pentium III 866
before and as soon as I
Hello,
I would like to implement traffic shaping using pf. I know I need to
recompile kernel to be able to achieve this but I have a more general
question. I used to have pf with traffic shaping on a Pentium III 866
before and as soon as I activated it, the http response of the box was
noticably
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 15:55:05 +1100
Terry Sposato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Norberto Meijome wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 14:43:20 +0200
> > Mel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I think you'll find that bursts are best counteracted like this:
> >> http://www.probsd.net/pf/index.php/Hednod%2
Norberto Meijome wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 14:43:20 +0200
Mel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think you'll find that bursts are best counteracted like this:
http://www.probsd.net/pf/index.php/Hednod%27s_HFSC_explained#Tips.2FIdeas
Mel, can you please confirm this link / FQDN ? no NS defined for
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 14:43:20 +0200
Mel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you'll find that bursts are best counteracted like this:
> http://www.probsd.net/pf/index.php/Hednod%27s_HFSC_explained#Tips.2FIdeas
Mel, can you please confirm this link / FQDN ? no NS defined for the domain...
TIA,
B
> -Original Message-
> From: Giorgos Keramidas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 9:45 AM
> To: Wojciech Puchar
> Cc: Ted Mittelstaedt; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: FreeBSD Traffic Shaping
>
>
&g
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 4:51 AM
> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: FreeBSD Traffic Shaping
>
>
> As far as I know, every ca
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 4:38 AM
> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: RE: FreeBSD Traffic Shaping
>
>
> I can now confirm that thes
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 4:22 AM
> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: FreeBSD Traffic Shaping
>
>
> I think you guys went a bi
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 11:30:44 +0200 (CEST), Wojciech Puchar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> The vast majority of people out there have asymmetrical bandwidth
>> limiting needs - that is, they have a pipe to the Internet and have a
>> lot more data coming from the Internet to them, than data going from
As far as I know, every carrier bills by 95th percentile.
This particular server is colocated and the bandwidth average is
2.35mbps while the 95th is 3.7mbps.
I don't want my clients to have to compete for bandwidth - if 1000
users share a 3mbps fixed pipe, they will each get 3k/sec -. Rathe
On Wednesday 02 April 2008 14:21:38 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Also, the reason for this need is that some services use
> burst-bandwidth and I have many peaks and lows throughout the day.
> This means that my carrier who bills me by the 95th percentile is
> having a field day.
He bills by the se
BSD6.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Christopher Cowart
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 7:55 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: FreeBSD Traffic Shaping
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am trying to limit the ba
I think you guys went a bit on a tangent here. What I am trying to do
is limit the outbound bandwidth of my services and this should be
perfectly possible as I control the output.
Also, the reason for this need is that some services use
burst-bandwidth and I have many peaks and lows through
On Wednesday 02 April 2008 09:27:21 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I gave port 80 as an example but I need this configuration for
> limiting other services as well.
>
> If you have a 100mbps connection and only one client, you want him to
> only use 50kbps, not the full pipe. If you have 200 clients, t
On Wednesday 02 April 2008 10:55:58 Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> The vast majority of people out there have asymmetrical bandwidth
> limiting needs - that is, they have a pipe to the Internet and
> have a lot more data coming from the Internet to them, than data
> going from them to the Internet. Th
loss and almost any other traffic stream (including P2P) with
1-10% loss.
In short, the bandwidth limiting code really has little
practical value when implemented in FreeBSD that is why few do
it.
:)
i do on my 300 users network. works VERY well. i use queues to equally
divide available ban
On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 12:55:58AM -0800, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> It is that it's impossible to limit INCOMING bandwidth from the
> Internet.
The fact is you can limit incoming TCP with little to no packet
loss and almost any other traffic stream (including P2P) with
1-10% loss.
> In short, the
The vast majority of people out there have asymmetrical bandwidth
limiting needs - that is, they have a pipe to the Internet and
have a lot more data coming from the Internet to them, than data
going from them to the Internet. Their desire is to somehow make
it so that certain kinds of incoming
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 11:27 PM
> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: RE: FreeBSD Traffic Shaping
>
>
> I gave port 80 as an example
al Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Cowart
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 7:55 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: FreeBSD Traffic Shaping
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am trying to limit the bandwidth available
al Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Cowart
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 7:55 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: FreeBSD Traffic Shaping
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am trying to limit the bandwidth availab
ECTED]
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: FreeBSD Traffic Shaping
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am trying to limit the bandwidth available to some connections and
> I'm not sure FreeBSD can handle this. Maybe some of you can help.
> Here's what I need to have exac
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am trying to limit the bandwidth available to some connections and I'm
> not sure FreeBSD can handle this. Maybe some of you can help. Here's what I
> need to have exactly.
>
> No matter what the number of connections, each connection should have at
> most/least 50k
On Wednesday 02 April 2008 00:18:36 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I've tried dummynet but it doesn't do what I need because if I define
> a pipe with 1mbps and if I have 1000 connections, each connection will
> have less than 50kbps.
>
> Any way to do this in FreeBSD ?
No, unfortunately your ISP giv
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am trying to limit the bandwidth available to some connections and I'm not
sure FreeBSD can handle this. Maybe some of you can help. Here's what I need
to have exactly.
No matter what the number of connections, each connection should have at
m
I am trying to limit the bandwidth available to some connections and
I'm not sure FreeBSD can handle this. Maybe some of you can help.
Here's what I need to have exactly.
No matter what the number of connections, each connection should have
at most/least 50kbps guaranteed outbound on port 8
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 08:32:53AM -0600, G-der wrote:
> I've been setting up ipfw and DUMMYNET to do some traffic shaping on my
> network. Right now to test things out I've basicly put everything into two
> categories. There's traffic from 10.0.10.10 which is low
I've been setting up ipfw and DUMMYNET to do some traffic shaping on my
network. Right now to test things out I've basicly put everything into two
categories. There's traffic from 10.0.10.10 which is lower priority (this
is a download machine) and then there's everythin
Hello,
I have few questions for ipfw gurus..
1) can I see what packets are matching my pipes/queues ? I'm using "ipfw
pipe show" for example but there is always only one host so if I'm
testing some rules I can't tell if they work or not (maybe there is some
other way how to "trace" such things
(question at the end)
I have a server that sits on a medium speed link (10Mbit, full duplex) that
under certain network loads starts to show what looks like TCP-ACK delay
problems. At full upstream saturation the downstream speed is reduced.
I modded the firewall rules to prioritize TCP-ACKs int
On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 09:28:00AM +0300, Odhiambo Washington wrote:
> Is there a way to do traffic shaping using IPFilter, akin to what
> ipfw+dummynet does? FreeBSD 5.x here.
Seeing as you're running 5.x, you've also got the choice of PF for
firewalling. That's the OpenBSD
Hello users,
Is there a way to do traffic shaping using IPFilter, akin to what
ipfw+dummynet does? FreeBSD 5.x here.
Thanks
-Wash
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
--
+==+
|\ _,,,---,,_ | Odhiambo
On Fri, 2004-07-02 at 07:35, Kevin A. Pieckiel wrote:
> I want to do traffic shaping with a FreeBSD firewall. The firewall uses
> IPF on FBSD 5.2.1-p8, and the only shaper I see in the ports is trickle.
> This doesn't even integrate into the firewall, so it would be useless to
&g
I want to do traffic shaping with a FreeBSD firewall. The firewall uses
IPF on FBSD 5.2.1-p8, and the only shaper I see in the ports is trickle.
This doesn't even integrate into the firewall, so it would be useless to
me for shaping traffic from other hosts on the protected network.
Besid
Kenji M wrote:
Hello network gurus,
I'm looking for a good baseline ipfw shaping policy configuration for
people who are using small upstream DSL bandwidth. I have 3Mbit
downstream and 768K upstream and I use a ipf for natting and ipfw
with dummynet to do traffic shaping. Considering a
Hello network gurus,
I'm looking for a good baseline ipfw shaping policy configuration for
people who are using small upstream DSL bandwidth. I have 3Mbit
downstream and 768K upstream and I use a ipf for natting and ipfw
with dummynet to do traffic shaping. Considering a 750KB upstream
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 12:56:08PM -1000, Vincent Poy wrote:
> ...
> > > the above configuration means that if queue 1 is getting a bandwidth
> > > X, then queue 2 will get 0.99X, queue 3 will get 0.98X, queue
> > > 4 will get 0.97X. Hardly matching any re
On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 12:56:08PM -1000, Vincent Poy wrote:
...
> > the above configuration means that if queue 1 is getting a bandwidth
> > X, then queue 2 will get 0.99X, queue 3 will get 0.98X, queue
> > 4 will get 0.97X. Hardly matching any reasonable definition of high-mid-low
> > priority!
>
On Sat, 20 Mar 2004, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> cannot comment on the reason for the huge delay (but one
> way to check what is going on is to change the pipe's bandwidth
> and see if anything changes), but i see a big
> misunderstanding on weights vs. priorities in your
> configuration:
The de
cannot comment on the reason for the huge delay (but one
way to check what is going on is to change the pipe's bandwidth
and see if anything changes), but i see a big
misunderstanding on weights vs. priorities in your
configuration:
> # Define our upload pipe
> ${fwcmd} pipe 1 config bw 48
what's causing this or is this the way it's supposed to work? All
the machines are pointing to .224 (FreeBSD box) as the gateway. All local
traffic doesn't go through dummynet's queues. This is how I have ipfw
configured.
setup_loopback
# Traffic Shaping for DSL connec
a /27 mask.
a /27 would work except it'll be 32 IP's with 24 of them that
would need the traffic shaping. So hopefully this would work:
ipfw add queue 1 ip from any to any out xmit xl0
or just ipfw add queue 1
followed by:
ipfw pipe 1 config bw 384Kbit/s
ipfw queue 1 config pipe
Vincent Poy writes:
>
> That's the part where it becomes difficult since even though I
> have 8 IP's, it's still on a /24 mask so only the 8 IP's in that /24 are
> actually local.
>
Use a /27 mask.
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://li
On 6 Feb 2004, Dan Pelleg wrote:
> Vincent Poy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >
> > After reading ipfw(8), I hope I have it correct that it's
> > like this:
> >
> > ipfw add queue 1 ip from any to any out xmit xl0
>
> Shouldn't "ipfw add queue 1" be enough?
Don't know, that was what
y loaded notebook with a
> > > > Pentium 4M-2.6Ghz CPU, 2GB RAM and 60GB 7200RPM HDD with a 10/100 3COM xl0
> > > > built in NIC. The problem is that I have 8 static IP's with my ISP so
> > > > that the LAN IP's, x.x.x.224-.231 netmask 255.255.255.0 are
Vincent Poy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> After reading ipfw(8), I hope I have it correct that it's
> like this:
>
> ipfw add queue 1 ip from any to any out xmit xl0
Shouldn't "ipfw add queue 1" be enough?
> ipfw pipe 1 config bw 384Kbit/s
> ipfw queue 1 config pipe 1 weight 30 mask al
gt; > the downstream with it at 1.5Mbps/384kbps now and will be upgrading to
> > > 6Mbps/608kbps soon. The issue I'm having is that whenever I upload, it
> > > fills the upstream to full capacity and the downstream would lag as the
> > > ACKs can't be send back in ti
nstream with it at 1.5Mbps/384kbps now and will be upgrading to
> > > 6Mbps/608kbps soon. The issue I'm having is that whenever I upload, it
> > > fills the upstream to full capacity and the downstream would lag as the
> > > ACKs can't be send back in time. I
bps/608kbps soon. The issue I'm having is that whenever I upload, it
> > fills the upstream to full capacity and the downstream would lag as the
> > ACKs can't be send back in time. I was told that with traffic shaping or
> > fair queue routing would solve this issue bu
r I upload, it
> fills the upstream to full capacity and the downstream would lag as the
> ACKs can't be send back in time. I was told that with traffic shaping or
> fair queue routing would solve this issue but I only have one NIC
> interface as I am running FreeBSD on a fully loaded n
d lag as the
ACKs can't be send back in time. I was told that with traffic shaping or
fair queue routing would solve this issue but I only have one NIC
interface as I am running FreeBSD on a fully loaded notebook with a
Pentium 4M-2.6Ghz CPU, 2GB RAM and 60GB 7200RPM HDD with a 10/100 3COM xl
oops,
sent to wrong list
-Original Message-
From: Lee Dilkie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 8:00 AM
To: 'Bjorn Eikeland'; 'Jaco van Tonder';
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [5.2.1-RC, IPFW] Traffic Shaping
>
> The
e smtp
*)when I say tried I really mean ipfw didnt complain, but no traffic
actually saw it.
Obviously you can replace 'me' with your actual ip and 'smtp' with 25,
but
I find its easier to read english.
Feel free to try that though :)
Hi all,
I am using FreeBSD 5.2.1-RC + IPF
IPFW2 + DUMMYNET to do traffic shaping.
This works well for my setup.
I have the following configuration:
The machine has 2 NIC's, xl0, dc0. The kernel is configured to do
bridging. The bridged
packets is passed to IPFW (net.link.ether.bridge.ipfw=1).
I shape traffic this way:
The bridge
Hi all,
I am using FreeBSD 5.2.1-RC + IPFW2 + DUMMYNET to do traffic shaping.
This works well for my setup.
I have the following configuration:
The machine has 2 NIC's, xl0, dc0. The kernel is configured to do
bridging. The bridged
packets is passed to IPFW (net.link.ether.bridge.ipfw=1
On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 05:22:17PM +, Rus Foster wrote:
> Hi,
> Is there a good document I could look at for traffic shaping/rate
> limiting on FreeBSD. Googling hasn't chucked up anything obvious
The ipfw manual is quite useful and if you try searching through the
freebsd-que
Hi,
Is there a good document I could look at for traffic shaping/rate
limiting on FreeBSD. Googling hasn't chucked up anything obvious
Cheers
Rus
--
w: http://www.jvds.com | JVDS Tech Channel:
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]| http://tech.jvds.com
t: +44 7919 373537 | Talk about Tech
PROTECTED] Behalf Of abdul
Sent: Wednesday, 21 May 2003 12:00 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Dummynet/Traffic Shaping problem
Hi all,
Sorry I am repeating this message again.
I am still coiled up in it.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO ENABLE A FASTER CONNECTION TO SOME SITES USED FOR OFFICIAL
DUTIES?
MY PROBLEM?
I
> I recall seeing in the man page that DUMMYNET has RED and GRED
> algorithms built in - I don't know any more detail than that though...
It also Has W2FQ+ (or something like that) fair queueing, although I
havn't tried to set it up in a while, last time I used it, it worked
great.
Ken
To Unsu
From: "Fernando Gleiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> You need a "fair sharing" queueing discipline, something like CBQ. I
don't
> know if you can do that with dummynet. I know for sure ALTQ works great
for
> this. It supports a bunch of queueing disciplines (CBQ, RED, WFQ and
> others).
I recall seein
On 18 Sep 2002, Kirk Strauser wrote:
>
> I'm looking for a solution that would allow the non-paying hosts to have
> full use of the bandwidth as long as the paying hosts are idle, but which
> would ensure that the paying customers have their full bandwidth available
> any time they need it.
You
At 2002-09-18T20:08:23Z, Byron Schlemmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Best practice? Well I'm not sure what that would be but to accomplish most
> of this see 'man dummynet'. Very easy to setup and highly
> configurable.
The only problem I see is that I know you can use dummynet to limit a
con
On 18 Sep 2002, Kirk Strauser wrote:
> I know that someone asks this question every now and then, but it's the kind
> of thing that can change over time, so I ask again:
>
> I want to use a FreeBSD firewall to provide bandwidth guarantees to
> customers. Specifically, several hosts will be shari
I know that someone asks this question every now and then, but it's the kind
of thing that can change over time, so I ask again:
I want to use a FreeBSD firewall to provide bandwidth guarantees to
customers. Specifically, several hosts will be sharing a 512Kbps pipe.
Some of those hosts are no-c
82 matches
Mail list logo
