Matthew Seaman wrote:
On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 01:54:20PM -0500, Chuck Swiger wrote:
[ ... ]
The question of QoS rather than bandwidth capping is valid, but how do
you prioritise data traffic if you can't identify at least one of the
port numbers used for the TCP or UDP streams?
While you need
On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 01:54:20PM -0500, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> Matthew Seaman wrote:
> [ ... ]
> >Now, that sounds quite reasonable, but it's really quite a minefield.
> >Consider that the TCP stream could be fragmented --- unlikely in
> >normal usage, but something a potential attacker might try
Matthew Seaman wrote:
[ ... ]
Now, that sounds quite reasonable, but it's really quite a minefield.
Consider that the TCP stream could be fragmented --- unlikely in
normal usage, but something a potential attacker might try --- or that
an attacker might be able to persuade your firewall to open up
On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 08:24:58AM +0800, Paul Hamilton wrote:
> I have played around with dummynet a bit. Very nice! However, it would be
> nice to be able to rate limit ftp. The control channel port 21 is easy, and
> not really necessary to rate limit it, but as fas as I can see there would
>
Hi,
I have played around with dummynet a bit. Very nice! However, it would be
nice to be able to rate limit ftp. The control channel port 21 is easy, and
not really necessary to rate limit it, but as fas as I can see there would
be no way to rate limit the data channel, as it could be different
