[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ipfilter
Subject:    Re: dummynet (was: FreeBSD ipfilter vs. ipfirewall)
From:       "Alexander V. Tischenko" <flash () hway ! ru>
Date:       1999-03-09 8:54:38
[Download RAW message or body]

I don't know especially about dummynet, but ALTQ/CBQ package works
fine with ipfilter for me.

On Fri, 5 Mar 1999, Smith, Eric V. wrote:

> Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 14:27:46 -0500 
> From: "Smith, Eric V." <EricSmith@windsor.com>
> To: ipfilter@coombs.anu.edu.au
> Cc: ipfilter@coombs.anu.edu.au
> Subject: dummynet (was: FreeBSD ipfilter vs. ipfirewall)
> 
> Speaking of dummynet or other traffic shapers, I was considering adding such
> features either to ipfilter itself or (more likely) as a standalone package
> that could also be used with ipfilter.
> 
> Has anyone looked at dummynet enough to know if it's a good thing to base
> this on?  I've written one of these from scratch before and I could either
> adapt my earlier work, use dummynet, or use something else.
> 
> Does anyone have any opinions?
> 
> Eric.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tomaz Borstnar [mailto:tomaz.borstnar@over.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 04, 1999 4:07 PM
> > To: junkmale@xtra.co.nz
> > Cc: ipfilter@coombs.anu.edu.au
> > Subject: Re: FreeBSD ipfilter vs. ipfirewall
> > 
> > 
> > At 03:15 PM 2/13/99 , Dan Langille wrote the following message:
> > >I started off with ipfw.  I much prefer ipfilter because of the rule 
> > >groups.  And I can create my rules easier with ipfilter.  
> > This is all very 
> > 
> > Well, I also started with ipfw and later had to start 
> > learning ipfilter,
> > because FreeBSD doesn't run on Sparc. I find ipfw much easier 
> > to start with
> > - i was able to start filtering pretty soon after some rtfm 
> > while ipfilter
> > is much harder beast to master. ipfilter offers much more 
> > when you're in
> > need of advanced features like keep state and such. 
> > 
> > I'll try to migrate to ipfilter, because I need to. I have 
> > host with 3 NICs
> > - one for router, one for private lan and one for public 
> > segment. I use NAT
> > for private part and registered addresses on public part, but 
> > I'd like to
> > shorten my rules and better secure the gateway. I intend to 
> > make extensive
> > use of keep state feature.
> > Any gotchas I need to be aware of when dealing with several NICs?
> > 
> > >subjective.  I can't point to something and say "this is why 
> > ipfilter is 
> > >better".  Hopefully someone else with greater knowledge can.
> > One very good reason to stick with ipfw - dummynet - bridge 
> > and bandwidth
> > limiter! 
> > 
> > Tomaz
> > ----
> > Tomaz Borstnar <tomaz.borstnar@over.net>
> > "Love is the answer to the final question you ask" - Unknown
> > 
> 

Alexander V. Tischenko
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Network Technologies                 | Tel: +7 095 978-47-37
7, Miusskaya sq., Moscow, 125047 Russia         | Fax: +7 095 978-47-37
Internet: flash@hway.ru                         | NIC: AT55-RIPE

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]