[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: pf/altq on a fast link



what a bullshit. you have no clue what you are talking about. piss off.
On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 09:25:20AM -0700, Dennis wrote:
> [email protected] (Kent R. Spillner) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > Dennis wrote:
> > > "FREE" isnt really cheaper when you spend $1000's worth of your time
> > > to make it work, and then end up with an inferior solution when you're
> > > done.
> > 
> > -1, Troll
> > 
> > This is a pf list.  pf does not require investing $1000s worth of your
> > time to "make it work."  pf is not an inferior solution.
> > 
> > Go peddle your "p2p sniffer" and your lies elsewhere.
> 
> openbsd-pf is a good firewall. But as a bandwidth management tool it's
> quite inferior. Priority queuing is an archaic, inferior technology,
> if you can call it a technology.
> 
> The subject here is "pf/altq" on a fast link. How does it perform on a
> gigabit wire with stats gathering and limits configured for 5000
> hosts? How does granular, duration controlled bursting work? does it
> automatically pace traffic to reduce queue depths when a point of
> congestion is reached?
> 
> There's nothing wrong with an open-source firewall. But an ISP need a
> separate bandwidth management box. Anyone that thinks they can do it
> with the free stuff is settling for a trivial solution that will cost
> them in the long run. The ethical thing to do, when someone asks about
> using pf/altq for a high-volume business, is to tell them the truth.
> They need something a bit better.
> 
> DB
> 
> 
-- 
Henning Brauer, BS Web Services, http://bsws.de
[email protected] - [email protected]
Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity.
(Dennis Ritchie)