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

Re: State/queue question



* J. Martin Petersen <[email protected]> [2005-04-23 10:49]:
> Henning Brauer wrote:
> > * Kelley Reynolds <[email protected]> [2005-03-21 19:40]:
> > 
> >>This has come up a few times on the list, and I was wondering how difficult it would be to alter the pf syntax so that a stateful rule on a firewall could apply queues on two interfaces so that bidirectional queueing can be done while tracking state?
> >>
> >>I believe (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that to get bi-directional queueing, one must have a seperate rule per interface and not keep state since that would be a single rule (this limiting the state-associated packets to a single queue, one interface or the other)
> > 
> > 
> > huh? you should create state and just create queues by the same names n 
> > different interfaces, it'll Just Work
> 
> Was this introduced recently?
no.
> When I try something something like
> 
> 	altq on $mci_if cbq bandwidth 28Mb qlimit $qs queue { serv bulk}
> 	  queue serv bandwidth 20% priority 6 cbq(borrow)
> 	  queue bulk bandwidth 80% priority 5 cbq(borrow)
> 
> 	altq on $mbh_if cbq bandwidth 28Mb qlimit $qs queue { serv bulk}
> 	  queue serv bandwidth 20% priority 6 cbq(borrow)
> 	  queue bulk bandwidth 80% priority 5 cbq(borrow)
you are specifying teh queues twice.
 	altq on { $mci_if $mbh_if } cbq bandwidth 28Mb qlimit $qs queue { serv bulk}
 	  queue serv bandwidth 20% priority 6 cbq(borrow)
 	  queue bulk bandwidth 80% priority 5 cbq(borrow)
 
will work, or you can limit queue specifications to a certain 
interfaces as well, aka queue blah on $someinterface
> Or have I just misunderstood how I should create the queues?
yes.