Message from discussion PF inadequacy: queue download

Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!wns13feed!worldnet.att.net!129.250.169.16!pln-e!spln!rex!newsgate.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!mdrn
From: lars...@unet.net.ph (Lars Hansson)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.openbsd-pf
Subject: Re: PF inadequacy: queue download
Date: 2 May 2006 00:43:05 -0700
Organization: None
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <200605021522.33332.lars-pf@unet.net.ph>
References: <1146473495.789338.13530@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1146533347.406763.28780@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: unknown
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-6"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 May 2006 07:43:06 GMT

On Tuesday 02 May 2006 09:29, kestas....@gmail.com wrote:
>Why the resistance?
>The other two major firewalls iptables and IPFW can do 
> it, why can't PF?

Because it's not deemed a really urgent, or even wanted, feature, obviously.
The majority of users/developers has a separate firewall and then "download 
queing" is just a matter of doing it on the inside interface. Most of the 
previous questions about "download queuing" has been from people who didnt 
know that you could achieve the this by queuing on the inside interface, not 
by people who wanted to shape traffic to services the firewall box itself.

---
Lars Hansson