Message from discussion PF inadequacy: queue download

Path: g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!wns13feed!worldnet.att.net!129.250.169.16!pln-e!spln!dex!newsgate.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!mdrn
From: j...@ice-nine.org (jared r r spiegel)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.openbsd-pf
Subject: Re: PF inadequacy: queue download
Date: 1 May 2006 14:34:12 -0700
Organization: None
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <20060501212036.GB6957@ice-nine.org>
References: <1146315947.065791.306090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1146473495.789338.13530@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.newsguy.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 May 2006 21:34:13 GMT

kestas....@gmail.com wrote:
> > works just as good as it possibly could if pf had a "download" queue mechanism, if not better.
> 
> This works adequetly (How could it be "better"?  Sounds like zealot
> speak to me.

  to answer that, i believe there's no room for discussion there, then.

> if the boxes only function is NAT, but if it also runs
> external services queueing inbound traffic
 
  if the machine's only function is NAT it does not
  run external services.

  if i have an external service which i want to have 
  jurisdiction over the input traffic on, i run it behind the LAN side.

  if i have an external service that i don't care about
  getting download traffic control over, i run it where it
  makes the most sense to me.

  perhaps you don't have the same liberty of convenience.

-- 

  jared

[ openbsd 3.9-current GENERIC ( mar 15 ) // i386 ]