Message from discussion PF inadequacy: queue download

Path: g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!wns13feed!worldnet.att.net!129.250.175.17!pln-w!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 00:45:05 -0700
Organization: None
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <20060501011018.GA6957@ice-nine.org>
References: <1146315947.065791.306090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <20060429142538.GP19449@insomnia.benzedrine.cx> <20060429151040.GA11282@tehran.lain.pl>
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.newsguy.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 May 2006 07:45:05 GMT

On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 05:10:40PM +0200, Stanislaw Halik wrote:
> 
> I can speak for myself - I can't afford both the hardware and the
> electricity bill for a separate machine. Maybe downstream limiting isn't
> very robust, but IMO is the biggest thing pf/altq lacks.

  i queue the incoming downstream on the outbound-towards-my-LAN side.

  works just as good as it possibly could if pf had a "download" queue
  mechanism, if not better.

  if you are in a colo situation and you can't afford a little soekris
  ( or somethin' ) to drop in between and do this -- well... kudos 
  on finding so inexpensive a colo that you can afford that but not
  a little 1 time ~250 USD or so for the investment on soekris/whatever

-- 

  jared

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