os/doc
3
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Wiki Activity

IPF does not have ALTQ support (or at least not that I and several others

Browse source 
could find) so remove it from the information, give an example on how
such a setup can be achieved.

PR:		docs/113464
Submitted by:	Josh Paetzel <josh at tcbug dot org>
Inspired by:	Marc Silver <marcs at draenor dot org> (slightly rewritten
		by me).
This commit is contained in:
Remko Lodder 2008-01-17 13:38:31 +00:00
parent b90123839f
commit 8733db6ed1
Notes: svn2git 2020-12-08 03:00:23 +00:00 
svn path=/head/; revision=31304
1 changed files with 5 additions and 1 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

6
en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/firewalls/chapter.sgml
View file

@ -153,7 +153,11 @@
&man.altq.4; and &man.dummynet.4;. Dummynet has traditionally been &man.altq.4; and &man.dummynet.4;. Dummynet has traditionally been
closely tied with <acronym>IPFW</acronym>, and closely tied with <acronym>IPFW</acronym>, and
<acronym>ALTQ</acronym> with <acronym>ALTQ</acronym> with
<acronym>IPF</acronym>/<acronym>PF</acronym>. IPF, IPF. Traffic shaping for <acronym>IPFILTER</acronym> can currently
be done with <acronym>IPFILTER</acronym> for NAT and filtering and
<acronym>IPFW</acronym> with &man.dummynet.4;
<emphasis>or</emphasis> by using <acronym>PF</acronym> with
<acronym>ALTQ</acronym>.
IPFW, and PF all use rules to control the access of packets to and IPFW, and PF all use rules to control the access of packets to and
from your system, although they go about it different ways and from your system, although they go about it different ways and
have different rule syntaxes.</para> have different rule syntaxes.</para>