[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 From:  Adam Nellemann <adam at nellemann dot nu>
 To:  Eric Shorkey <eshorkey at commonpointservices dot com>, "m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch" <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] Wondershaper
 Date:  Wed, 09 Jun 2004 18:41:16 +0200
Eric Shorkey wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, I answered an email for Joey. ;)
> You have to bind your shaper rules to an interface. It really doesn't matter
> which so long as the traffic you wish to shape passes through that interface
> at some point. Looks like Joey picked the lan interface. That's really all
> there is to it.

Isn't there at least some difference?

I should think the LAN interface might see a lot of LAN traffic (how's 
that for stating the obvious!) which one would usually not want to 
shape (and thus one would need special shaper rules ommiting such 
local traffic, or for sending it through pipes/queues made for LAN 

Conversly the WAN interface should only see traffic to and from the 
WAN (duh, ain't I the brilliant one once again!) And thus one would 
not need to take special care of the LAN traffic with the shaper rules 
on this interface.

But perhaps I'm missing something?

One reason I CAN see for using the LAN interface when shaping WAN 
traffic, would be to implement two-pass shaping (seeing as multi-pass 
shaping isn't currently supported), but that is another matter entirely.