RC1 is (or will soon be) available at a mirror near you. The release notes are attached. -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net Washington USA \ teastep@shorewall.net PGP Public Key \ https://lists.shorewall.net/teastep.pgp.key
Tom Eastep wrote: --snip--> 11) A new value is defined for the TC_ENABLED option in shorewall.conf to > enable the built-in tc4shorewall traffic shaper. If you set > TC_ENABLED=internal then tc4shorewall will be used. If the option is > set to Yes then Shorewall will continue to look for a ''tcstart'' script.--snip-- Tom, I''m currently setting up a new firewall and am converting an "older" v2.5 setup over to 3.0-RC2. I ran into this nice little entry in my shorewall.conf file and have a question about it. I''m currently using Wondershaper for TC and am curious as to how the built-in TC script works as compared to WS. Is there any benefit in continuing to use WS over the "internal" TC type? I''m just using a standard "out-of-the-box" WS config, so I''m not doing anything special with it, just trying to load-balance across two providers. If there''s no benefit in keeping WS, I''ll probably just switch to using the internal TC scripts, as it''s just cleaner and easier to maintain. Thanks.
Preston Kutzner escribió:> Tom Eastep wrote: > --snip-- > > --snip-- > > Tom, > > I''m currently setting up a new firewall and am converting an "older" > v2.5 setup over to 3.0-RC2. I ran into this nice little entry in my > shorewall.conf file and have a question about it. > > I''m currently using Wondershaper for TC and am curious as to how the > built-in TC script works as compared to WS. Is there any benefit in > continuing to use WS over the "internal" TC type? I''m just using a > standard "out-of-the-box" WS config, so I''m not doing anything special > with it, just trying to load-balance across two providers. If there''s > no benefit in keeping WS, I''ll probably just switch to using the > internal TC scripts, as it''s just cleaner and easier to maintain. Thanks. > >I think you want to read the documentation. http://www1.shorewall.net/3.0/traffic_shaping.htm#id2460489 section "Configuration to replace Wondershaper" ;) And I think new TC capabilities on shorewall are much powerful and flexible than WS. -- Cristian Rodriguez R. perl -e ''$_=pack(c5,0105,0107,0123,0132,(1<<3)+2);y[A-Z][N-ZA-M];print;''
Cristian Rodriguez wrote:> Preston Kutzner escribió: > >> Tom Eastep wrote: >> --snip-- >> >> --snip-- >> >> Tom, >> >> I''m currently setting up a new firewall and am converting an "older" >> v2.5 setup over to 3.0-RC2. I ran into this nice little entry in my >> shorewall.conf file and have a question about it. >> >> I''m currently using Wondershaper for TC and am curious as to how the >> built-in TC script works as compared to WS. Is there any benefit in >> continuing to use WS over the "internal" TC type? I''m just using a >> standard "out-of-the-box" WS config, so I''m not doing anything special >> with it, just trying to load-balance across two providers. If there''s >> no benefit in keeping WS, I''ll probably just switch to using the >> internal TC scripts, as it''s just cleaner and easier to maintain. >> Thanks. >> >> > > I think you want to read the documentation. > > http://www1.shorewall.net/3.0/traffic_shaping.htm#id2460489 > section "Configuration to replace Wondershaper" ;) > > And I think new TC capabilities on shorewall are much powerful and > flexible than WS. > >/me smacks head. Missed that part in the docs...