Traffic shaper changes [90% completed, please send money to complete bounty]
-
I started this thread about a year ago, but have not been keeping track of pfsense. For my original problem I ended up using m0n0wall and that has worked out well enough. I am not as actively involved in the purchase decision process of the company that needed this solution as I was a year ago. If this feature does eventually get implemented into pfsense I will try my best at ponying up the $200 I had originally pledged. Should anyone need to contact me about receiving my pledge please leave a comment on http://blog.wtip.net/
-
I dont only want to renew my offer, I will raise it again. 400$ for Multi-Interface QoS in combination with PPPoE on OPT-Interfaces. Also I raise my bounty for per-IP Traffic Shaping to 200$.
Greetings,
techatdd -
I'm also highly interested in having traffic shapper running in multiwan, I can offer US$50, I know this is not to much, but is what I can do, and this is for personal use, not for business.
Saludos
Alfredo -
I'll put in 200$ for shaping unrestricted by number of WANs and LANs.
-
Hi,
I'm throwing in $500 on this one. I'm specifically interested in multiple LAN interface support. Wizard support for this is desired, but not required.
I wanted to paypal the money right now, but was advised to wait. ;)
/Eirik
-
Okay we are nearing completion of a COMPLETE traffic shaper overhaul.
Ermal has done quite a bit of work to overhaul the shaper and make it multiple interface ready, adding back all ALTQ protocols and making it generally easier to edit queues and rules.
So who is still in on this bounty? The plans are to bring this into HEAD and RELENG_1. We might be able to make a patch set available for 1.2 AFTER it has been tested in RELENG_1.
-
I'm still here, but I don't know how to send the money and when
-
I will pay 1000 $ for eris solution if a fully stable patch set exists for 1.2
-
Where is everyone else? I know there was a lot more folks that committed money. Ermal has spent a LOT of time on this project and it would be a travesty if he does not get what was promised to the person that did the work.
-
Happy new year, my payment arise, now i will pay 1200 $ for a 1.2 patch set solution.
-
100$ on it's way
-
Thanks to everyone that is coming through with their end of the deal.
Now everyone else, please, please keep your pledge. I would hate to have to switch the bounty system to a prepaid model where everyone would suffer.
-
Ups, i have found 200 $, so my payment for a 1.2 fully stable patch set is now 1400 $
-
Thank you heiko! Now where is everyone else?
-
hi all,
i already sent the money via paypal - as noted - and I would be happy to get transparent shaping (bridged mode) working well - for the folks who only want to shape without modifying any routing or ip assignments…nice on mac or ip basis, timed and easy to setup :-)
thomas
-
Hi,
I've never post any money via paypal to a bounty, exists an account or any reference to do it right?
-
sure, see bottom of page http://www.pfsense.org/index.php?id=38
thomas
-
Has anyone contacted wcoolnet via his/her blog as he/she said 2 months ago?
-
@Nil:
Has anyone contacted wcoolnet via his/her blog as he/she said 2 months ago?
I don't think so. Care to contact them and ask them to tune back in to the thread?
-
The company I work for may be interested in this. Right now we have a pfsense box with a /24 of ips on 20 mb/s metro e, and a /26 on 6 mb/s 4 bonded t-1's and a managed cisco 3600 series. We recently met with a ccie about a cisco 3845 for the metro e, and implementing bgp.
Would the new shaper changes allow us to shape the connections and allow for one to be much faster than the other? We don't really need load balancing, just failover. Also, could we use the failover capabilities of pfsense instead of a 3845 to completely failover the metro e to the bonded t's? I would much rather use pfsense for everything possible as long as it's very stable like the test box I set up on the metro e and just left there because it worked so well. We would also want to purchase the support because downtime is really big $$$ for us now that we've grown. That's why we need the failover.