On 06/29/2012 12:32 PM, Tim wrote: > On Thu, 2012-06-28 at 09:21 -0700, Rick Stevens wrote: >> I agree the OP's client has got a weird idea as to limiting access, >> but perhaps they feel their uplink is too small to handle more >> connections. There is a lot of education that's required here with the >> client. > But that's never going to work. Thus far, none of the information in > this thread has made any sense. The requirement is ludicrous and > impractical, so either the client's request is stupid, or misunderstood > by the original poster. > > Limiting the number of clients is useless as a bandwidth limit, likewise > with limiting the number of connections. A client could have one or a > hundred connections, at any one time. One client could swamp your > entire available bandwidth, or your bandwidth could be enough to supply > a couple of hundred clients (it depends on what they're doing with it). > Also, one connection could max out your connection, or hundreds of > connections might be barely noticeable (again, it depends on what you're > doing with them). > > All this is going to achieve is breakage. It'd denial-of-service some > clients that are actually trying to work, perhaps even DOS something > that's central to all the clients, and put the whole network into > failure, in one go. > If course you are ignoring one thing. The OP isn't asking "how" he can solve "a" problem (undefined). He is asking "how" he can implement a "solution" (poorly defined). A "solution" to which he "can't" say no to. :-) :-) -- Never be afraid to laugh at yourself, after all, you could be missing out on the joke of the century. -- Dame Edna Everage -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
