Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list netdev); Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:08:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx04.cyberus.ca (mx04.cybersurf.com [209.197.145.108]) by oss.sgi.com (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j0VK8rTi026317 for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:08:54 -0800 Received: from mail.cyberus.ca ([209.197.145.21]) by mx04.cyberus.ca with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1Cvhqm-0000Nw-N9 for netdev@oss.sgi.com; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 13:08:44 -0700 Received: from [216.209.86.2] (helo=[10.0.0.9]) by mail.cyberus.ca with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Cvhqe-0005jU-0H; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:08:36 -0500 Subject: Re: dummy as IMQ replacement From: jamal Reply-To: hadi@cyberus.ca To: Lennert Buytenhek Cc: Hasso Tepper , netdev@oss.sgi.com, Nguyen Dinh Nam , Remus , Andre Tomt , syrius.ml@no-log.org, Andy Furniss , Damion de Soto In-Reply-To: <20050131180048.GA24851@xi.wantstofly.org> References: <1107123123.8021.80.camel@jzny.localdomain> <200501311614.31397.hasso@estpak.ee> <1107181551.7847.193.camel@jzny.localdomain> <200501311646.14322.hasso@estpak.ee> <20050131180048.GA24851@xi.wantstofly.org> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: jamalopolous Message-Id: <1107202111.1076.537.camel@jzny.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 Date: 31 Jan 2005 15:08:31 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.80/650/Sun Jan 2 19:00:02 2005 clamav-milter version 0.80j on 127.0.0.1 X-Virus-Status: Clean X-archive-position: 1118 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com X-original-sender: hadi@cyberus.ca Precedence: bulk X-list: netdev Content-Length: 1132 Lines: 29 On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 13:00, Lennert Buytenhek wrote: > On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 04:46:14PM +0200, Hasso Tepper wrote: > > > This is somewhat related to killing the chance to use iptables as well ... > > Iptables has better documentation and people use it just because of that. > > I'm afraid I have to agree on this one. Well, if you look at the 2 requirements behind IMQ, has nothing todo with iptables i.e does not at all require presence of iptables. So motivation is to meet those requirements not kill iptables. > The idea behind iptables is > easy to grasp, whereas tc isn't totally obvious, and all tc 'tutorials' > out there just give you a long list of commands to type in but don't > really explain you what goes on under the hood. > > And you can't just expect everyone to "Go look at the source." Agreed, tc is less usable and has a lot less people puking code at it. The usability part has to be fixed. And i think you will see that with ematch and eaction code showing up. Credit goes to Bart and co and their website for putting a lot of docs together. Usability certainly needs to improve! cheers, jamal