| To: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] IMQ port to 2.6 |
| From: | "Vladimir B. Savkin" <master@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 25 Jan 2004 23:21:49 +0300 |
| Cc: | linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1075058539.1747.92.camel@jzny.localdomain> |
| References: | <20040125152419.GA3208@penguin.localdomain> <20040125164431.GA31548@louise.pinerecords.com> <1075058539.1747.92.camel@jzny.localdomain> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.4i |
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 02:22:19PM -0500, jamal wrote:
>
> There has been no real good reason as to why IMQ is needed to begin
> with. It may be easy to use and has been highly publized (which is
> always a dangerous thing in Linux).
>
> Maybe lets take a step back and see how people use it. How and why do
> you use IMQ? Is this because you couldnt use the ingress qdisc?
Think multiple clients connected via PPP. I want to shape traffic,
so ingress is out of question. I want different clients in a same
htb class, so using qdisc on each ppp interface is out of
question. It seems to me that IMQ is the only way to achieve my goals.
> Note, the abstraction to begin with is in the wrong place - it sure is
> an easy and nice looking hack. So is the current ingress qdisc, but we
> are laying that to rest with TC extensions.
>
>
~
:wq
With best regards,
Vladimir Savkin.
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: user space multicast routing interface, jamal |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: user space multicast routing interface, David Stevens |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] IMQ port to 2.6, jamal |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] IMQ port to 2.6, jamal |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |