| To: | "Vladimir B. Savkin" <master@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] IMQ port to 2.6 |
| From: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | 31 Jan 2004 17:26:34 -0500 |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20040131215821.GA3615@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Organization: | jamalopolis |
| References: | <20040126093230.GA17811@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1075124312.1732.292.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040126135545.GA19497@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1075127396.1746.370.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040131185231.GA2608@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1075580812.1035.83.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040131205326.GA3089@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1075584318.1033.159.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040131213236.GA3451@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1075585764.1035.192.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040131215821.GA3615@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Reply-to: | hadi@xxxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Sat, 2004-01-31 at 16:58, Vladimir B. Savkin wrote: > Well, not, the primary reason being that there would be no single class > with appropriate bandwith limit (ceil). There would be multiple classes, Ok - i think you made your point. So i should add that a third condition is there are multiple devices towards the clients. You have convinced me there is value in such a scheme as IMQ provides for such conditions. As it is right now though IMQ needs to have the right abstraction (and not be dependent on netfilter).And may be we could abuse it to do other things. Let me hear from Tomas and then we should take it from there. cheers, jamal |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] IMQ port to 2.6, Vladimir B. Savkin |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] IMQ port to 2.6, Vladimir B. Savkin |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] IMQ port to 2.6, Vladimir B. Savkin |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] IMQ port to 2.6, Tomas Szepe |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |