[Top] [All Lists]

Re: IMQ / new Dummy device post.

To: Andy Furniss <andy.furniss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: IMQ / new Dummy device post.
From: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 15 Apr 2004 08:15:13 -0400
Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <407E5905.9070108@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: jamalopolis
References: <407E5905.9070108@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 05:42, Andy Furniss wrote:

> The only reason I use IMQ (+ NAT patch) is that I need to shape ingress 
> (I know I can't shape it "properly" from the wrong end of the bottleneck 
> without an intelligent app, but the ingress policer does not let me 
> share local and forwarded bandwidth and is not fair per user if I just 
> throttle the whole link).
> I am not sure if dummy will sort this for me, there may be some other way?

The summary is dummy can do what IMQ used to; it is however not related
to iptables/netfilter. 

> Basically all I need is something I can use HTB on where the qos ingress 
> box is on this diagram.

Yes you can attach a HTB. Look at the posted example in the previous
email and replace prio with HTB. 
Not sure i answered your questions.

Again to emphasize: I will send patches only to people interested.
People have to ask directly;
this is my way of monitoring what is being tested. At some point i will
make the latest patches available to everyone.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>