[Top] [All Lists]

Re: dummy as IMQ replacement

To: hadi@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: dummy as IMQ replacement
From: Hasso Tepper <hasso@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:20:08 +0200
Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, Nguyen Dinh Nam <nguyendinhnam@xxxxxxxxx>, Remus <rmocius@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andre Tomt <andre@xxxxxxxx>,, Andy Furniss <andy.furniss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Damion de Soto <damion@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <1107123123.8021.80.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: Elion Enterprises Ltd.
References: <1107123123.8021.80.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: KMail/1.7.2
Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> 2) Allows for queueing incoming traffic for shaping instead of
> dropping. I am not aware of any study that shows policing is
> worse than shaping in achieving the end goal of rate control.
> I would be interested if anyone is experimenting. Nevertheless,
> this is still an alternative as opposed to making a system wide
> ingress change.

Policing didn't work with IPv6 last time I checked.

Hasso Tepper
Elion Enterprises Ltd.
WAN administrator

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