[Top] [All Lists]

Re: dummy as IMQ replacement

To: Hasso Tepper <hasso@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: dummy as IMQ replacement
From: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 31 Jan 2005 07:25:39 -0500
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: <200501311020.08337.hasso@xxxxxxxxx>
Organization: jamalopolous
References: <1107123123.8021.80.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200501311020.08337.hasso@xxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 03:20, Hasso Tepper wrote:
> 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.

Really? I take it this is using the u32 classifier?
What filter did you use?


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