AltQ

[Theo de Raadt]

> Is there any project of integrating the AltQ development
> (http://www.csl.sony.co.jp/~kjc/software.html) into our source tree ?
>
> I think it might be a usefull addition to the system.
> It may be of great interest to ISPs and small-to-large office managers :-)

I am concerned that the current code will require changes to every single
network device driver in the source tree.

[Thierry Deval]

Hello,

Is there any project of integrating the AltQ development
(http://www.csl.sony.co.jp/~kjc/software.html) into our source tree ?

I think it might be a usefull addition to the system.
It may be of great interest to ISPs and small-to-large office managers :-)

Thierry

[a...@eltex.ru]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

nuqneH,

That's the reason i never use AltQ on my machines: i just don't like the
way it works and this way creates enormous amount of kernel changes.

There is a thing that looks much better, called dummynet, but it is
freebsd-only and even worse, requires ipfw to work. There were some
discussions about porting it to ipfilter, but nobody actually tried..

We have no acceptable traffic shaper for now :(

Theo de Raadt <der...@cvs.openbsd.org> said :

> I am concerned that the current code will require changes to every single
> network device driver in the source tree.
>

_ _ _ _ _ _ _
{::} {::} {::} CU in Hell _| o |_ | | _|| | / _||_| |_ |_ |_
(##) (##) (##) /Arkan#iD |_ o _||_| _||_| / _| | o |_||_||_|
[||] [||] [||] Do i believe in Bible? Hell,man,i've seen one!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBOIxo0qH/mIJW9LeBAQFTbAP/e9DX0QJqfTftFuSNjKXaeLn5Tn7ljiXJ
ZhTRSFTdxbarMyB8OXI9HQv4K2gN2p5vKUIdGvjvqqtyyitTSDwly7zsPoaCrfh9
KdEf48ZpwxAS7W7EyiUnNleFrxREHwONZhXkF/bzmHFCidhXzRmPD5R0R6KHRF2q
XpcuX2Qu5L4=
=wsJA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Thierry Deval]

Hi,

On Tuesday, January 25, 2000 2:38 AM, Arkan mailto:a...@eltex.ru wrote:
> nuqneH,
>
> Hope you mean ipf?

Yes an No...

Ipf would certainly be the best interface for setting up the queuing
rules, but afaik it is limited to the IP protocol.
While altq and dummynet are all still IPv4 queuing tools, I see no
reason to not extend the scope of such tool to other protocols (esp.
IPv6, but also any other).
Moreover, it should not be limited to rule on physical interfaces (eth,
atm), but on any network facility (ppp, gif) as does certainly ipf.
Which is why the altq approach is wrong, isn't it ?

Then we should devise whether ipf would embrace any protocol (a la
ifconfig) and move it away from netinet (is it possible ?), or add some
other filter ?

Maybe yes, we should start on ipf, though...

> Thierry Deval <TDe...@PrimeOBJ.COM> said :
>
> > OK, my best best would be to base alt-q on bpf, or maybe just under
it.
> >
> > I'll look at all this HUGE networking code, and see were AltQ could
fit.
> > Any suggestion from you gurus are welcome. And when I come back with
something,
> > there will certainly be a need for deep cleaning ;-)
^ ^ ^ ^
| | | |

To help me, could someone draw a summary on how the different parts of
the networking code fit together ? ( from layer 1 <-- ... -->
application layer )