Subject: Re: altq api for ipf and pf
To: None <>
From: Thomas E. Spanjaard <>
List: current-users
Date: 09/25/2005 23:52:12
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

matthew sporleder wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on this topic.  Ipf has a
> strong reputation and great portability, but what is stopping it from
> utilizing this other component of netbsd?

The lack of a sophisticated API, which probably needs to be supported on 
all platforms both ipf and ALTQ run on.

> Basically, what happened to stop this progress?

Noone stood up to fix this, apparently.

> If ALTQ is the problem (not written in such a way to allow segregation
> from a packet filter), why is it considered a valid solution?

Basically, because it's the only option (not considering dummynet). And 
I think rewriting ALTQ to support a generic API isn't the biggest 
problem, but getting that accepted is. KAME needs to accept it, FreeBSD, 
OpenBSD, and who knows what else, but foremost KAME.

Just to note, I as well am very interested in a sound, sophisticated 
solution worthy of inclusion in NetBSD. But since ALTQ already got 
imported as is, that doesn't sound like too much of a challenge to 
overcome ;).

		-- Thomas E. Spanjaard

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)