Subject: Re: altq api for ipf and pf
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Thomas E. Spanjaard <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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
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
-- Thomas E. Spanjaard
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----