In article <20050926205912.078512a4.juan@xtrarom.org>,
Juan RP  <juan@xtrarom.org> wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:52:41 -0400
>matthew sporleder <msporleder@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So to get NetBSD including and running an up-to-date version of altq
>> using either ipf or pf, a few things seem to be required:
>> 
>> ALTQ needs to be api-enabled in a name-space-friendly and completely
>> segregated way:
>>     -Remove references to pf.conf and pfctl in favor of alt.conf and
>> altqctl (or netctl, or sysctl, or whatever)
>>     -Provide altq api for any packet filter to use mbuf tagging
>> Make packet filtering programs more portable:
>>     -Modify NetBSD's pf to use altq api instead of any built-in stuff
>>     -Modify NetBSD ipf to use altq api instead of whatever it's using
>> now
>> 
>> Am I leaving anything out?

Currently altq can be used without a packet filter. Is it desirable to
keep that functionality?

christos