Subject: Re: altq api for ipf and pf
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Thomas E. Spanjaard <email@example.com>
Date: 09/27/2005 13:14:23
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Daniel Carosone wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 09:39:17PM +0200, Thomas E. Spanjaard wrote:
>>Christos Zoulas wrote:
>>> Currently altq can be used without a packet filter. Is it desirable to
>>>keep that functionality?
>>That is desirable, for instance for third-party firewalls (tunix?). See
>>my other post from a minute ago.
> If we have altq processing prioritisation, on the basis of mtag's
> added by packet classifiers such as pf/ipf, it would be nice to also
> have vlan(4) process the 802.1p bits of the 802.1q header, and add
> QoS tags accordingly.
> What other things might usefully add prioritisation tags in this
> model? routes? sockopts?
Sure, but ALTQ handles cases that overlap here already like diffserv.
Perhaps some of those should be integrated into ALTQ, or ALTQ should be
'undressed' to the bare minimum of just the priorization engine?
-- 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-----