Re: ALTqd vs PF/ALTQ

["John R. Shannon" <john%johnrshannon.com@localhost>]

Altq worked with pf when I last used in in NetBSD.

Swift Griggs wrote:
>     I noticed that in 4.0 PF+ALTQ is a non-starter. Pf works great 
> (provided you use the lkm or compile it in), but altq rules in 
> /etc/pf.conf just elicit the same old error about lack of kernel 
> support. I did, of course, recompile the kernel to support all the 
> ALTQ_* options. However, I did so with the suspicion that this was only 
> for the gratification of the the userspace altqd. My suspicion was 
> confirmed as soon as I booted the new kernel. Altqd worked, pf+altq didn't.
>      I actually have no problem with altqd whatsoever. I've managed to 
> make it do everything I need. I've also got no problem using ipfilter 
> over pf, either. I could simply care less about the whole Darren Reed 
> license hoopla.
>     If I had a fairy-wish, I guess like to see someone brighter than 
> myself the do enough to the altq.conf(5) page to be able to remove the 
> BUG section that reads: "This man page is incomplete.  For more 
> information read the source.". I was able to glean what I needed from 
> the source, but others might not fare as well. Not seeing a mention of 
> altq in the NetBSD Guide makes me think there is still some question 
> about what exactly the future of altq is.
>
>     Moving right along, what is the plan for 5.0 ? Will all permutations 
> be supported (pf+altq, pf+altqd, even ipf + pf-altq) ? I just want to 
> know where my energy is best spent if I want to fully master altq syntax 
> for the next-gen NetBSD (/etc/pf.conf or /etc/altq.conf) ?
>
> Thanks,
>   Swift


--

John R. Shannon
john%johnrshannon.com@localhost