Current-Users archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: ALTqd vs PF/ALTQ

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) ?

Personally I would be happy if we shipped with a PF/ALTQ enabled kernel on the 
install media
as we did with MP kernels before.


Attachment: pgpdgr0W95c0K.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index