>>>>> "i" == irix <irix%ukr.net@localhost> writes: i> From pf/altq was removed most of the functional altqd, like i> CDNR (in kernel added, but in pf not), shaping algoritms like i> Jobs and Blue and many other. Are you sure you want it? I think HFSC is probably a superset of those in terms of what it can accomplish. If you want to actually try all those old algorithms from 2000, maybe they would be less bitrotted in the network simulator (ns)? http://nsnam.isi.edu/nsnam/index.php/User_Information If you look in CVS, you can see ALTQ has not gotten any love since a year or two after the algorithms in it were first invented. I do use it myself, but wouldn't suggest it to anyone trying to get work done. The ALTQ idea, AIUI, was a proof of concept that we can do QoS on full-duplex Ethernet, with the idea the best ALTQ algorithms would then get pushed into the ASIC and the NIC driver where they could perform well. But now we understand Ethernet QoS will not be implemented that way because electrical engineers are just too dumb to implement something like HFSC in an ASIC. Even WRED is really pushing the envelope for them, and going further than that is a solid brick wall, so there is no point in deciding which algorithm is the most scalable/implementABLE and featureful because we hit the limit of their competence almost before we began. so...for research the ns might actually be more realistic even though it's a ``simulator''---the results ought to be closer to what a system worth building would deliver than ALTQ would be. Linux queueing took a different approach from ALTQ: they support silly things like scheduling on ingress and in tunnels that ALTQ deliberately doesn't (since it's pretending to be NIC QoS), but these things are not so silly when you look at the ways Linux/BSD QoS actually get used prescheduling T1's or DSL's or ASIC-QoS-provided dumb-CIR channels.
Description: PGP signature