John Hawkinson writes:
> 
> The same point as anything else if you're not interestewd in QoS.
> I don't understand your assertion.

I'm merely asserting that preventing a DoS is a form of QoS.  There
is no exact standard that defines QoS, so perhaps I am merely using it in
a broader manner than you.

> Preventing a denial of service is useful so you can have a service.
> Adding QoS is a giant can of worms, the involing politics of how
> to run and use networks, and hosts cooperating with routers, etc., etc.

Right, my point is exactly this, "... so you can have a service" is a
form of QoS IMHO. 

> >Ensuring that resources are shared appropriately and can't be
> >"hogged" by one user (e.g. a DoS) are fundamental to QoS, IMHO.
> 
> This hardly means that QOS is fundamental to people who want to 
> prevent DOS.

What is it you are attempting to _provide_ when you are _preventing_
DoS?  If you are not trying to provide anything, why prevent anything?
That was my point.  I feel there is an assumed level of service that
is being attempted by securing a system or preventing DoS.  Whether this
is considered to be a form of QoS or not is perhaps up to the individual.

> It is my judgement that any discussion of QoS is really totally
> irrelevent in a release-focussed (i.e. 1.5-focussed) discussion.
> We're talking about fixing something that is broken, not adding
> complicated hairy new mechanisms.

Yes, I was merely saying perhaps we should look further than the
"quick fix", and consider the future uses beyond ICMP.

> I'd ask you to use a different thread for QoS discussions.
> As Itojun points out, integrating ALTQ for 1.5 is not reasonable.

No problem, I am only slightly interested anyway as IOS already does
this for me. :)

-Andrew
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Gillham                            | NetBSD ist Affengeil.
gillham@whirlpool.com                     | Nachts ist es kaelter
I speak for myself, not for my employer.  | als draussen.