>> 	API for ALTQ itself is open to any userland program, via ioctl.
>> 	i worry about support issues (config syntax and such) if both ipfilter 
>> 	and PF were to include ALTQ controller functionality.
>
>Well, if altq is configured from the packet classifier engine's config file,
>and each packet classifier use its own syntax to configure altq, I don't
>see this as a big deal. They're different piece of software, after all.
>
>Now, I don't see any real reason to configure altq from the
>packet classifier config file. There are 2 different, separate things:
>packet classifiers tag packets, and altq is one of the users of packet tags
>(ipsec is one other, and I can see more packet classifiers than pf or ipf,
>and more packet tags users than altq or ipsec, in some commercial developement
>I'm aware). I think each packet classifier, and each packet tag user should
>have its own config file with its own config tool, with only the tags names
>in common.

	(kjc should have better answer)

	i was a little bit mistaken.  ALTQ and PF is coupled by queue name also
	(which is a bit different from tags - tags and queues are identfied
	by m_tag attached to mbuf, but uses different m_tag ID).
	to have a list of queue name PF currently has to have the ALTQ config
	file.  (see sys/net/pf.c:pf_qname_to_qid)

	anyways, pls wait till kjc responds.

itojun