Subject: Re: new altq API (was Re: Changing the PHY status reporting)
To: Mindaugas <>
From: Thomas E. Spanjaard <>
List: tech-net
Date: 02/19/2006 22:42:39
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Mindaugas wrote:
> wrote:
>>Ieek. I don't like that patch. I'll work on something better at least
>>for PF based on what I did for DragonFly. I can't promise anything about
>>IPF though.
> I think there should be more intercommunication between NetBSD
> and DragonFly, FreeBSD and OpenBSD (if they accept this). IMO, core@
> should talk with KAME developers and *BSD projects about API and finally
> decide what to do with PF +ALTQ implementation. We're not moving with
> this many years... and I believe that new-ALTQ shaping is interesting
> for our community.

KAME is basically over now. I doubt the participants still want to 
control the ALTQ API, especially since it has diverged quite a bit 
already on OpenBSD. It's good to write a single compatible API, but I 
think the biggest issue will be 'vendor' support from both camps (pf and 
ipf) for this new API. Otherwise, we'd have to maintain large patch sets 
for both imports. Communicating this with the other BSD projects won't 
be easy, as OpenBSD won't see any reason to change the API (assuming the 
'new' API will be different from theirs), and FreeBSD, well, I don't 
know if they already have a solution for this issue, and how good it is 
if it exists.

         Thomas E. Spanjaard

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (NetBSD)