Subject: Re: new altq API (was Re: Changing the PHY status reporting)
To: Mindaugas <email@example.com>
From: Thomas E. Spanjaard <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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
> email@example.com 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
> 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"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----