>] >] 	not sure.  freebsd has 2 packet filters (or 3?) shipped with it and
>] >] 	has no problem, so i'd say we can ship both.  but ipfilter and PF has
>] >] 	very similar syntax, so we could choose to replace ipfilter with PF.
>] >Yes, but requiring that one runs PF in order to use ALTQ is
>] >unacceptable.
>] 	if ipfilter incorporates tagging functinality, you can run ALTQ with
>] 	ipfilter.  until then, PF is needed for ALTQ.
>This wasn't required in 1.6.  ALTQ ships with, but PF does not.

	it was because ALTQ-on-1.6 inclueded its own packet classifier (which
	is very similar to packet filter).  in the way of ALTQ development,
	ALTQ dropped its classifier and chose to rely on packet tagging
	(provided by PF), because ALTQ classifier is basically a code
	duplication of packet filter.

itojun