--1UWUbFP1cBYEclgG
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 02:31:48PM +0200, Hubert Feyrer wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Ivo Vachkov wrote:
> >Policy Routing:
> >- extend "struct rtentry" to include additional information for TOS
> >fields, Source based routing, maybe even protocol based routing, ttl
> >routing, packet lenght routing
> >- add support in /sys/net/route.c
> >- add support in /sbin/route/route.c and alike
>=20
> How will this interoperate with ALTQ? Or is it intended as an alternative=
=20
> to ALTQ? If so, what's the pros/cons?

I don't think this will interoperate with ALTQ; they operate at different
levels. Routing helps pick the interface to which a packet is enqueued,=20
and ALTQ (as I understand it) determines which queued packet on a given=20
interface is sent next.

Also, source-based routing would be a big step for Strong ES support.

Take care,

Bill

--1UWUbFP1cBYEclgG
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFCrf8YWz+3JHUci9cRAtwQAJwJXVpRkJJbpQBY/EzRDUfGK7WPiQCfVPjB
SFN/KdQM+BWhdtuEb51x1tY=
=kpTS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--1UWUbFP1cBYEclgG--