Max Laier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Diego,
please don't top post! On Monday 12 May 2008 16:06:16 Diego Salvador wrote: > Thanks for your reply and explanation! I now understand why ALTQ is in > PF-mode. What are the things needed to be done in order ALTQ to be > SMPng compliant? I haven't looked at the classifier code in a while. But IIRC it is a mess. I don't remember the details, but I'd stay away from it. That aside, what's wrong with the existing solutions? > What is the use of the option ALTQ_NOPCC in the > kernel? This is described to be used for SMP kernels? This is something completely different. It simply tells ALTQ to not use the TSC for timing directly as it might not be in sync on SMP boxes. > Yes, I will look > also on the pfil(9). This is the right solution, though I really think that either PF or IPFW can do what you need. If not, please be more specific about what your goal is. [Diego] Okay, I really have to dig it up. The goal here is to be able to classify traffic with DSCP using ALTQ because as far as I know the ALTQ framework for QoS is originally designed to handle this. Also, from the Internet service provider (ISP) point of view, classifying traffic for services is very important especially when you provide different Internet services like data, voice and video or what we call triple-play services. Another thing, KAME snap releases kit have Weighted-Fair Queueing (WFQ) scheduler available, it might be better also if it can be integrated to FreeBSD ALTQ (PF-Mode) for hierarchical QoS aside from HFSC. Thanks, Diego Salvador -- /"\ Best regards, | [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / Max Laier | ICQ #67774661 X http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] / \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News --------------------------------- Support Victims of the Cyclone in Myanmar (Burma). Donate Now. _______________________________________________ freebsd-pf@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-pf To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
