From owner-cvs-all Thu Jun 8 12:58:36 2000 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.ORG [204.216.27.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A53C537C134; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:58:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (kris@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id MAA10163; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:58:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.freebsd.org: kris owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:58:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Kris Kennaway To: Luigi Rizzo Cc: Luigi Rizzo , cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/ipfw ipfw.8 In-Reply-To: <200006081951.VAA05734@info.iet.unipi.it> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > What are your thoughts on just importing ALTQ? There's a 4.0-RELEASE port > > available and so it should be quite easy to integrate, instead of > > duplicating functionality from there. > > it is not plain duplication of functionality. There is some > overlap, but it is only partial. > > You also have to consider ease of use for people already > using ipfw/dummynet, and ease of implementation/testing > for the developer (myself and kenjiro) who should do the port. > If you look at the changes, the code to support WFQ in dummynet > is in the order of 500 lines, many of them being comment and > [gs]etsockopt() support. I guess what concerns me is stuffing more and more code into ipfw, which is already a pretty complicated and messy beast. Kris -- In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate. -- Charles Forsythe To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message