From owner-freebsd-current Thu Oct 8 12:15:02 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA26717 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 12:15:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA26694 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 12:14:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA26983; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 21:14:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id VAA20249; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 21:14:41 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <19981008211441.00286@follo.net> Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 21:14:41 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund To: Brian Somers , Kris Kennaway Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Improper sharing of modem bandwidth References: <199810071336.OAA01091@woof.lan.awfulhak.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.89.1i In-Reply-To: <199810071336.OAA01091@woof.lan.awfulhak.org>; from Brian Somers on Wed, Oct 07, 1998 at 02:36:02PM +0100 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, Oct 07, 1998 at 02:36:02PM +0100, Brian Somers wrote: > If you're interested, you could try doing a ``s/20/100/'' in bundle.c > in src/usr.sbin/ppp and rebuilding & installing ppp. Perhaps the > ``20'' is a bit light. > > Opinions ? I can see a couple ways of fixing this (better than today, at least). All involve changing the tun device. The basic concept is that you want to be able to re-order the tun queue, so you can get hold of the packets you want while still not allowing something to push any amount of packets into ppp. 1. Change tun to use the same priority scheme as PPP, thus prioritizing the entire queue. 2. Allow PPP to say 'block' to the tun device (possibly just for a specific subset of connections - bpf script?), thus making it possible to prioritize when PPP is 'full'. 3. Allow PPP to inspect and re-order packets in tun, without having to get the full packets. This allow PPP to implement the priotity scheme for tun (as opposed to having it implemented in tun itself). #2 is probably the best (from the view of which possibilities it gives), but I also suspect it is what would give most work (unless bpf already can be used this way; then it would just be a question of making PPP use it.) Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message