From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jul  2 18:30:00 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2641137B401
	for <net@freebsd.org>; Wed,  2 Jul 2003 18:30:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from www.svzserv.kemerovo.su (www.svzserv.kemerovo.su
	[213.184.65.80])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BB1343FAF
	for <net@freebsd.org>; Wed,  2 Jul 2003 18:29:58 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from eugen@kuzbass.ru)
Received: from kuzbass.ru (kost [213.184.65.82])h631TpCo075456;
	Thu, 3 Jul 2003 09:29:52 +0800 (KRAST)
	(envelope-from eugen@kuzbass.ru)
Message-ID: <3F03867A.79F82968@kuzbass.ru>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 09:27:22 +0800
From: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@kuzbass.ru>
Organization: SVZServ
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: ru,en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Sierchio <kudzu@tenebras.com>
References: <20030703002247.A2097@grosbein.pp.ru>
	<3F0310CE.5070302@tenebras.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
cc: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.pp.ru>
cc: net@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ipprecedence
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 01:30:00 -0000

Michael Sierchio wrote:
> 
> Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> 
> > Then, if prioritized packed arrives when FIFO is not empty,
> > it will not be allowed to go out before packets without ipprecedence
> > that are already in FIFO. That's bad.
> 
> That's not quite right.  The prioritized packet will presumably be
> handled by a different (dummynet) queue, and that queue will have
> a higher weight than the other queue (for lower priority traffic).

In addition to dummynet WFQ queue there is interface FIFO queue.
Always, even in the absence of dummynet :-)
It keeps packets that cannot be transmitted immediately
because device is busy. And FIFO, by definition,
will not allow prioritized packets to go out before others.

Eugene