From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 20 15:27:17 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D28AC16A41F for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 15:27:17 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tataz@tataz.chchile.org) Received: from smtp1-g19.free.fr (smtp1-g19.free.fr [212.27.42.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B227843D58 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 15:27:15 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tataz@tataz.chchile.org) Received: from tatooine.tataz.chchile.org (vol75-8-82-233-239-98.fbx.proxad.net [82.233.239.98]) by smtp1-g19.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68F622F60D; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 17:27:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: by tatooine.tataz.chchile.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 33197405D; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 17:27:14 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 17:27:14 +0200 From: Jeremie Le Hen To: vladone Message-ID: <20050920152714.GF24643@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> References: <97663975.20050917141303@spaingsm.com> <20050919122154.GM51142@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <477488950.20050920130453@spaingsm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <477488950.20050920130453@spaingsm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.10i Cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: Re: dummynet patch X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 15:27:17 -0000 Hi, > Yes, thanks! But is a little redundant and confused to pass packets to > multiple pipe and queue. Isn't more elegant to put an option on queue > that limit maximum bandwitdth to that queue (like "bw" option for pipe)? > I dont know programming (not well), but i think that, can do the job, > if is put an supplementary condition, to verify if bandwidth > allocated for that queue is less or great than an "bw" parameter. > An queue declaration like: > ipfw queue 1 config weight 10 pipe 1 bw 128kbits/s > ipfw queue 2 config weight 20 pipe 1 bw 256kbits/s > is more clear and efficiently. > This mean that an queue receive bandwidth according with they weight > but no more that value indicated by "bw" parameter. > Someone with experience and that know code for dummynet, can make easy > (i think) an patch for that. Many folks are reluctant to add syntactic sugar on IPFW when it does not add any functionnality. I think I am too : if we add every shorthand that one can think of, ipfw would become a real mess. Furthermore, pipes and queues are two distinct objects which have different semantics. Pipes are used to emulate a physical network link, with two main properties : bandwidth and delay, while queues provide WF2Q+ policy (see ipfw(8) manpage). Regards, -- Jeremie Le Hen < jeremie at le-hen dot org >< ttz at chchile dot org >