From owner-freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu May 12 20:11:50 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F01BA16A4CE
	for <freebsd-pf@freebsd.org>; Thu, 12 May 2005 20:11:50 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from smtp.nildram.co.uk (smtp.nildram.co.uk [195.112.4.54])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8370D43D68
	for <freebsd-pf@freebsd.org>; Thu, 12 May 2005 20:11:50 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from Greg.Hennessy@nviz.net)
Received: from gw2.local.net (unknown [62.3.210.251])
	by smtp.nildram.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F53525DB28
	for <freebsd-pf@freebsd.org>; Thu, 12 May 2005 21:11:46 +0100 (BST)
From: "Greg Hennessy" <Greg.Hennessy@nviz.net>
To: <freebsd-pf@freebsd.org>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 21:11:37 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353
In-Reply-To: <4283A2F9.4060305@xecu.net>
Thread-Index: AcVXJThOwlRFiJPtSx6OcXVHlBU81AACPJbw
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.1830
Message-Id: <20050512201137.8B79B28@gw2.local.net>
Subject: RE: Pf in 4.11
X-BeenThere: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical discussion and general questions about packet filter (pf)
	<freebsd-pf.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-pf>,
	<mailto:freebsd-pf-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-pf>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-pf@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-pf-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-pf>,
	<mailto:freebsd-pf-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 20:11:51 -0000

 
> As for the queuing method, i've read that cbq is a more 
> refined/reliable than hfsc right now. 

Cant say I've had reliability problems with HFSC. 

It does require the sacrifice of several barnyard fowl to configure
correctly, but I digress. 

> Anyway, why would ACK 
> prioritization be necessary on the pf/altq setup vs the 
> ipfw/dummynet setup?

Never having had the pleasure of using dummynet/ipfw I couldn't possibly
comment. 

But I would always recommend configuring some form of ACKPRI on a congested
link. 
Backoff will kill tcp traffic otherwise. 


Greg



> 
> Chris
> 
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-pf@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-pf
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-pf-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
> 
>