Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 12:22:57 -0700 From: Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ca> To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Max altq bandwidth 4.26 Gbit Message-ID: <17ADD883-CDE1-41F8-9F6A-CB5573ACBAE9@orthanc.ca> In-Reply-To: <756d9874-7a2c-e670-2a12-19b810877274@gmail.com> References: <mailman.9.1470916800.51629.freebsd-pf@freebsd.org> <756d9874-7a2c-e670-2a12-19b810877274@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] > On Aug 11, 2016, at 8:15 AM, John Jasen <jjasen@gmail.com> wrote: > > Should FreeBSD fix altq, or follow OpenBSD's lead in this regard? If by this you mean start using OpenBSD's new traffic shaping scheme, that would mean adopting OpenBSD's current pf(4) implementation. That debate has been going on for longer than I can remember now. While fixing ALTQ for 64 bits will be something of a pain, it pales in comparison to a full-on pf(4) replacement. [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJXrNCSAAoJEJCSmizucT9Vc+oP/R9GBB47Cc/r7gS8isu548+B tFoJ0bt/qPElHLwSI+MS43bJkWFEFIPkltFPksv3ohfh1cqx5mFygGrjxOwoqIwq jr8w0Y5WTFGuylA/wDz4Ngsw6ZEOPxgYHlSHR7UfulLz1qDnFDl48EooDJjpPkNk 93HK62NyDyZDgoS0aAuMTVp6V7Y9K47TcBqHmRyzYXF45N1+MoUJPkN1AQXb0GyL QGcUez+Tp6kvrnZ8dyZsyl9aaA1LSOjzJnho3ME8yK6o2DuvYXwTV1kS7t5y5HKw 6aDLaaijQshSHPbR1JVcomgEdvE8sCzbtQZeucXRtYoxJLY517SrfHEXigQWIqvH 8uZtS8CUK0PatxmEEvx5zmw/Rs1zL7lHvY5xeXj64v/NpuHM1bN/PUEXOL7H3OVh qwOvQJki5VHxh2FTnh2wyfAN7irG4NtEstOUYq7Ym0rofFOfuYYmW4JI5yMv0DLY xi1o2LffC4HeF0yL9Wy13Xhek1PwfipMHZ9WwqsIFUUAtNrOry4xZuKIr36wjznP BonDJ0/1sBZdJFKqBFkAAYWzZkG+AW5tS1Ftx5atEJOZdSfenzUUmi2iRdNayuiP fKDpPq3NNrwhHK96NVguSBE9KYNWPiYx14CDd1v6bA+2DBFTugZxM9uAyfu7IW+y dM3kSHC2iH9nQZ3SwJkZ =R228 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?17ADD883-CDE1-41F8-9F6A-CB5573ACBAE9>