Re: [LARTC] patch: HTB update for ADSL users

[Ed Wildgoose <lists@wildgooses.com>]

syrius.ml@no-log.org wrote:

>Ed Wildgoose <lists@wildgooses.com> writes:
>
>  
>
>>I would be interested to hear if anyone has a CBQ based setup and can
>>tell me if that patch works for them?  Or even whether it works on the
>>incoming policer properly?
>>    
>>
>
>Would that work with HFSC ?
>  
>

To be honest, I can't see these bits of code being used in HFSC, so I 
doubt it.  However, if performance isn't an issue, it would be fairly 
easy to patch the enqueue function in any of these schedulers to just 
lie about the size of the packet.

>what about PPPoE ? i didn't really understand what I have to change if
>I'm using PPPoE and MTU\x1492.
>  
>

I'm not really sure how PPPoE is working?  Is it as simple as wrapping 
IP in IP? 

The patch is trivial though, the first interesting line is this one:
    + sz = sz + proto_overhead;

Here we just lie about the size of the packet and add the overhead PPP 
causes (this is per original packet)

The next interesting line is this:
    +  sz = (  (int)((sz-1)/encaps_data_sz) + 1) * encaps_cell_sz;

All we are doing is dividing by the size of the packet that our data is 
encapsulated in, (perhaps in your case, encaps_data_sz should be 1492 
?).  Then we multiply up by the actual size of the packet when it 
crosses the link "encaps_cell_size".  Perhaps in your case this should 
be 1492 + 40 = 1532 ?

The other lines were just trying to make it look a little neater.

I will look up how PPPoE works and suggest some new values

Ed W

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/