From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ed Wildgoose Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 16:46:31 +0000 Subject: Re: [LARTC] patch: HTB update for ADSL users Message-Id: <40D5BF67.2060909@wildgooses.com> List-Id: References: <40D2D5CB.2000804@wildgooses.com> In-Reply-To: <40D2D5CB.2000804@wildgooses.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lartc@vger.kernel.org syrius.ml@no-log.org wrote: >Ed Wildgoose 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 ? >what about PPPoE ? i didn't really understand what I have to change if >I'm using PPPoE and MTU92. > > After further investigation I think you need the patch a little more like this for PPPoE and the params you gave (Andy do you think this looks OK?) Please let me know if this works for you. (As near as I can tell, there is no PPP overhead(?), and you then basically encapsulate your packets in IP packets of max size 1492, with an 8 byte overhead - Perhaps Andy can correct me as to whether there is still a PPP overhead?) --- iproute2-2.4.7.20020116/tc/tc_core.c 2000-04-16 18:42:55.000000000 +0100 +++ iproute2/tc/tc_core.c 2004-06-18 12:20:39.912974518 +0100 @@ -59,10 +59,19 @@ while ((mtu>>cell_log) > 255) cell_log++; } + + // HACK - UK ATM Params + int encaps_cell_sz = 1492; + int encaps_cell_overhead = 8; + int encaps_data_sz = encaps_cell_sz - encaps_cell_overhead; + int proto_overhead = 0; // PPP Overhead + for (i=0; i<256; i++) { - unsigned sz = (i<