From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Taylor, Grant" Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 18:59:52 +0000 Subject: Re: [LARTC] Patch to allow for the ATM "cell tax" Message-Id: <45771328.60801@riverviewtech.net> List-Id: References: <1141284603.10264.168.camel@ras.pc.brisbane.lube> In-Reply-To: <1141284603.10264.168.camel@ras.pc.brisbane.lube> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lartc@vger.kernel.org Russell Stuart wrote: > The following patch to tc allows it to perform an exact > ATM / ADSL rate calculation. It adds one extra keyword > to the "tc class add htb ..." command line: "atm". There > isn't a lot of spare bits hanging around to record this, > so the patch adds the feature at the expense of always > forcing the "overhead" parameter to be even. > > With the patch, these commands will generate a correct > rate table for: > > PPPoA + VC/Mux: tc class add htb ... overhead 10 atm > PPPoA + VC/LLC: tc class add htb ... overhead 18 atm > PPPoE + VC/Mux: tc class add htb ... overhead 34 atm > PPPoE + VC/LLC: tc class add htb ... overhead 42 atm What would be the appropriate parameters for an RFC 1483 / 2684 LLC Encapsulation or VC Multiplexing? Would the values above adjusted for the removal of PPPoX compensate? Grant. . . . _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc