Re: [LARTC] Re: further CBQ/tc documentation ds9a.nl/lartc/manpages

[jamal <hadi@cyberus.ca>]

On Sun, 9 Dec 2001, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:

> On Sunday 09 December 2001 16.01, jamal wrote:
> > Henrik,
> > Can you please try the attahed patch against iproute2-2.4.7-now-ss010824?
>
> Seems to make the tc userspace program to properly reject the arguments.
>

That was the intent; allowing it was harmless but gives a bad impression
of functionality. So i guess we could say the patch works.

>
> It is a bit sad that one cannot queue packets in ingress. Would be quite
> useful to make ingress shaping behave more sane than what can be acheived
> with the queueless filter police mechanism.
>

Look at the definition of work vs non-work conserving; This is design
intent. If you look at the datapath, it is totaly meaningless to put
queues at ingress, for routing when they are being queued on ingress as
well.

>
> netfilter supports queueing/delaying of packets and then resume processing
> them at a later time using nf_reinject, so I think it should be possible to
> implement a ingress queue without too much effort..

The implementation/extension is trivial. There is no need for it; I went
at great lengths with Martin/devik on this  Maybe he can help me here ;->

> but then the netfilter
> queueing seems to be very simplistic only supporting one queue per protocol
> family and this queueing interface is already used for queueing packets to
> userspace, so perhaps not as easy as I thought..
>

[..]

No, implementation is a non-issue. There is no need for it.
For 2.5 we might be able to have the ipqueue code use the power of TC. it
already talks netlink; i'll talk to some of the netfilter people. ipqueue
has some speacial need to grab packets; we provide much more sophisticated
mechanisms than Netfilter; so maybe there's a marriage possibility.

cheers,
jamal


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