From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?iso-8859-1?q?C=E9dric=20Rivard?= Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 01:12:08 +0000 Subject: Re: [LARTC] Re: further CBQ/tc documentation ds9a.nl/lartc/manpages Message-Id: List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lartc@vger.kernel.org On Sunday 9 December 2001 22:41, jamal wrote: > > 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. Wouldn't it make sense to set a non-work conserving interface on ingress and a work conserving interface on egress ? That would be handy to share bandwidth between outgoing packets through different interfaces. Cedric _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://ds9a.nl/lartc/