From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Henrik Nordstrom Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 08:41:59 +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 09 December 2001 22.41, jamal wrote: > 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. (on egress as well I assume...) True, but not all applications of shaping have the luxury of egress. For example, consider the not too uncommon example of a computer connected via 100Mbps networking to a DSL modem, and you want to tune the use of the link without needing to introduce a router inbetween. > 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 ;-> So do you have any argument why one should not be able to shape incoming local traffic to a station in a good manner without having a router do the shaping? hh Regards Henrik _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://ds9a.nl/lartc/