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

[Henrik Nordstrom <hno@marasystems.com>]

On Monday 10 December 2001 09.38, Martin Devera wrote:

> Definitely it would be helpful to create work conserving model
> of CBQ (HTB :-)) which would drop packets instead to dequeue
> them.

Won't help me I think. I don't have the need of hierarchies or fancy 
prioritizations between different traffics or whatever, only to be able to 
slow down (with a delay) some specific traffic destined for the local TCP.

The filter police allows me to drop packets, but do not allow me to introduce 
delays.

TCP is generally too smart to be delayed proper by "randomly" dropped packets 
without any signs in RTT. Especially when the RTT is small.

> IMHO ingres queuing could be used as poor man's way how to reshape
> (or priorize) traffic which can't be shaped at egress side (usualy
> because of adminstrative boundaries). This need would vanish in
> presence of such classfull work conserving CBQ.

And such a administrative boundary is the one I am playing on. The boundary 
between a small customer and his ISP. The ISP obviously have the luxury of 
egress, but the customer does not on traffic received by him.

Exacly how would this need vanish?

Regards
Henrik

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