From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: don-lartc@isis.cs3-inc.com (Don Cohen) Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 13:46:10 +0000 Subject: [LARTC] Re: More on qdiscs - about dangling backlogs 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 > It should be handled in the same way as requeue only should not increase > stats. I guess you mean requeue should be the same as enqueue. > > I still think it's reasonable to check only at dequeue. Basically if > > you know max time between dequeues is t, then a queue filled by a > > flood can only remain full for time t + expire_time after the flood > > ends. After that there will be a dequeue that throws out all the > > flood packets. Then your next packet will be accepted and delayed at > > most expire_time. > > It might be. Why don't you try it ? I feel still the same about it: I > think that experiment is the only way to test the idea. What experiments would you like to see? _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/