[LARTC] Conceptual (but fast :) question

[LARTC] Conceptual (but fast :) question

[Juanjo]

<PRE>Why do CBQ setups need leaf qdiscs (tbf, sfq, etc) to achieve CBQ rate?
 (and all the (aparently) redundant rate setup ...? )

TIA
Juanjo


</PRE>

[LARTC] Conceptual (but fast :) question

[Wingtung.Leung]

<PRE>On Wed, 22 Nov 2000, Juanjo Ciarlante wrote:

&gt;<i> Why do CBQ setups need leaf qdiscs (tbf, sfq, etc) to achieve CBQ rate?
</I>&gt;<i>  (and all the (aparently) redundant rate setup ...? )
</I>
CBQ is just one possible class. You can attach different queueing
disciplines to a class. I assume this structure allows a more generic
approach, so you can exchange modules more easily.

I've read a document about it somewhere, but I lost the URL. Just try to
imagine there exist other classes than CBQ's with other properties and
this setup allows code reuse.

(I hope I explained it correctly. :-)




</PRE>