From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wingtung.Leung s965817@uia.ua.ac.be Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 22:59:10 +0000 Subject: [LARTC] Conceptual (but fast :) question 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 Wed, 22 Nov 2000, Juanjo Ciarlante wrote:

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

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. :-)