From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Vladimir B. Savkin" Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] IMQ port to 2.6 Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 23:21:49 +0300 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20040125202148.GA10599@usr.lcm.msu.ru> References: <20040125152419.GA3208@penguin.localdomain> <20040125164431.GA31548@louise.pinerecords.com> <1075058539.1747.92.camel@jzny.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: jamal Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1075058539.1747.92.camel@jzny.localdomain> List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 02:22:19PM -0500, jamal wrote: > > There has been no real good reason as to why IMQ is needed to begin > with. It may be easy to use and has been highly publized (which is > always a dangerous thing in Linux). > > Maybe lets take a step back and see how people use it. How and why do > you use IMQ? Is this because you couldnt use the ingress qdisc? Think multiple clients connected via PPP. I want to shape traffic, so ingress is out of question. I want different clients in a same htb class, so using qdisc on each ppp interface is out of question. It seems to me that IMQ is the only way to achieve my goals. > Note, the abstraction to begin with is in the wrong place - it sure is > an easy and nice looking hack. So is the current ingress qdisc, but we > are laying that to rest with TC extensions. > > ~ :wq With best regards, Vladimir Savkin.