From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rick Jones Subject: Re: tbf/htb qdisc limitations Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 15:17:18 -0700 Message-ID: <4CB4DE6E.7030802@hp.com> References: <4CB1A22B.9090701@gmail.com> <20101012101022.GA8578@ff.dom.local> <20101012215932.GA1945@del.dom.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Steven Brudenell , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Jarek Poplawski Return-path: Received: from g6t0186.atlanta.hp.com ([15.193.32.63]:41185 "EHLO g6t0186.atlanta.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751679Ab0JLWRW (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Oct 2010 18:17:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20101012215932.GA1945@del.dom.local> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: >>my burst problem is the only semi-legitimate motivation i can think >>of. the only other possible motivations i can imagine are setting >>"limit" to buffer more than 4GB of packets and setting "rate" to >>something more than 32 gigabit; both of these seem kind of dubious. is >>there something else you had in mind? > > > No, mainly 10 gigabit rates and additionally 64-bit stats. Any issue for bonded 10 GbE interfaces? Now that the IEEE have ratified (June) how far out are 40 GbE interfaces? Or 100 GbE for that matter. rick jones