Re: IMQ Replacement

["Remus" <rmocius@auste.elnet.lt>]

Hi folks,



I care about it as well.



IMQ is great and have to be maintained, but myself I'm not strong with
programming.

But I can help with testing. If somebody can take care about IMQ (or new
project of it) would be very nice.

I prefer to have everything on one box - traffic shaping (ingress and
outgress), NAT and firewall.



So guys can anybody can maintain/update IMQ (specially for 2.6 kernel),
please?





Thanks



Remus





----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andre Correa" <andre.correa@pobox.com>
To: <peter@empoweringsolutions.com>
Cc: "Netfilter Mailing List" <netfilter@lists.netfilter.org>
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: IMQ Replacement


>
> I've being using IMQ with 2.4.23 here with no probs too. I've already
> tried to discuss this topic here and in other lists but got no answer.
> Writting to the last maintainner didn't helped much...
>
> Some time ago there was a posting, maybe in LARTC, about a guy that
> started a parallell IMQ project, but I've never heard about hin anymore...
>
> I would like to contribute/coordinate in an effort to put IMQ back on
> its track. It is an important feature that is being left behind.
>
> Peter, maybe we should join, put a new site up with documentation
> updates, maintain 2.4.x patchs and later think what to do with 2.6. We
> may find other people interrested in coding and helping...
>
> Anybody else care about it?
>
> let us know...
>
> cheers
>
> Andre
>
>
>
> Peter Frischknecht wrote:
> > I have been using IMQ with great success for the last few months.  The
> > particular network where this is used has 400+ nodes, and IMQ performs
> > flawlessly.
> >
> > As anyone who uses IMQ will tell you, the only alternatives are:
> > 1 - Install another router, just to perform NAT
> > 2 - Install 2 additional NICs in the Linux gateway with a Xover cable
> > between them
> >
> > Is there another piece of software that performs the job of IMQ?
> > It is great being able to shape traffic AND masquerade packets in one
> > box.  How else can it be done?
> >
> > We shape traffic individually for each client.  Generic traffic shapping
> > rules that regulate the entire pipe would not work for us.
> >
> > The fact that IMQ is unmaintained is nerve wrecking.  It is difficult
> > enough to install the thing with the sources and documentation
> > available.  It will only become more difficult as the kernel evolves and
> > we move to 2.6.x.
> >
> > I don't think I have the knowledge to mainatin the source code.  But I
> > believe in the concept so much that I might just take up the code
> > maintenance.  Hoepefully some other folks will join in.  Maybe we can
> > convince enough folks to incorporate it into 2.6.x.
> >
> > Any help, comments or even flames will be appreciated.  It is time for a
> > solution to this problem.
> >
> > Peter
> >
> >
> >
>
>