Gmail Calendar Documents Reader Web more »
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
Google Groups Home
bit.listserv.openbsd-pf
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion PF inadequacy: queue download
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Can Erkin Acar  
View profile  
 More options May 2 2006, 5:06 am
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.openbsd-pf
From: cana...@eee.metu.edu.tr (Can Erkin Acar)
Date: 1 May 2006 12:06:40 -0700
Local: Tues, May 2 2006 5:06 am
Subject: Re: PF inadequacy: queue download
Reply to author | Forward | Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 08:22:51AM -0700, kestas....@gmail.com wrote:
> I don't think time spent developing PF or ALTQ could be better spent
> developing something other than download queueing. Everyone here seems
> to agree it's PF's worst deficiency.

Intresting definition for "Everyone". It seems the definition does not
include the developers.

If you can not live without "download queueing" you can always:

1. Write and submit a patch
2. Fund a developer to do the work for you.
3. Go run something else.

I guess you would get bored after a while and choose #3.
Feel free to surprise me though.

Note that "unending trolling on the mailing lists"  

> I'm thinking perhaps there's some messy hack I can come up with using
> virtual interfaces, does anyone have any ideas?

Not that I know of.

> > and there are 'lots of people' that care deeply about this
> I said lots of people *here*, and there aren't close to 40 here, and
> $500 is very steep for an extra box which has to do so little, and this
> wouldn't require a whole hackathon to code. I'm not sure why you're
> being so resistant to a feature request.

This might surprise you but OpenBSD does not run on requests, or polls
or democracy. If a developer feels that such a feature is intresting/important
and have resources to spare, than the feature will be implemented.

The best way to get results is to 'shut up and code'.

> > By all means, try it. There are more readers (and developers) on the misc@ and tech@ lists, so I'd start there.
> I posted in misc, but no-one was biting, and I've just sent one to
> tech.

> > Stock altq could put token buckets on input interfaces for rate
> > limiting purposes, referred to as the "traffic conditioner" (CDNR).
> > That capability was removed when the classifier was merged with pf.

> > Old messages that might be relevant:
> > http://www.benzedrine.cx/pf/msg02871.html
> > http://www.benzedrine.cx/pf/msg07159.html (bottom)
> Interesting, I wonder how difficult it would be to get the
> functionality back. Any ideas on why it was dropped in the first place?

Input condititioners are different from queues. You would *not* have the
same amount of control over the traffic as you would have when using a separate box.

Can


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2009 Google