Message from discussion PF inadequacy: queue download

Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!green.octanews.net!news-out.octanews.net!news.moat.net!pln-e!spln!dex!newsgate.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!mdrn
From: k...@meme.com (Karl O. Pinc)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.openbsd-pf
Subject: Re: PF inadequacy: queue download
Date: 30 Apr 2006 00:56:24 -0700
Organization: None
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <1146357104l.12295l.10l@mofo>
References: <1146315947.065791.306090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
	<20060429142538.GP19449@insomnia.benzedrine.cx>
	<20060429151040.GA11282@tehran.lain.pl>
	<20060429155838.GQ19449@insomnia.benzedrine.cx>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mofo
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; DelSp=Yes; Format=Flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 Apr 2006 07:56:25 GMT


On 04/29/2006 10:58:39 AM, Daniel Hartmeier wrote:
> 
> What I tried to express in the last paragraph of the referenced mail
> was
> that it's not pf that's lacking anything, but altq.

> While there are now ties between pf and altq (pf classifying packets
> for
> altq, and pfctl setting up queues), that doesn't mean the core of altq
> is maintained by the people who maintain pf. It's in separate source
> files, and if you compare the respective CVS histories, you'll see the
> difference.

Where would be the proper forum to discuss input queueing then?

Karl <k...@meme.com>
Free Software:  "You don't pay back, you pay forward."
                  -- Robert A. Heinlein