|
|
bit.listserv.openbsd-pf |
I don't think time spent developing PF or ALTQ could be better spent I'm thinking perhaps there's some messy hack I can come up with using > Old messages that might be relevant: Kestas
developing something other than download queueing. Everyone here seems
to agree it's PF's worst deficiency.
virtual interfaces, does anyone have any ideas?
> 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.
> 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 Interesting, I wonder how difficult it would be to get the
> limiting purposes, referred to as the "traffic conditioner" (CDNR).
> That capability was removed when the classifier was merged with pf.
> http://www.benzedrine.cx/pf/msg02871.html
> http://www.benzedrine.cx/pf/msg07159.html (bottom)
functionality back. Any ideas on why it was dropped in the first place?