On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 12:12:02AM +0300, 4 wrote: > i haven't used queues for a long time, but now there is a need. previously, > queues had not only a hierarchy, but also a priority. now there is no > priority, only the hierarchy exists. i was surprised, but i thought that this > is quite in the way of Theo, and it is possible to simplify the queue > mechanism only to the hierarchy, meaning that if a queue standing higher in > the hierarchy, and he priority is higher. but in order for it to work this > way, it is necessary to allow assigning packets to any queue, and not just to > the last one, because when you assign only to the last queue in the > hierarchy, then in practice it means that you have no hierarchy and no > queues. and although the rule with the assignment to a queue above the last > one is not syntactically incorrect, but in practice the assignment is not > performed, and the packets fall into the default(last) queue. am i missing > something or is it really idiocy that humanity has not seen yet? > How long ago is it that you did anything with queues?
the older ALTQ system was replaced by a whole new system back in OpenBSD 5.5 (or actually, altq lived on as oldqeueue through 5.6), and the syntax is both very different and in most things much simpler to deal with. The most extensive treatment available is in The Book of PF, 3rd edition (actually the introduction of the new queues was the reason for doing that revision). If for some reason the book is out of reach, you can likely glean most of the useful information from the relevant slides in the PF tutorial https://home.nuug.no/~peter/pftutorial/ with the traffic shaping part starting at https://home.nuug.no/~peter/pftutorial/#68 -- Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation team https://bsdly.blogspot.com/ https://www.bsdly.net/ https://www.nuug.no/ "Remember to set the evil bit on all malicious network traffic" delilah spamd[29949]: 85.152.224.147: disconnected after 42673 seconds.
