On 5/24/06, ermo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ron, > > Good job on QBox. The bucket structure and the documentation is really nice.
Thanks! > I'm using the OpenWRT project QoS features Oooh, I did not know that had some QoS features. I will definitely take a look. (http://wiki.openwrt.org/Faq#head-a1dc7290cc2933f9a4e9f130bb83d1dfb4b761ff) > which are really, really nice. They use l7-filters > (http://l7-filters.sourceforge.net) as well as fwmark classification. l7 is great. Something I've been meaning to implement. There's always the CPU issue on this level of classification... but well worth it IMO. I would like to try some tests with it on the WRAP board that I support to see what kind of throughput can be expected. Currently the fastest real link I've got a Q*Box on is a 10Mbit internet connection. > They also use the hfsc scheduler instead of htb. I need to read up on hfsc. You know what their main reason for using this is? Curious... > I personally think that making a pure fwmark QoS scheme for shorewall > and LEAF would be the way to go. There's little need to muck around with > cls_u32 rules when you already have iptables and shorewall. An interesting approach... Really makes sense when you think about it. (port ranges instead of individual ports for example) > small sites with multiple SIP accounts which don't run their own PBX, > sipproxy should be a nice addition (Eric Spakman kindly created a LEAF > package of this on my request). I find this interesting. In my case, we've got multiple small sites running SIP through NAT no problem. Of course, we have colocated our own servers so it makes it easier to handle SIP issues (Asterisk). > But I'd still be interested in porting QBox to LEAF. I'll be working to get a HOWTO going on making QBox work on a regular LEAF build. Regards, -Ron ------------------------------------------------------------------------ leaf-user mailing list: [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user Support Request -- http://leaf-project.org/
