Apologies for resurrecting this thread, but... --- jared r r spiegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 03:39:17PM +0000, Bob wrote: > > Is there a clear HFSC explanation somewhere, with real simple > examples? > > Preferably that apply directly to PF which uses three SC types, not > two. [snip] > of note: > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-pf&m=105691519510241&w=2 > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-pf&m=107936788832658&w=2 > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-pf&m=110488079304643&w=2 Based on the jared's reply in the third link, what Trevor Talbot said in the first link, and based on not seeing anything contradictory, is it correct then to say that: If you have specified the 3 service curves, the "bandwidth" keyword is redundant and/or unnecessary? I am still bothered by the "priority" keyword/notion. It seems to me that even with fully-specified realtime and linkshare curves, you have really set up a two priority system. Assume there is no backlog and you have 2 packets that are received and placed into 2 different queues that have not reached their "realtime" bandwidth limit. It would make sense that in a CBQ-style system, the packet falling into a queue with "realtime" bandwidth available _and_ higher priority would be delayed less than the other packet in this example. So with fully-specified service curves, does HFSC as implemented here in fact superimpose CBQ-style hierarchical priorities ontop, or do the service curve specifications somehow mean that also giving "priority" doesn't makes sense? I took jared's reply in the third link above to indicate the latter was true, but I don't immediately see why it would be. Thanks, John R. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
