> Question's of the form "why hasn't this been done" sound kind of weird > to me, almost as if they were rhetorical. Assuming you haven't donated > blood in the last month, "why haven't you"? Are you really interested in > the petty excuses humans have for not doing things? :)
I was hoping you'd tell me something along the lines of "Because we already have, you just need to do XYZ". Unfortunately I also can't afford an extra machine to get the basic functionality of download queueing. > If you added those queues to altq, you might not even have to change a single > line in pf to get them used. Well you can only specifiy the total bandwidth for a certain interface, and all queues which belong to an interface are one-way. You'd have to have a way to specify download bandwidth on an interface and have a seperate set of child queues for download. Then you'd have to have a way of sending incoming and outgoing packets belonging to a certain state to two queues. It's doable, but it certainly isn't an internal ALTQ problem. I read ALTQ and pf were now 'married' (in Theo's words), so I'd think the problem would require changes to both pf and ALTQ. I'd have a look at this problem myself, but I'm not good with C. I was hoping there was some sort of todo list I could petition this to be added too, because lots of people here seem to agree this is pf's (and ALTQ's) worst problem. If there's some sort of bounty system with OpenBSD I'd be happy to set a bounty so get this done faster. Kestas
