* Christopher Zimmermann [2011-10-31 15:39]:
> On 10/31/11 11:11, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > but seeing as altq is
> > being replaced I think it makes sense to wait until the new prioritisation
> > code can limit output to a rate less than the interface bandwidth.
> Hmm, but when will this happen
On 10/31/11 11:11, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2011/10/30 15:41, Daniel Melameth wrote:
>>
>> sthen@ created a patch a while back that addresses
>> this--http://ns2.spacehopper.org/openbsd/base/altq_tbradapt.diff--but
>> I have not used it in a while.
>>
Thanks for this input. That's exactly what
On 2011/10/30 15:41, Daniel Melameth wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Christopher Zimmermann
> wrote:
> > Bandwidth shaping on PPPoE links is difficult, because you don't know
> > what the modem will do to you packets.
> >
> > On my DSL PPPoE links the DSL modem sends the ethernet frames
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Christopher Zimmermann
wrote:
> Bandwidth shaping on PPPoE links is difficult, because you don't know
> what the modem will do to you packets.
>
> On my DSL PPPoE links the DSL modem sends the ethernet frames over an
> ATM circuit and adds additional, but not const
Hi,
Bandwidth shaping on PPPoE links is difficult, because you don't know
what the modem will do to you packets.
On my DSL PPPoE links the DSL modem sends the ethernet frames over an
ATM circuit and adds additional, but not constant overhead to each
packet in the process.
The consequence is that
