dummynet patch

[Jeremie Le Hen]

Hi,

> Yes, thanks! But is a little redundant and confused to pass packets to
> multiple pipe and queue. Isn't more elegant to put an option on queue
> that limit maximum bandwitdth to that queue (like "bw" option for pipe)?
> I dont know programming (not well), but i think that, can do the job,
> if is put an supplementary condition, to verify if bandwidth
> allocated for that queue is less or great than an "bw" parameter.
> An queue declaration like:
>   ipfw queue 1 config weight 10 pipe 1 bw 128kbits/s
>   ipfw queue 2 config weight 20 pipe 1 bw 256kbits/s
> is more clear and efficiently.
> This mean that an queue receive bandwidth according with they weight
> but no more that value indicated by "bw" parameter.
> Someone with experience and that know code for dummynet, can make easy
> (i think) an patch for that.

Many folks are reluctant to add syntactic sugar on IPFW when it does
not add any functionnality.  I think I am too : if we add every
shorthand that one can think of, ipfw would become a real mess.

Furthermore, pipes and queues are two distinct objects which have
different semantics.  Pipes are used to emulate a physical network
link, with two main properties : bandwidth and delay, while queues
provide WF2Q+ policy (see ipfw(8) manpage).

Regards,
-- 
Jeremie Le Hen
< jeremie at le-hen dot org >< ttz at chchile dot org >