Re: [RFC/PATCH] IMQ port to 2.6

[Vladimir B. Savkin]

On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 02:22:19PM -0500, jamal wrote:
> 
> There has been no real good reason as to why IMQ is needed to begin
> with. It may be easy to use and has been highly publized (which is
> always a dangerous thing in Linux).
> 
> Maybe lets take a step back and see how people use it. How and why do
> you use IMQ? Is this because you couldnt use the ingress qdisc?

Think multiple clients connected via PPP. I want to shape traffic,
so ingress is out of question. I want different clients in a same
htb class, so using qdisc on each ppp interface is out of
question. It seems to me that IMQ is the only way to achieve my goals.

> Note, the abstraction to begin with is in the wrong place - it sure is
> an easy and nice looking hack. So is the current ingress qdisc, but we
> are laying that to rest with TC extensions.
> 
> 
~
:wq
                                        With best regards, 
                                           Vladimir Savkin. 

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/