Well its being maintained by me if that what you are asking :)
However most of the people here 'poo-poo' it so do not expect much help from
them :-/ So much for my contibution to the OSS worldpah...every man to
themselves.
/me goes back to his ppp-pipe
have fun
Alex
On Feb 02, ThE LinuX
On Feb 02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Moment, DHCP is not arp packet.
> and ARP is not DHCP.
>
however every dhcp request fires off a bunch of ARP requests. I am
suggesting using DHCP-relay so you put the 'long distance' DHCP requests into
a kind of IP tunnel (?). If this is not true then y
On Feb 01, Stef Coene wrote:
> On Saturday 31 January 2004 18:00, Alexander Clouter wrote:
> > On Jan 31, Art??ras ??lajus wrote:
> > > Stef Coene wrote:
> > > >Devik told me that disabling hysteresis will give you more accuracy, but
> > > >you will loose
On Jan 31, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I manage lan network with more that 1000 home users. Every user have
> iptables/tc pairs for marking packets/traffic limiting. Entire network
> operate via dhcp. If I miss only one user from shaper then his traffic
> going to default class. This class mus
On Jan 31, Art??ras ??lajus wrote:
> Stef Coene wrote:
> >Devik told me that disabling hysteresis will give you more accuracy, but
> >you will loose speed. I had to disable hysteresis when I did some bursts
> >tests.
> >http://docum.org/stef.coene/qos/faq/cache/36.html
>
> Maybe this could be se
On Jan 31, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I try to shape dhcp requests, but filter rule don't work. My script is:
>
> [snipped]
>
I really think you have other problems if you need to shape DHCP requests and
their responses. If we overlook the logistical part (QoS under linux only
see'
On Jan 26, Michael S. Kazmier wrote:
> Hello Alex,
>
> Perhaps I missed something below which ties eth0 and eth1 to the PPP pipe,
> or its just my unfamiliarity with PPP.
>
sorry I should of made it cleaner. If you read up on Advanced Routing HOWTO,
its hopefully easy to understand.
lets say:
On Jan 24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Thank you for the detailed discussion. There is no doubt that there is a
> need for an IMQ type device/funtionality. What would work really great,
> IMHO, is a "fake" or psuedo ethernet driver that simply sits as a shim
> between one or more real drivers. Th
