On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 12:55:15PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2007/07/30 17:33, Can Erkin Acar wrote: > > > > The problem with this diff is that it assumes an ADSL link. > > While 'vcmux' is obviously ADSL terminology, I assume > > having 'pppoe' or 'bridge' would confuse others trying to > > use non-adsl pppoe connections or even real bridges. > > That's a very fair point. I was aiming for a balance of accuracy > and simplicity with the keyword names, and might have gone too far > in the direction of simplicity (though the listing in the manual > is done in more detail). > > > While altq is not my area, I think the diff would be > > more useful if it allowed an 'overhead' and a 'scale' > > to be set on an interface. You could then document suitable > > values for commonly used setups (pppoe/vcmux/whatever). > > There are a finite number of adaptations which would be really useful, > so I think that adds unnecessary complexity to the configuration > language, and it's easier to see what's going on when this is expressed > directly in C than by listing magic numbers in an already-long manual > page. With the framework in place it's simple to see where additions > should go.
I am really not sure about this. I would prefer to pass the 'magic' parameters to the kernel, and put the tables into pfctl. That way the kernel and pfctl do not have to match exactly, and you could fine tune in userland, without changing the kernel. > How would you feel about it with more descriptive keywords? Descriptive keywords would be better, but see the above comment. This way you can do both.
