-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Saturday 01 November 2003 15:45, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> So why would you want to use H-FSC .. you're right, a major
> feature of H-FSC is decoupling of bandwidth and delay, but it
> also offers delay _guarantees_ if configured correctly. This is
>
Hello gentleman,
i wrote a few days ago but did not receive any answers.
I simplified the problem and even wrote a quick example
which demonstrates the innacurate rate precision:
tc qdisc del dev eth0 root >/dev/null 2>&1
tc qdisc add dev eth0 root handle 1: htb
tc class add dev eth0 par
The fine document:
http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.rpdb.multiple-links.html
works nicely to make sure that answers to packets incoming to the
Linux router from a particular provider go back out again over the
same provider.
It doesn't work as given for connections that are port forwarded from the
Hi Torsten,
Griem, Hans T wrote:
I read the abstract and introduction to original H-FSC paper. I believe it was mostly about decoupling bw and delay.
It seems to me HTB does this well. When and/or why would I would want to use H-FSC versus HTB or are they direct competitors?
Not sure what yo
--===--
Stef> On Monday 27 October 2003 22:26, Dragos Cinteza wrote:
>> In the last mail I only put the results of listing chains and classes.
Stef> You never told us what's your LAN interface : eth0 or eth1?
eth0 is my LAN i
Dear all,
My problem is the following: I am connected to my ISP through a 1Mbit
connection without up/download ratio, and I want to shape the traffic
between workstations equal. How can I do this?
I can set up an up/download ratio to them, but when there is lower upload
then my configures rate,
Hi,
Brad Barnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote on 2003-11-01:
> We have the same problem. ;) You're right, it doesn't make any sense.
Yeah, that's what I feel. Unfortunately, my message to linux-netdev went
unnoticed, and I don't really know of any reference against which to
compare whether the curre
