> On 15 Sep 2023, at 18:54, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>
> On 2023/09/15 13:40, Andy Lemin wrote:
>> Hi Stuart,
>>
>> Seeing as it seems like everyone is too busy, and my workaround
>> (not queue some flows on interfaces with queue defined) seems of no
>> interest,
>
> well, it might be, but
On 2023/09/15 13:40, Andy Lemin wrote:
> Hi Stuart,
>
> Seeing as it seems like everyone is too busy, and my workaround
> (not queue some flows on interfaces with queue defined) seems of no
> interest,
well, it might be, but I'm not sure if it will fit with how
queues work..
> and my current
Hi Stuart,Seeing as it seems like everyone is too busy, and my workaround (not queue some flows on interfaces with queue defined) seems of no interest, and my current hack to use queuing on Vlan interfaces is a very incomplete and restrictive workaround;Would you please be so kind as to provide me
On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 7:23 PM Andrew Lemin wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 8:35 PM Stuart Henderson <
> stu.li...@spacehopper.org> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-09-13, Andrew Lemin wrote:
>> > I have noticed another issue while trying to implement a 'prio'-only
>> > workaround (using only prio
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 8:35 PM Stuart Henderson
wrote:
> On 2023-09-13, Andrew Lemin wrote:
> > I have noticed another issue while trying to implement a 'prio'-only
> > workaround (using only prio ordering for inter-VLAN traffic, and HSFC
> > queuing for internet traffic);
> > It is not
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 8:22 PM Stuart Henderson
wrote:
> On 2023-09-12, Andrew Lemin wrote:
> > A, thats clever! Having bandwidth queues up to 34,352M would
> definitely
> > provide runway for the next decade :)
> >
> > Do you think your idea is worth circulating on tech@ for further
> >
On 2023-09-13, Andrew Lemin wrote:
> I have noticed another issue while trying to implement a 'prio'-only
> workaround (using only prio ordering for inter-VLAN traffic, and HSFC
> queuing for internet traffic);
> It is not possible to have internal inter-vlan traffic be solely priority
> ordered
On 2023-09-12, Andrew Lemin wrote:
> A, thats clever! Having bandwidth queues up to 34,352M would definitely
> provide runway for the next decade :)
>
> Do you think your idea is worth circulating on tech@ for further
> discussion? Queueing at bps resolution is rather redundant nowadays, even
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 3:43 AM Andrew Lemin wrote:
> Hi Stuart.
>
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:25 AM Stuart Henderson <
> stu.li...@spacehopper.org> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-09-12, Andrew Lemin wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> > Hope this finds you well.
>> >
>> > I have discovered that PF's queueing is
Hi Stuart.
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:25 AM Stuart Henderson
wrote:
> On 2023-09-12, Andrew Lemin wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > Hope this finds you well.
> >
> > I have discovered that PF's queueing is still limited to 32bit bandwidth
> > values.
> >
> > I don't know if this is a regression or not.
>
On 2023-09-12, Andrew Lemin wrote:
> Hi all,
> Hope this finds you well.
>
> I have discovered that PF's queueing is still limited to 32bit bandwidth
> values.
>
> I don't know if this is a regression or not.
It's not a regression, it has been capped at 32 bits afaik forever
(certainly was like
11 matches
Mail list logo
