I don't think time spent developing PF or ALTQ could be better spent
developing something other than download queueing. Everyone here seems
to agree it's PF's worst deficiency.
I'm thinking perhaps there's some messy hack I can come up with using
virtual interfaces, does anyone have any ideas?
>
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 04:26:19PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'd have a look at this problem myself, but I'm not good with C. I was
> hoping there was some sort of todo list I could petition this to be
> added too, because lots of people here seem to agree this is pf's (and
> ALTQ's) worst
On Saturday, Apr 29, 2006, at 08:58 US/Pacific, Daniel Hartmeier wrote:
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 05:10:40PM +0200, Stanislaw Halik wrote:
I can speak for myself - I can't afford both the hardware and the
electricity bill for a separate machine. Maybe downstream limiting
isn't
very robust, but
> Question's of the form "why hasn't this been done" sound kind of weird
> to me, almost as if they were rhetorical. Assuming you haven't donated
> blood in the last month, "why haven't you"? Are you really interested in
> the petty excuses humans have for not doing things? :)
I was hoping you'd t
On 04/29/2006 10:58:39 AM, Daniel Hartmeier wrote:
What I tried to express in the last paragraph of the referenced mail
was
that it's not pf that's lacking anything, but altq.
While there are now ties between pf and altq (pf classifying packets
for
altq, and pfctl setting up queues), that do
