On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Sunil Ghai <sunilkrghai@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ingress shaping...sounds good!On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 11:14 AM, Bruno Wolff III <bruno@xxxxxxxx> wrote:> >Yes and a protocol change was made to help. I believe this is the purpose of
> > In case of dynamic throttling we won't be having any _fixed_ rate at which
> > the connections assigned for updates will be able receive the packets. It
> > means packets would be dropped frequently to implement policing. Isn't this
> > waste of resources?
ECN (explicit congestion notification).
Shaping on the wrong side of a link is problematic. You can implement queues
> > Tools like tc and tcng implement queues to control outbound data. Is there
> > any similar _kind of_ option available for inbound data?
> > (Obviously we can't have queues because once the packet has been received
> > must be processed)
on the receiving side which might allow you to better control which flows
get slowed down using IFBs (which replace the older IMQs). While you can't
absolutely prevent the other side from swamping the link with low priority
packets, things should work reasonably with well behaved applications.
Basically it is the way to implement policing efficiently?
--
Regards,
Sunil Ghai
For traffic accepted on an interface, the ingress qdisc is traversed. It means all inbound data is traversed through it. So how do we differentiate as which inbound packet is for which application? port numbers? and who does it..operating system of filters attached with ingress qdisc?
If we want to implement policing on a particular connection, it's inbound packets may be dropped. But as ingress qdisc is common to an interface so how do we implement it?
--
Regards,
Sunil Ghai
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
