On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 03:34:08PM +0200, Martin Devera wrote: > > E.g. you might have a customer agency which needs say 256 kbps for its > > headquarters and 64 kbps for its factory. They pay for 512 kbps which > > means that they buy 512-256-64=192 kbps of "excess" bw available to both > > sites on demand. Well, it makes sense to me that they would be worried > > about the "headquarters" class draining the other class in case both > > classes have demand. They might want to say "We buy lower rate for our > > factory because Internet access is rarely needed there. But *when* it > > *is* needed we want to let the factory take at least 1/2 of the "excess" > > bw we buy even if headquarters demand excess bw too. We already buy 256 > > well, you are right. However you should take into account that > even in cbq the weight is not precise argument. It influences > excess distribution but you will see some discrepancies. Yes - this and other CBQ problems are the very reasons I'm looking into alternatives. :-) CBQ's "weight" parameter semantics is rather opaque and it is difficult to predict how a given weight value will influence excess bw distribution. I also suspect that CBQ's weight doesn't give me complete independence on rate ratios although I'm not sure here (yet). > As I'm working on new version I'll try to do it - if it will not > slow things down. > It is because with assmption that "weight" is proportional to rate > we can make some algorithms faster ... > We will see ;) Then I hope it will be possible to implement it in such a manner that it wouldn't hurt those who don't use it. Anyway, thanks a lot. :-) pvl
