Re: [LARTC] Re: further CBQ/tc documentation ds9a.nl/lartc/manpages

Linux Advanced Routing and Traffic Control

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 10:59:38AM +0100, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:

> TCP is generally too smart to be delayed proper by "randomly" dropped packets 
> without any signs in RTT. Especially when the RTT is small.

Richard Stevens disagrees with you. 

> And such a administrative boundary is the one I am playing on. The boundary 
> between a small customer and his ISP. The ISP obviously have the luxury of 
> egress, but the customer does not on traffic received by him.
> 
> Exacly how would this need vanish?

You can turn ingress into egress by inserting another machine of course.
Ingress shaping, well, is weird if you have no concept of an 'ingress
queue'.

Regards,

bert

-- 
http://www.PowerDNS.com          Versatile DNS Software & Services
Trilab                                 The Technology People
Netherlabs BV / Rent-a-Nerd.nl           - Nerd Available -
'SYN! .. SYN|ACK! .. ACK!' - the mating call of the internet



[Index of Archives]     [LARTC Home Page]     [Netfilter]     [Netfilter Development]     [Network Development]     [Bugtraq]     [GCC Help]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Fedora Users]
  Powered by Linux