So in other words if we define a cbq at 1:0 and then define a class 1:1, and DO NOT attach any qdiscs at parent 1:1, all packets that went to 1:1 will be simply discarded? P.S. Examples are fine but going down and getting dirty is way more fun :) On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 09:18:48PM +0200, Stef Coene wrote: > On Monday 12 May 2003 15:35, Peter Rabbitson wrote: > > Hi all, > > Just finished reading and re-reading the advanced routing how-to. This this > > is marvelous!!! Thank you all that spent your time and devoted it to such a > > great paper! However there is something that I am missing from the picture. > > By default each interface is bundled with the pfifo_fast that prioritizes > > the packets based on TOS. If for say we do this: # tc qdisc add dev eth0 > > root tbf rate 100kbit latency 100ms urst 2048 Do we actually lose the whole > > point of TOS? Or there is stil an underlying filter somewhere in the kernel > > that will take care of the TOS scheduling just like pfifo_fast did? > You loose the TOS settings. > > > Also in the following example: > > # tc qdisc add dev eth0 root handle 1: prio > > We automatically create three handles 1:1 1:2 1:3, with the default > > priomap. However what happens to traffic that goes down 1:1 if there is no > > qdisc attached to it? Does it get dequeued right off the back or there is > > again something similar to pfifo_fast waiting for it? > There is always a qdisc responsible for sending the packets. If you add a > prio qdisc, you also created 3 small fifo qdiscs for each class. > > If you want some example shaping scripts (mostly cbq and htb), you can go to > docum.org. > > Stef > > -- > > stef.coene@xxxxxxxxx > "Using Linux as bandwidth manager" > http://www.docum.org/ > #lartc @ irc.oftc.net > > > _______________________________________________ > LARTC mailing list / LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
