Hi Roy, This is great news! Shaping in+out at once is not always wanted... Usually you want to shape them seperately because each direction has a different bandwidth and limits. So I think it should be optional (i.e. you should be able to configure if you want the ingress and/or the egress side). Your efforts are highly appreciated! Aron ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- From: "Roy" <roy@xxxxxx> To: <lartc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: IMQ Stability Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 05:49:15 +0200 Internet (eth0) <-> ppp0 ----- ppp1 <-> LAN (eth1) 10.0.0.0/8 this way dont seem excelent because it still lacks some functionality and what about using LO or dummy type interface instead of ppp? the new imq driver that i am developing will have unlimited posibilities it willbe fake interface wich passes all ip trafic without exception no mater which direction, destination and so on even localy generated and received trafic should pass it I removed iptables module so noo need to configure it just everything is catched. so you will be able to shape in + out in one also I am thinking about the chaining functionality is there any need to make chain of imq devices ? ( they will get the all same trafic) you will be able to use few shapers then but it will add latency. I almost finished my driver , but unfortunately there is no way to avoid patching kernel. I need to export ip_finish_output2 and ip_local_deliver_finish functions but dont know how to do that, and where is the best place. _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
