Ed Wildgoose <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
I would be interested to hear if anyone has a CBQ based setup and can
tell me if that patch works for them? Or even whether it works on the
incoming policer properly?
Would that work with HFSC ?
To be honest, I can't see these bits of code being used in HFSC, so I doubt it. However, if performance isn't an issue, it would be fairly easy to patch the enqueue function in any of these schedulers to just lie about the size of the packet.
what about PPPoE ? i didn't really understand what I have to change if
I'm using PPPoE and MTU=1492.
I'm not really sure how PPPoE is working? Is it as simple as wrapping IP in IP?
The patch is trivial though, the first interesting line is this one: + sz = sz + proto_overhead;
Here we just lie about the size of the packet and add the overhead PPP causes (this is per original packet)
The next interesting line is this: + sz = ( (int)((sz-1)/encaps_data_sz) + 1) * encaps_cell_sz;
All we are doing is dividing by the size of the packet that our data is encapsulated in, (perhaps in your case, encaps_data_sz should be 1492 ?). Then we multiply up by the actual size of the packet when it crosses the link "encaps_cell_size". Perhaps in your case this should be 1492 + 40 = 1532 ?
The other lines were just trying to make it look a little neater.
I will look up how PPPoE works and suggest some new values
Ed W
_______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
