Good recommendation. I read Jesper's thesis (well, okay, not ALL of it... but the juicy bits) and it looks like the difference between the overhead value that I expected to work (24) and the overhead value that actually worked (50) can be explained by the fact that I neglected to include the overhead incurred by bridged mode over ATM (RFC 2684/1483).
I would say "now I can sleep peacefully", but I just woke up a couple of hours ago... so I'll go for a run instead ;)
LOL - but unless you add your overhead + enough to cover padding you still may be taken down if the packet size is just right.
If you know your overhead now it will be far less wastefull to patch - use jesper's and do htb aswell as iproute2.
I have patches which are far uglier and lazier, but do the same thing.
Andy. _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
