On Wednesday 23 November 2005 14:23, Sophana Kok wrote: > Markus Schulz wrote: > >On Wednesday 16 November 2005 16:03, Andy Furniss wrote: > >>I use something similar and use ceil 286kbit while synced at > >> 288kbit without problems. > > What thing similar do you use? I don't understand why it is not in > the kernel already. sounds like he has calculated the constant overhead for each htb-class and set the ceil value to according this. this is equivalent to the stuff from adsl-optimizer. in both ways you need to setup classes for packets with same average size or it won't work. Most important is the class for ACK-only packets cause they have the biggest overhead. correct me if i'm wrong. > >should be easy to patch in. Overhead is only a simple variable which > >will be added in htb/* module for each paket. Only sign/unsign > > problem should be considered. > > How? this refers to the possible negativ overhead mentioned from Andy Furniss by use of pppoe. But i don't understand whencever the -14 Bytes should come from. so i asked for explanation. If signed overhead is really needed, it can be easy added into the patches you meantioned (http://www.adsl-optimizer.dk/ADSL-optimizer/). Cause these patches only add a constant offset to a htb class which will be set with modified iproute tc utility. > The ppp over aal5 atm encapsulation is in almost all adsl lines isn't > it? Isn't it standard? yes, i think so. therefore i asked Andy to explain his objection. > This makes a huge number of lines in the world. > Are there other patches ? > or distributions that already include these patches? Don't know a distribution which already include these patches. But the effort for a selfmade kernel with these patches is maintainable. msc _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
