Flemming Frandsen schrieb: > Alexey Toptygin wrote: > >> No, attaching to the input is just as easy as to the output. The >> reason that isn't implemented is that it wouldn't really be useful. > > > You are full of it. If "it"=="knowledge", then you're probably right. > What everybody who asks for shaping want is mainly ingress shaping and > it works just fine. > > When TCP starts to notice that packets are getting lost it will throttle > down and transmit slower, just like any non-idiotic protocol, because > that's the way the Internet works. > > You are right that the packets that have already traversed the DSL line > have consumed bandwidth that can never be reclaimed, but the point is > that once you start dropping packets then fewer will follow and the > situation will stabilize. > > The fact remains that ingress shaping is immensely useful and that it > works. > > Linux traffic shaping doesn't support it out of the box (pre 2.6.16) and > that's because it was hard(er) to implement, not because it's not useful > it is in the real world. Please check your facts. Since you only talk about dropping packets and never about queues, the following has been available for years in mainline kernels: http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.adv-filter.policing.html Regards, Carl-Daniel _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
