On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 08:18:52 +1000 Russell Stuart <russell-lartc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 14:51 +0100, Markus Schulz wrote: > > > Why you don't use the existing overhead parameter? It's useless to > > > have two parameters which do the exact same thing (existing overhead > > > and your atm). > > > Only ATM Cell alignment must be added to rate table calculation. > > The overhead and atm options don't do the "exact same > thing". If the atm option is present, tc includes the > atm cell alignment overheads in the rate table > calculation. Otherwise it doesn't. > > As atm cell overheads aren't a fixed amount (they vary > in a non-linear fashion between 6 and 202 bytes), you > can't use the overhead option to calculate them. > > > But it would be nice if this would be patched into upstream iproute > > source. Then there is no need of patching for qos at adsl links. > > I will put it in iproute2 commands when a definitive set of patches is sent to me. So far, it still looks like it needs some fine tuning. _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
