Stephen Hemminger said: > 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. I'll test the patch from Russell Stuart in the next few days, I hope. I'd love to eventually see it in iproute2. :) _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
