On Sat, 2006-06-24 at 10:13 -0400, jamal wrote: > And yes, I was arguing that the tc scheme you describe would not be so > bad either if the cost of making a generic change is expensive. <snip> > Patrick seems to have a simple way to compensate generically for link > layer fragmentation, so i will not argue the practically; hopefully that > settles it? ;-> Things seem to have died down. Patrick's patch seemed unrelated to ATM to me. I did put up another suggestion, but I don't think anybody was too impressed with the idea. So that leave the current ATM patch as the only one we have on the table that addresses the ATM issue. Since you don't think it is "too bad", can we proceed with it? _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
