Re: AltQ + ng_iface
From: Chuck Swiger (cswiger_at_mac.com)
Date: 07/29/05
- Previous message: Daniel O'Connor: "Re: AltQ + ng_iface"
- In reply to: Daniel O'Connor: "Re: AltQ + ng_iface"
- Next in thread: Daniel O'Connor: "Re: AltQ + ng_iface"
- Reply: Daniel O'Connor: "Re: AltQ + ng_iface"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 21:32:21 -0400 To: Daniel O'Connor <doconnor@gsoft.com.au>
Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> On Friday 29 July 2005 10:10, Julian Elischer wrote:
[ ... ]
>>ipfw and dummynet work on ng_iface I believe.
>
> Well yeah, but dummynet is a little inflexible and can't prioritise ACKs (for
> example)
Either the "established" or the "tcpflags !syn,ack" keywords in a rule adding
matching packets to a high-priority queue ought to do it...? Or perhaps you
meant something more specific than just "TCP packets with TH_ACK" set? :-)
Anyway, I'm not convinced that trying to classify packets within an established
TCP connection in order to place them on different queues is a really good
idea, since you're quite likely to reorder the packets by doing so. I'd expect
both latency and bandwidth of a TCP connection to suffer very noticably if more
than 10% or so of the packets arrive out of order...
[ Hmm. I suppose that one could make an exception to the above generalization
if URG was set, but the TCP stack already makes an effort to prioritize and
deliver out-of-band urgent stuff as quickly as possible, anyway, right? ]
-- -Chuck _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- Previous message: Daniel O'Connor: "Re: AltQ + ng_iface"
- In reply to: Daniel O'Connor: "Re: AltQ + ng_iface"
- Next in thread: Daniel O'Connor: "Re: AltQ + ng_iface"
- Reply: Daniel O'Connor: "Re: AltQ + ng_iface"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|