[lkml]   [2004]   [Jan]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC/PATCH] IMQ port to 2.6
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 02:22:19PM -0500, jamal wrote:
> There has been no real good reason as to why IMQ is needed to begin
> with. It may be easy to use and has been highly publized (which is
> always a dangerous thing in Linux).
> Maybe lets take a step back and see how people use it. How and why do
> you use IMQ? Is this because you couldnt use the ingress qdisc?

Think multiple clients connected via PPP. I want to shape traffic,
so ingress is out of question. I want different clients in a same
htb class, so using qdisc on each ppp interface is out of
question. It seems to me that IMQ is the only way to achieve my goals.

> Note, the abstraction to begin with is in the wrong place - it sure is
> an easy and nice looking hack. So is the current ingress qdisc, but we
> are laying that to rest with TC extensions.
With best regards,
Vladimir Savkin.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:00    [W:0.048 / U:2.444 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site