Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 20:20:12 GMT From: Volker <volker@vwsoft.com> To: freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/106400: fatal trap 12 at restart of PF with ALTQ if ng0 device has detached Message-ID: <200612062020.kB6KKCCa044640@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR kern/106400; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Volker <volker@vwsoft.com> To: "Boris S." <bst2006@dva.dyndns.org> Cc: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, glebius@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/106400: fatal trap 12 at restart of PF with ALTQ if ng0 device has detached Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 21:16:03 +0100 Boris, On 12/06/06 20:17, Boris S. wrote: > I use ALTQ primarily for priorizing tcp acks. > Tell me if I'm wrong, but I think it is not possible to priorize TCP > ACKS on encapsulated PPPoE data on the 'real' interface. You do this for example: altq on xl0 .... queue blabla ... pass out on ng0 all queue(blablabla) > Bandwidth limiting on ng0 works great if I left some bandwidth for the > PPPoE overhead. > > Beside this, I can't currently limit the real interface, because the > dsl-modem is connected in another room on the main LAN. I don't have a > dedicated NIC for the modem. As I understand your NAT gateway has just one NIC and you're using a PPPoE pass-thru capable router? If so, you may still be able to use one queue for local traffic and one queue for external traffic (and sub-queues of both of course) on your NIC. But that's a question of personal taste. If ALTQ works for you your way, I would not effort a change. Greetings, Volker
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200612062020.kB6KKCCa044640>