> Here is the status IMHO:
>  http://mail-index.netbsd.org/port-sparc64/2005/07/25/0004.html

The politics around this ALTQ / pf / ipfilter issue is keeping a lot
of clients, some
friends and me from either switching from FreeBSD or OpenBSD to NetBSD.
Sad but true.

I hope people will get over it and fix it, they are hurting NetBSD...
Or make a choice, communicate that choice clearly so people can either drop
or use NetBSD instead of the uncertainty around this subject. It's
better to make
a clear choice one way or the other than no choice at all...

> I think few people are using ALTQ, on any BSD, so it's all somewhat
> understandable.

ALTQ capabilities are getting more important, it is moving fast from
the "nice to
have list" to the "requirement" list.

Regards,
Onno


On 9/25/05, Miles Nordin <carton@ivy.net> wrote:
> >>>>> "ms" =3D=3D matthew sporleder <msporleder@gmail.com> writes:
>
>    ms> ALTQ API
>
> Here is the status IMHO:
>
>  http://mail-index.netbsd.org/port-sparc64/2005/07/25/0004.html
>
> Sorry for the harsh words.  I think few people are using ALTQ, on any
> BSD, so it's all somewhat understandable.  But eventually I just gave
> up and switched my main ALTQ box to FreeBSD.  It's not as clean, and
> loosing NetBSD's cross-build architecture is a harsh blow.  But it
> works reliably in production with no patches which is a big big plus
> with the amount of flak I get if there are problems or
> ugrade-of-the-week issues with a box that's routing traffic for lots
> of people, which in the end is almost necessarily the whole point of
> ALTQ and link-sharing schedulers. :)
>
>
>