From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Alejandro Lorenzo Gallego <alejandro_aero@yahoo.es>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 15:19:54 +0000
Subject: Re: [LARTC] Is ESFQ working?
Message-Id: <200702111620.00689.alejandro_aero@yahoo.es>
MIME-Version: 1
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1415030815=="
List-Id: <lartc.vger.kernel.org>
References: <200702111301.51685.alejandro_aero@yahoo.es>
In-Reply-To: <200702111301.51685.alejandro_aero@yahoo.es>
To: lartc@vger.kernel.org

--===============1415030815==
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart78091838.xvFnXn8Atz";
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

--nextPart78091838.xvFnXn8Atz
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-2"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline


> >
> > [cut]
>
> Have u tried to replace CLASSIFY target by MARK target and then using
> fw filter? I have got bad experience with CLASSIFY target.
>

Behaviour is identical if i use classify or mark, however, i expected this,=
=20
because the packets do go to the right classes, it's just it looks that ESF=
Q=20
is not assuring fairness between users

--nextPart78091838.xvFnXn8Atz
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBFzzQgMhZpJgaWlsoRAkiTAKCCO8L86GU128T2jsonS/U+43qNoACgj+eE
aNQYrw8YPCnD30r7wzeGnu0=
=hMqN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart78091838.xvFnXn8Atz--

--===============1415030815==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

--===============1415030815==--