[3463] in linux-net channel archive
Re: shaper or whatever
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dennis)
Mon Jun 24 17:20:28 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 16:19:44 -0400
To: Alan Cox <alan@cymru.net>
From: dennis@etinc.com (Dennis)
Cc: linux-net@vger.rutgers.edu
>> Perhaps the issue is that I'm addressing what the marketplace wants,
>> which is physical simulation, and you're addressing some other issue
>> that I can't quite figure out. Different goals, different implementations.
>> Its not really that surprising. The proof is in the pudding (as someone
>> once said), it's clean and works as intended, which is what its all
>> about.
>
>Im addressing what people want which is to give people the bandwidth they
>want without causing excess load elsewhere on the network. Im not sure
>what you are doing but it doesnt seem to involve the latter rule. For
>reference Im holding a 64K over ethernet at +- 3% on the test rig and
>causing no measurable excess retransmissions.
>
What we're doing is speed simulation so ISPs can do web and host
serving on an ethernet and charge for bandwidth usage, or so that
companies can share an ethernet and allocate only certain amounts
of bandwidth to each "user". For example if you had a T1 and you
wanted to put the company next door on you LAN but they only needed
56kbs, rather than putting up back-to-back routers you can just run
an ethernet and limit the bandwidth on the ethernet. Easier, cheaper
and more efficient (hopefully).
Hence, the confusion.
Dennis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emerging Technologies, Inc. http://www.etinc.com
Synchronous Communications Cards and Routers For
Discriminating Tastes. 56k to T1 and beyond. Frame
Relay, PPP, HDLC, and X.25 for BSD/OS, FreeBSD
and LINUX
