Re: ALTQ modifications proposal

On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 at 01:25, Emmanuel Nyarko <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On 18 Jun 2025, at 6:54 PM, Emmanuel Dreyfus <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 03:11:30PM +0000, Emmanuel Nyarko wrote:
> >> 1. Remove all the existing disciplines (openBSD has taken this step already)
> >
> > That will break the setups of long-time users.
> >
> > But if fq-codel is able to replace all existing disciplines, perhaps
> > you could keep the existing configuration keywords for other disciplines,
> > and use them to configure fq-codel to emulate the old disciplines.
>
> sadly, that doesn’t look possible. Fq-codel is just three params(IRC) and the rest are a lot for a single queue.

If there really no useful setups which fq-codel could replace?
Including "I need to simulate packet loss and odd bandwidth behaviour
to stress my other systems"?

If so, I think there are two aspects to "replace everything with fq-codel":

- Can existing configuration syntax recognised and mapped to fq-codel
(likely with a run-time warning), which could be done in one of two
ways
  - Map each existing discipline to a given default fq-codel config
  - As above, but take some subset of the params to adjust fq-codel
(very much only a subset)

Given the above, would there be any significant functional regressions
in any existing ALTQ installations were converted to fq-codel?

Thanks

David