That's the limit part. I'd like to be able to specify limits and guarantees on the same host and for the same groups; I don't think that works when you advance the bandwidth period.
Yes, this feature needs to be configurable. But your use case for both
limits and guarantees is interesting. We spoke to Peter and he was
convinced only of the guarantee use case. Could you please help
elaborate your use case, so that we can incorporate it into RFC v2 we
send out. Peter is opposed to having hard limits and is convinced that
they are not generally useful, so far I seen you and Paul say it is
useful, any arguments you have or any +1 from you will help us. Peter
I am not back stabbing you :)
I think we need to treat guarantees as first-class goals, not something derived from limits (in fact I think guarantees are more useful as they can be used to provide SLAs).
Even limits are useful for SLA's since your b/w available changes
quite drastically as we add or remove groups. There are other use
cases for limits as well