From: "Philip A. Prindeville" <philipp_subx@redfish-solutions.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: torsten.schmidt@s2006.tu-chemnitz.de, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv4: add DiffServ priority based routing
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:25:24 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B9943A4.8040606@redfish-solutions.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100112.130355.144803575.davem@davemloft.net>
On 01/12/2010 02:03 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Philip A. Prindeville" <philipp_subx@redfish-solutions.com>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:59:36 -0800
>
>> What has changed is how network equipment is required to interpret
>> the meaning of those bits.
>>
>> Even if we pass the bits "as is" to the network, if the network is
>> applying entirely new semantics (and when I say "entirely new", I
>> mean those mandated since 1998), then compatibility in the host
>> kernel API doesn't matter a hoot since the packets will still be
>> handled by every transited router according to the modern semantics.
>
> People really don't assign global meaning to bits set by applications
> in the TOS field.
>
> What they do is they have a set of semantics inside of their cloud of
> routers and switch points for diffserv, and when packets come in the
> TOS field is rewritten to whatever scheme is being used inside of that
> cloud.
>
> And the diffserv bits only have meaning and effect within that cloud.
>
> So really, having a syscall that sets the TOS bits exactly by
> applications is just fine.
>
> People are doing diffserv right now with Linux and have done so
> for years.
Sorry about coming back to this weeks later... but I hadn't seen RFC 4594 previously.
What if boxes (i.e. the OS) and applications can preconfigured to use RFC-4594 guidelines by default, and varying from that required the administrator to make specific changes?
I agree with the notion that certain values should be set side-wide (or at least system-wide) to prevent malicious users from exploiting QoS... that's why I've been advocating for QoS settings to be specified in a system configuration file, and not a per-user configuration file.
-Philip
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-11 19:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-01-12 13:32 [PATCH] ipv4: add DiffServ priority based routing Torsten Schmidt
2010-01-12 20:16 ` David Miller
2010-01-12 20:59 ` Philip A. Prindeville
2010-01-12 21:03 ` David Miller
2010-01-12 21:33 ` Philip A. Prindeville
2010-01-13 4:47 ` Steven Blake
2010-03-11 19:25 ` Philip A. Prindeville [this message]
2010-03-11 19:29 ` David Miller
2010-03-11 19:32 ` Philip A. Prindeville
2010-03-12 11:18 ` Benny Amorsen
2011-02-21 6:01 ` Philip Prindeville
2010-01-14 11:50 ` Torsten Schmidt
2010-01-14 12:50 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-01-15 0:51 ` David Miller
2010-01-15 8:24 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-01-15 8:26 ` David Miller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4B9943A4.8040606@redfish-solutions.com \
--to=philipp_subx@redfish-solutions.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torsten.schmidt@s2006.tu-chemnitz.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.