From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: [PATCH] netconsole: implement ipv4 tos support Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:27:53 -0800 Message-ID: <20111130182753.02798425@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> References: <1322702330-31325-1-git-send-email-zenczykowski@gmail.com> <20111130173435.5e63afda@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Maciej =?UTF-8?B?xbtlbmN6eWtvd3NraQ==?= Return-path: Received: from mail.vyatta.com ([76.74.103.46]:60524 "EHLO mail.vyatta.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752979Ab1LAC14 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:27:56 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:11:32 -0800 Maciej =C5=BBenczykowski wrote: > > Why make it an option? TOS should always be set to interactive > > traffic (like telnet and slogin) >=20 > Because 'interactive' doesn't mean anything. You don't know what > value of tos defines 'interactive' traffic on my network. > I may also consider network console/debug/dump/etc traffic less > important then say serving web traffic, and thus not even want it to > be considered 'interactive' in the first place. >=20 > TOS values are relevant within a LAN/WAN/Organization/AS, but are not > relevant internet-wide. > Almost all AS-boundary gateways/routers will do TOS remarking to thei= r > own internal specifications. >=20 > - Maciej Giving the user choice in general is good, but network configuration is already confusing enough. Although interpretation of TOS is per organization, in practice the values are standardized in places like RFC4594. For example, routing pr= otocols all use IPTOS_PREC_INTERNETCONTROL =3D 0xc0