From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [leo@yuriev.ru: [PATCH] ethernet-bridge: update skb->priority in case forwarded frame has VLAN-header] Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 04:38:14 +0100 Message-ID: <422D1E26.1010902@trash.net> References: <20050305141225.GA5180@xi.wantstofly.org> <4229D98F.9010008@trash.net> <422A0C21.3050709@candelatech.com> <1110199696.1094.1299.camel@jzny.localdomain> <1110238537.1043.62.camel@jzny.localdomain> <422CE983.7060305@trash.net> <1110241190.1043.100.camel@jzny.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Ben Greear , leo@yuriev.ru, Lennert Buytenhek , shemminger@osdl.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com To: hadi@cyberus.ca In-Reply-To: <1110241190.1043.100.camel@jzny.localdomain> Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org jamal wrote: > Indeed that looks bad. But wouldnt have helped if we started at 0 > either. You need monotonically increasing values to make proper > sense. So i suppose to do proper qos with L2, one must install the prio > qdisc and rewrite the priomap. One reason more to move it to an optional ebtables target. Or leave it all to prio + u32. But I guess a CLASSIFY target similar to iptables could also be useful otherwise. > The mapping used in pfifo_fast is derived from RFC1349 4 bit TOS which > is really considered toast these days. We need to revamp things - but > this would require some surgery in the route code as well (so maybe safe > to leave as is). Are there any changes required besides ip_tos2prio ? More importantly, it there a different meaningful mapping to priorities we can apply ? Regards Patrick