From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joerg Pommnitz Subject: AW: Does tc-prio really work as advertised? Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 05:00:55 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <759014.71791.qm@web51409.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Jarek Poplawski Return-path: Received: from web51409.mail.re2.yahoo.com ([206.190.38.188]:28571 "HELO web51409.mail.re2.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1754872AbXK0NA5 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Nov 2007 08:00:57 -0500 Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org > So, are you still sure you've tested such a case? Well, the problem that triggered my investigation was that the OLSR daemon (www.olsr.org) calculates the quality of a link according to the packet loss for LQ HELLO packets (UDP broadcast packets). To prevent other traffic from interfering with the LQ calculation, olsrd sends the HELLO packets with a TOS value of 0x10 (minimize delay). This should give them the highest priority. What I saw was a degrading Link quality with more user traffic over a link. The LQ fell so far that olsrd judged the other host unreachable and deleted the routing entry. The user traffic in question was iperf (TOS value 0x00). The OLSR traffic was obviously generated locally (not forwarded). You claim, that the TOS value for locally generated traffic does not influence its priority? Now I THINK that I did my tests both, for forwarded and for local traffic, but I'll redo my tests to make sure. -- Regards and thanks for taking an interest Joerg __________________________________ Ihr erstes Baby? Holen Sie sich Tipps von anderen Eltern. www.yahoo.de/clever