From: "Jim Fleming" <JimFleming@ameritech.net>
To: Antony Stone <Antony@Soft-Solutions.co.uk>,
netfilter@lists.netfilter.org
Subject: Re: Setting and Routing on the TOS Source (SRC) and Destination (DST) Bits
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 10:18:23 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0cb501c2624b$4b4864a0$c6b22543@repligate> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20020922142038.LIRG2092.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@there
----- Original Message -----
From: "Antony Stone" <Antony@Soft-Solutions.co.uk>
>
> Sorry :-) You're right. I just hate to see bullshit spread about in what
> is usually a very helpful and informative mailing list.
>
I think that is an extreme ( = unreasonable ) point of view.
Of the 160 bits in an IPv4 header, **YOU** really do not see how **you** could
reasonably use these 49 for routing purposes:
4 bits - header length
16 bits - fragment identifier
13 bits - fragmentation offset
16 bits - header checksum
Of the remaining 111 bits, even these 28 would be a challenge to use
intelligently for routing, **YOU** think ?
4 bits - IP version no
16 bits - total packet length
8 bits - time to live
The length and the ttl might make sense as numeric values, but not as
bitmasks for routing decisions.
**YOU** think it's much fairer to say that of the 160 bits in the IPv4 header, 83
of them make sense for routing purposes:
8 bits - type of service
3 bits - fragmentation flags
8 bits - protocol identifier
32 bits - source address
32 bits - destination address
=======
Other people also have a right to think...and do as they please with the 160 bits...
There are...
1.4615016373309029182036848327163e+48
...possible 160 bit headers....all of them may not be useful....
NetFilter allows each person to decide which are useful and which are not...
...educated people know what is in those 160 bits...and how they can be used...
http://www.netfilter.org/
An ISP that does not pass TOS Field end-to-end with no change, is not an ISP...
An ISP that sets the TOS Field for you is not an ISP...
By the way, there are only 2 bits used for Fragmentation Flags...MF and DF...
What do **YOU** use the Spare Bit for ?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-09-22 15:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-09-20 12:23 Iptables bandwidth limit Rob Sterenborg
2002-09-20 12:35 ` Andrei Ivanov
2002-09-20 19:46 ` Oskar Andreasson
2002-09-21 13:25 ` Setting and Routing on the TOS Source (SRC) and Destination (DST) Bits Jim Fleming
2002-09-21 13:38 ` Andrei Ivanov
2002-09-21 13:52 ` Antony Stone
2002-09-21 21:53 ` Jim Fleming
2002-09-21 21:59 ` Antony Stone
2002-09-21 23:15 ` Jim Fleming
2002-09-22 8:21 ` Antony Stone
2002-09-22 10:25 ` Sascha Reissner
2002-09-22 10:35 ` Antony Stone
2002-09-22 13:54 ` Jim Fleming
2002-09-22 13:35 ` Jim Fleming
2002-09-22 13:48 ` Antony Stone
2002-09-22 14:15 ` Sascha Reissner
2002-09-22 14:20 ` Antony Stone
2002-09-22 15:18 ` Jim Fleming [this message]
2002-09-22 14:39 ` Jim Fleming
2002-09-21 21:56 ` Jim Fleming
2002-09-21 22:01 ` Antony Stone
2002-09-21 22:57 ` Jim Fleming
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='0cb501c2624b$4b4864a0$c6b22543@repligate' \
--to=jimfleming@ameritech.net \
--cc=Antony@Soft-Solutions.co.uk \
--cc=netfilter@lists.netfilter.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox