From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0CB03CB37 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2019 13:16:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 6E268B1; Sat, 23 Mar 2019 18:16:36 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1553361396; bh=e3y89xVxmbW26LwECuDg/aiR/Y2G65KhqqnP/9bW5sk=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=U0KKuR6qU4ej/zx3U3LGjXCm9ZkUzaZwLQqHfFLx39jE2TZ9PDuk4rLtbYgSSQGKj VzzgGPUAqmF8lB1waISeSK6VhUit1cvUEgC8ExXPcNxPwP/tlwvA1dBj+57hOIXlut C5Gn0+sLiHVjPEVfBZnmiWahkEbMm+H1m8zuLKM0= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AE9AB0; Sat, 23 Mar 2019 18:16:36 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 18:16:36 +0100 (CET) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: Roland Bless cc: Victor Hou , bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net In-Reply-To: <00a6bc91-22f2-8971-cec9-8aed615d632b@kit.edu> Message-ID: References: <2c8ad5fe4be5c52ad1a3c2bf7f91a09a@mail.gmail.com> <00674bef-877b-3ccc-9c8e-e7e06ee8e1cd@kit.edu> <00a6bc91-22f2-8971-cec9-8aed615d632b@kit.edu> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Re: [Bloat] [Ecn-sane] [iccrg] Fwd: [tcpPrague] Implementation and experimentation of TCP Prague/L4S hackaton at IETF104 X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 17:16:37 -0000 On Sat, 23 Mar 2019, Roland Bless wrote: > It's true that DSCPs may be remarked, but RFC 2474 > already stated > > Packets received with an unrecognized codepoint SHOULD be forwarded > as if they were marked for the Default behavior (see Sec. 4), and > their codepoints should not be changed. https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2015-May/075004.html https://www.nanog.org/mailinglist/mailarchives/old_archive/2005-05/msg00654.html Please note the dates, as in 4 and 14 years ago respectively. So please read those threads and then tell me that what you quoted above has bearing on reality. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se