Re: [Cake] [lede-project/source] Add support for cake qdisc (#72)

[Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>]

Hi Kevin

On June 1, 2016 1:47:42 PM GMT+02:00, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant <kevin@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk> wrote:
>
>
>On 01/06/16 12:41, moeller0 wrote:
>> Hi Toke,
>>> I'm guessing this was probably discussed before and I've simply
>>> forgotten; but why does this (rewriting dscp bits) need to be part
>of
>>> the qdisc when you can do it with iptables?
>>
>> 	Well, cake looks at the DSCP bits already, if it can do the
>re-mapping we potentially would not need to touch iptables at all,
>which cakes goal being simplicity seemed on-focus. But since this
>feature turned out to be contentious, I vote for throwing it out and
>just rely on iptables… I believe Jonathan argued that the re-mapping
>really is an orthogonal issue that does not conceptually belong into a
>qdisc, a valid points as by now everyone agrees…
>>
>> Best Regards
>>          Sebastian
>
>One silly question from ignorant fool:  Can you do the iptables DSCP 
>remapping in such a way that the qdisc still sees/prioritize based on 
>them but clear/remap on output?

At least on ingress that is all we can do right now, as the iptables gets only run after the intermediate functional block device. So we can explicitly not do what we like, that is to use iptables to re-mapp DSCP marks to our internal liking and then have these Interpreten to select the correct priority tin... Re-map all to 0 is just a special case of that...

Best Regards
       Sebastian


>
>Kevin

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.