Re: [Cake] flow_hash vs host_hash

[Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>]

Hi Kevin,

On Oct 6, 2015, at 08:26 , Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant <kevin@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk> wrote:

> On 05/10/15 15:01, Dave Taht wrote:
>> I would like the dual-flow pony in this net-next merge window please.
>> 
>> Otherwise I am sore inclined to get what we have out there! I hope to
>> get the api and abi changes in today or tomorrow for the bits I
>> understand....
>> 
> The view that it should just get out there has already been expressed.
> 
> Silly question time (IPv4): This dual flow host isolation pony, how will
> it work on the WAN facing link on a 'domestic' router when the WAN side
> is post NAT.  Won't the ip source address just be the router's external
> interface?  But let this question not distract from proper coding not
> the semi-intelligent cut'n'paste stuff that I do.

	I believe you nailed it, but the pony will still work on egress, and a sufficiently motivated user can instantiate sqm on an inward facing interface so that the real ingress (from the users perspective) will be processed after NAT. Also as you allude to IPv6 should work out of the box. I believe there were rumblings on net-dev to hook up iptables with the ingress qdisc, which in the long run might allow to get the de-NATed addresses from packets arriving on an IFB device (or it might not, who knows ;) ). In any case we should write up some documentation about the expected behavior and configuration options for the dual-isolation option, once it lands...

Best Regards
	Sebastian


> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cake mailing list
> Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake