On 23/12/15 11:43, Dave Taht wrote: > squashing and washing are both well within the realm of ietf best > practices. It is highly desirable to have this level of simple control > on cake for inbound - for example, 90+ of all comcast traffic, no > matter how originally marked, comes in marked as background, and > should be changed to best effort on the gateway. Doing so with an > iptables rule is inefficient and it is difficult (along with the rest > of sqm-scripts) to hook into other people's iptables rules. > > On outbound - frankly I was surprised remarking dns, ntp, and mosh as > AF42 worked as well as it did, there was only one place where it > failed (which resulted in the removal of AF42 marking to mosh > mainline) - MIT. There ARE a few indicators like background and IMM > that often survive end to end elsewhere. > > more extensive remarking, as kevin also wants to do, seems complex. The idea was a 'simple' extension of washing, namely to be able to specify the departing dscp for each tin, relying on the incoming tin classification performed by cake - it wasn't ever going to be a full per tin '64 dscp to 64 dscp' mapping table - 'easy' to implement, totally insane to configure and much better handled by port/protocol awareness. The original drive was a thought it potentially useful to be able to specify a different default marking for 'squash/wash' than the default hard coded '0'. If 'wash' is a silly idea, then it's a silly idea, end of story - (my 'c' has improved as a result of coding various little bits so it's a win for me either way) No matter, there are branches & matching pull requests for removal of 'wash & squash' to be found in cake & tc github repos - merge or delete I've no care :-) Kevin