Re: [Cake] cake/tc - removal of atm/ptm/ethernet specific overhead keywords

[moeller0 <moeller0@gmx.de>]

> On Jun 2, 2016, at 20:55 , Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 2 Jun, 2016, at 21:53, moeller0 <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
>> 
>> “conservative”-keyword needs special care in documentation as it is the only keyword that compounds per-packet-overhead and specific framing
> 
> Not true.  All of the ATM-specific encapsulation keywords - of which there are ten others - also force ATM compensation on.  This is obvious in the code.
> 
> - Jonathan Morton
> 

I might not have picked the best example, but the current keywords make it simple for me ;) 
Let me rephrase then , it is not self-evident which keywords are ATM-specific then… But humor me:
tc qdisc add cake help
Usage: ... cake [ bandwidth RATE | unlimited* | autorate_ingress ]
                [ rtt TIME | datacentre | lan | metro | regional | internet* | oceanic | satellite | interplanetary ]
                [ besteffort | precedence | diffserv8 | diffserv4* ]
                [ flowblind | srchost | dsthost | hosts | flows* | dual-srchost | dual-dsthost | triple-isolate ]
                [ atm | noatm* ] [ overhead N | conservative | raw* ]
                [ wash | nowash* ]
                [ memlimit LIMIT ]
    (* marks defaults)

Where is it evident that “conservative” includes atm encapsulation? And what should a user expect that specifies “noatm conservative”?

	So Jonathan, please, instead of trying to argue obvious inconsistencies in the currently assigned encapsulation keywords away, just go and make sure they are consistent and well documented. 
	Your postings in the overhead-matter make me question whether you do fully understand the issue at hand in its full complexity; so by all means go and collect input from users (usability and self-evidence of the keywords) and experts (on the actual likelihood of encapsulations).

Best Regards
	Sebastian