From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail2.tohojo.dk (mail2.tohojo.dk [77.235.48.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 521C73B260 for ; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 07:20:35 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail2.tohojo.dk DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 mail2.tohojo.dk 91EBB40472 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=201310; t=1464780032; bh=Rj5VVMsN2CFdLxYBuYYu647wV725H1CCZQ/o3PCkHt4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=W2UpR9D9VU6vK38YYuaXt9NsyzlQWIn8p1w1VRa8RF/M7EWvFq18oSvogdbgV8KM7 SpIgQObB+mkw8Ge3gB9lVJzqN2JPjsVoCHKtzmh7hFAgGSC35Z8XBs0MkC+pCI/Ez1 S3uSSoRQVkhvjUNPOoE9+KB34G5pVT1K308hx6LM= Sender: toke@toke.dk Received: by alrua-kau.kau.toke.dk (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C0165C40125; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 13:20:31 +0200 (CEST) From: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= To: moeller0 Cc: Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant , cake@lists.bufferbloat.net References: <574EB29B.1000405@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk> <574EB550.5020005@taht.net> <574EB6E2.2020006@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk> <4DDB6EED-A66B-4E34-B233-8DC55F663EBD@gmx.de> Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 13:20:31 +0200 In-Reply-To: <4DDB6EED-A66B-4E34-B233-8DC55F663EBD@gmx.de> (moeller0's message of "Wed, 1 Jun 2016 12:52:59 +0200") X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87shwxb1fk.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Cake] [lede-project/source] Add support for cake qdisc (#72) X-BeenThere: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Cake - FQ_codel the next generation List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 11:20:35 -0000 moeller0 writes: > So, my take on this is that we want to be able to re-map DSCP to zero. On > ingress if we do not trust our upstream to do the right thing on egress i= f we do > not want to leak internal information to our upstream. As far as I can te= ll DSCP > is supposed to be domain specific and I consider a home net equivalent wi= th a > domain. This is why I tried to argue for the existing squash/wash combina= tion. > Since Dave had already implemented the squashing on ingress per iptables = in SQM, > we will still be able to offer this functionality in SQM independent on w= hether > cake offers this natively or not (but note the sqm implementation re-mapp= ed > after using the DSCP marks)*. I tried to divine which mis-feature Jonathan > referred to and remembered his unhappiness with that feature, and since I= really > want to see cake go somewhere I am fine with =E2=80=9Csacrificing=E2=80= =9D this feature to make > upstreaming more likely. 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? -Toke