From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.19]) (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 5A4863B29E for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 11:00:02 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1593183599; bh=rHDgWcjfj6clpvRJT1A/epQEimE2z6aZbcIPZpOB0DQ=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=KN6BApRtGaTNCBoa8RKCw3Fxr7mms/JYdtSCfL15prV9HsBEs8pxxj32krqYWAhfD +d1EONB8Spe8+YWrtXWakf6f5A+UqCHbUne8MjB6VhREWppf4shf/+SyQz+3Y6XUs0 oAagdhO9fwxAqmnP26YhcatjmX+hYk4c7QjuSgWo= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Received: from [192.168.250.102] ([134.76.241.253]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx004 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1Mwwdl-1ivmPE2YDz-00yPnx; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 16:59:59 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.14\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: <78C16717-5EB2-49BF-A377-21A9B22662E1@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 16:59:58 +0200 Cc: Cake List , dcaratti@redhat.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <159308610282.190211.9431406149182757758.stgit@toke.dk> <159308610390.190211.17831843954243284203.stgit@toke.dk> <20200625.122945.321093402617646704.davem@davemloft.net> <87k0zuj50u.fsf@toke.dk> <240fc14da96a6212a98dd9ef43b4777a9f28f250.camel@redhat.com> <78C16717-5EB2-49BF-A377-21A9B22662E1@gmail.com> To: Jonathan Morton X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.14) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:OdJXx0IW8uFt+aodC6uFgBqwd8l2rQsI3HNIi9P5mbCNdwSPGsW pgn+f5a2i3fvNZrjfyeMXVvSARCx0w2CnYOUS7CbjOyHoCWU76hZwLVl3sA+YTnRBeYA7IU WPiNu4OxHYFoNyrm7JtBaGFa20dMZkXePCV/Ilu1O97fvZSLbVVsi6CEACXM8kfPokzxKEG g8eiSA/RkFPiKYqB/eQ6A== X-Spam-Flag: NO X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:G+MmjQ8hGZ4=:VcMq9C+T9iCXH1C7rXz+wA Y832HDWB7Sri2Qg24ThqmJALAUBYiadfAq42HXFungxgkfjjLy6Rn/18tMQ06JmbRyaQB0LsE DnmZiIpoOLjiEleJKDd2H9HGTCiF4k9NGACNld9kQ5CL+44v54rAfaZUDpFXYxFMDlCKmOmgt t+EdJ1w5pLMChGQs8MkcJD8lGWvkwohlvGRfq/JaLswcUdaLc/7y0v4FvBWiyLHZia4afeK24 irSSWSS/Dv1xvzEhFduAgSIMhqenl7NSJ9/p5eytonHCeHpuoFb3Eidqwsia0yyoBwnVvCZo+ vGhQYcDm9sgnUDgA4x4+6hN5qN2UBRDbc7A/tBpEXzZt9nHLYYGhOWKTD9H/Lm8fvYU++s2Ct 0hlLs9RQupXVq9GClYfqGGPsq+6WTeQpbf/k1TxXRtXYxWac4vi8pXNuN073YReDF5kHOLhOM xb0I+gDnoBIY+pkmF5uFWGgDjNVzNCeTGuNI1tjpMsowzInx2TFNHcQpujFlSGSbnLE3LEt1N Ry0Wnewqe8wqqvLAydeR8fiHN4kbSPpq9QfE3GicjR5Eq08oSS5q+G5U75l1UCYzJitMsDrbm J5EX4axyCrCCaJMDPUK5yGyPpcAjVLfVjgExDLaRp3w6ZkgcEKd4HzPeYDgoOld+FD/11zcsw Guf2MUKmwIq6lOEXQxr1zdVBy1W9E6eiJSWjAatgIltic9DMd7WKvZS04JrbaGINzBUbGJWc1 EeLXuWZUbYZGC6Zpb8SCJnIzuFTYsufG73qA3qwpeRKd8Id2GMGMIvU/37s66JWlV2GWUQyJ4 5UC8GeunTaXvw5BEA0d3ifH4IF7ZGaQtP7udLZcbQwDfs21Fe/QnM+6ZlRw2G2ixzAMhB6tHo O0r7J5W7DZ7iq/D397cxz5zP8TTZaSHGDV1PdYPE3ezlRjK5d1iltfrnnxSEtwwu/Zk3VJ4lz H5ls86V4AAp+AO2e3kQVWO/xfApHGP9+GuSoY+1/3H08aVsAssT8MbUB3n3/OLZ6aIjLOzS5c eKwG2husQas7zBVgJvWZRrTHOktynrQF/09n3QNGoVGA6ACog9jg1zU6m2/te/AzhwtC+F+1T G4uxHxbGXzSubXmU6WHDz8OfJWFLlw9wDvfVaJGhmx3Wtw2AMnFrac9grVs6LbVzGyJYrI/2D Uxx5vcG0KsPFxMnl4POBR8EaZVR3L8NLql2cUofkF/Veype38py7BriEEcvQ1q8uUHTUcAVvN yRytIJ9Qt/5v8XsXm Subject: Re: [Cake] [PATCH net-next 1/5] sch_cake: fix IP protocol handling in the presence of VLAN tags 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: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 15:00:02 -0000 Hi Jonathan, thinking this over, I wonder whether a hypothetical carrier grade cake, = might not actually grow a classify-by-vlan-priority keyword to allow = switching over to using VLAN priority tags instead of dscps? That would = avoid tempting carriers to re-map deeep-encapsulated dscps if they can = just ignore them for good. And it scratches my pet itch, that 3 bits of = classification should be enough for >80 % of the cases ;) What do you think? Best Regards Sebastian P.S.: I reduced the CC list since I doubt that netdev is the right venue = for mere hypotheticals ;) > On Jun 26, 2020, at 15:11, Jonathan Morton = wrote: >=20 > Toke has already replied, but: >=20 >> Sure, my proposal does not cover the problem of mangling the CE bit = inside >> VLAN-tagged packets, i.e. if we should understand if qdiscs should = allow >> it or not. >=20 > This is clearly wrong-headed by itself. >=20 > Everything I've heard about VLAN tags thus far indicates that they = should be *transparent* to nodes which don't care about them; they = determine where the packet goes within the LAN, but not how it behaves. = In particular this means that AQM should be able to apply congestion = control signals to them in the normal way, by modifying the ECN field of = the IP header encapsulated within. >=20 > The most I would entertain is to incorporate a VLAN tag into the = hashes that Cake uses to distinguish hosts and/or flows. This would = account for the case where two hosts on different VLANs of the same = physical network have the same IP address. >=20 > - Jonathan Morton >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Cake mailing list > Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake