From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69D4F21F443 for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 00:17:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 31BB1A1; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 09:17:27 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1437376647; bh=jQwxb4ay40ev8ZoT1VRr9GuPpuhkMGOJxI3QtmA21lU=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=dQmcLSo434sVkWMIVaiyRf5Yh0V+X7zjTGIdxUNEV79W4uypjBaZQevHoR2imbdHG 7RTnwKGPOQHBF+DXPzpwQhhY2zoKc2a5YQcJS1yaVFP9H/9Z5B0hVdUdMZR1qz/ab2 LlFmZ8zn78zzykO/oI7mdYZxzE+qltNeF4vu37Wk= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D9209F; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 09:17:27 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 09:17:27 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: Jonathan Morton In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <33363.1437323022@ccr.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Cc: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Cerowrt-devel Digest, Vol 44, Issue 24 X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 07:17:59 -0000 On Sun, 19 Jul 2015, Jonathan Morton wrote: > In the current version, a bandwidth threshold is used instead. If the > traffic in the class remains below the threshold, then they get the (non > strict) priority requested. If it strays above, the priority is demoted > below other classes instead. In the absence of competing traffic, any > class can use the full available bandwidth, but there's always room for > other classes to start up. I had an idea of using DSCP 000xx0 and have a BE+, BE and BE-. BE+ would be scheduled to send packets twice as often as BE, and BE- would be 1/10th of (BE+ BE). I keep getting pushback from the DSCP authors that he BE- idea wouldn't be a problem (and they agree that it makes sense for a scavenger class), but that my idea of BE+ should be something else, for instance AFxy. I don't believe anything that isn't 000xxx will ever get widely deployed for Internet use, and there should be no strict priority but just a slight preference for scheduling packets with the BE+ code point, exactly to make DDOS less of an impact. What is your opinion on this concept? -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se