Hi there,
On Jul 12, 2013, at 17:13 , Eric Dumazet <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 11:34 +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > >> I also think of "fq_codel" as a good replacement for pfifo_fast. As >> the 3-PRIO bands in pfifo_fast is replaced with something smarter in >> "fq_codel". (IMHO please don't try to add a prio_fq_codel, just be because >> pfifo_fast had prio bands, people can just enable a prio qdisc if they >> really need it). > > Nope. Its really easy for an attacker to flood your fq_codel with say > UDP messages on all available hash slots. Question, what stops the same attacker to also fudge the TOS bits (say to land in priority band 0)? Just asking... > > Some people really want the high prio packets to be sent before any > med/low prio packets. Not everybody uses a separate ethernet port for > management and heartbeats. > > If we want to replace pfifo_fast as the default qdisc, we want some > integrated qdisc with 3 bands. > > I presume something really simple like : > > a fifo for band 0 messages > a fq_codel for band 1 messages > a fifo for band 2 messages > > Would be more than enough, and this also should use device txqueue len > as the (dynamic) limit, because some existing scripts expect to control > qdisc limit using "ifconfig eth0 txqueuelen 100", not a tc script. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Codel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/codel Best Sebastian _______________________________________________ Codel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/codel
