Seb, Sebastien Roy wrote: > Nicolas, > > Nicolas Droux wrote: >> I posted a first draft of the Crossbow virtualization architecture >> document. It can be found at: >> >> http://opensolaris.org/os/project/crossbow/Docs/crossbow-virt.pdf > > This is an excellent document. I have a high-level question:
Thanks for the review. > There was some discussion in the past about how Crossbow might subsume > the functionality offered by the IPQos "feature" in the ip module. Is > that still (or was that ever) one of the goals? We're not going to EOL IPQoS for now. I think we still need to go through a more comprehensive gap analysis to know how far we are from being able to do that, and of course better understand the impact on users who might be still be depending on these interfaces. > Along similar lines, the document talks about the ability to specify the > priority associated with a given VNIC, but doesn't define what that > means. Does the priority associated with a VNIC get mapped to the > priority field (priority portion of ether_tci) of packets flowing > through it? If so, how do you handle a situation where a packet comes > down from above with conflicting priority either due to the mblk's > b_band setting, a previously negotiated DL_UDQOS_* DLPI attribute, or > non-zero dl_priority in the DL_UNITDATA_REQ? Can these mechanisms > override the VNIC's setting, or is it the other way around? I would > guess that once set at the VNIC level, nothing can override that. No, we're talking about something different. In this context we mean the priority of the threads that process traffic for these MAC/VNICs/flows. Thanks, Nicolas. -- Nicolas Droux - Solaris Networking - Sun Microsystems, Inc. droux at sun.com - http://blogs.sun.com/droux
