Pete Heist <petehe...@gmail.com> writes: > Change of subject... > > I realized it’s the two LSBs that carry ECN, not the MSBs. :) I sometimes > mistakenly passed in 46 (0x2E) for CS5 to irtt’s —dscp flag, for example, But > it's really 184 (0xb8) that should go into the DS (ToS) field. Flent has it > correct, and thankfully IRTT is doing today what Flent thinks it’s doing. But > what I’m thinking for IRTT’s future is: > > 1) Add a new —tos parameter (possibly with a —ds synonym) that just sets the > value passed in, hex or dec. It will not allow text. Basically what —dscp is > today. > > 2) Change —dscp to left shift whatever value is passed in by two bits, > if it’s hex or dec. If it’s text, use the same table Flent has now, > except add “voice-admit” (0xb0, from RFC 5865), which is the only > additional value at https://www.tucny.com/Home/dscp-tos > <https://www.tucny.com/Home/dscp-tos>, otherwise they all agree. The > two LSBs (ECN bits) will always be 0 in this case. Flent could > additionally add the "voice-admit” value (0xb0), but it’s probably not > that critical. :)
Is it really useful to have two different ones? Adding --tos as an alias for --dscp (and maybe deprecating the latter) would be sufficient, wouldn't it? If you support the textual representations most people will probably use those anyway, I figure. DiffServ is a mess in any case, so spending too much effort trying to support is "nicely" is probably not worth it. > This would break —dscp’s current behavior, so I would increment the > version number when I do it, and save it for v1.0 in case there are > other breaking changes. Well, that means Flent would need to deal with this case and detect which version of irtt is available; which IMO goes into the 'too much effort' category ;) -Toke _______________________________________________ Flent-users mailing list Flent-users@flent.org http://flent.org/mailman/listinfo/flent-users_flent.org
