On Thu, 13 Oct 2016, ching lu wrote:
Setting the DSCP with iptables rules should work just as well and in the
same way as using the “firewall mark” functionality as you already do. Set
it up that way in the first instance, directly replacing each HTB+fq_codel
combination with a Cake instance,
> Setting the DSCP with iptables rules should work just as well and in the
same way as using the “firewall mark” functionality as you already do. Set
it up that way in the first instance, directly replacing each HTB+fq_codel
combination with a Cake instance, and see how it works.
>
> - Jonathan M
2016年10月12日 下午9:07，"moeller0" 寫道：
>
> Hi Ching,
>
> > On Oct 12, 2016, at 14:40 , ching lu wrote:
> >
> > There is no need for cleansing dscp for wan ingress, I think it is
unnecessary, too
> >
> > In https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/codel/wiki/Cake/
> >
> > There is a statement:
> >
> > “The
Hi there,
On October 12, 2016 5:36:32 PM GMT+02:00, Jonathan Morton
wrote:
>
>> On 12 Oct, 2016, at 15:40, ching lu wrote:
>>
>> DSCP -> unreliable, easily spoofed by attacker
>
>I’d like to address the “easily spoofed by attacker” point
>specifically.
>
>Cake’s interpretation of Diffserv is a
Hi yuta,
It would maybe be more convincing if you could share data showing how ack
priority would help cake. I know that it has long been recommended, but I am
missing recent data showing that it still would work for cake and fq_codel, as
these tend to boost all sparse flows, and ack flows ofte
Hi , I am yuta.
I request to add TCP ACK priority first.
Bye Bye.
On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 13:52:14 +0800
ching lu wrote:
> My current config is HTB+fq-codel.
>
> I deprioritize bittorrent traffic by marking related connections in
> iptables (e.g. detect by port number) and route them to correspon
> On 12 Oct, 2016, at 15:40, ching lu wrote:
>
> DSCP -> unreliable, easily spoofed by attacker
I’d like to address the “easily spoofed by attacker” point specifically.
Cake’s interpretation of Diffserv is as a three-way tradeoff between throughput
priority, latency priority, and altruism. I
Hi Ching,
> On Oct 12, 2016, at 14:40 , ching lu wrote:
>
> There is no need for cleansing dscp for wan ingress, I think it is
> unnecessary, too
>
> In https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/codel/wiki/Cake/
>
> There is a statement:
>
> “The only way we know how to “fix” bittorrent is to cla
There is no need for cleansing dscp for wan ingress, I think it is
unnecessary, too
In https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/codel/wiki/Cake/
There is a statement:
"The only way we know how to “fix” bittorrent is to classify it somewhat,
somehow, as “background”."
But in fact, there is no simply
> On Oct 12, 2016, at 12:21 , Dave Taht wrote:
>
> I still defend the idea of the diffserv "squash" option cake once had.
> It was essentially RFC compliant, simple to use, and because iptables
> was too late on inbound, needed, no matter the layer violation.
As stated I am not sure whether tha
Hi Ching?
> On Oct 12, 2016, at 12:17 , ching lu wrote:
>
>
> 2016年10月12日 下午6:05，"moeller0" 寫道：
> >
> > Hi Ching,
> >
> > > On Oct 12, 2016, at 11:35 , ching lu wrote:
> > >
> > > How to archive "cake follows iptables"? is it “wan ingress -> iptables
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > -> wifi egress/LAN e
On 12/10/16 11:21, Dave Taht wrote:
I still defend the idea of the diffserv "squash" option cake once had.
It was essentially RFC compliant, simple to use, and because iptables
was too late on inbound, needed, no matter the layer violation.
Yeah I liked it too, so much I even thought about ha
I still defend the idea of the diffserv "squash" option cake once had.
It was essentially RFC compliant, simple to use, and because iptables
was too late on inbound, needed, no matter the layer violation.
___
Cake mailing list
Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
h
2016年10月12日 下午6:05，"moeller0" 寫道：
>
> Hi Ching,
>
> > On Oct 12, 2016, at 11:35 , ching lu wrote:
> >
> > How to archive "cake follows iptables"? is it “wan ingress -> iptables
>
> Yes.
>
> > -> wifi egress/LAN egress -> ifb egress -> cake”?
>
> Except that if you instantiate cake on the i
Hi Ching,
> On Oct 12, 2016, at 11:35 , ching lu wrote:
>
> How to archive "cake follows iptables"? is it “wan ingress -> iptables
Yes.
> -> wifi egress/LAN egress -> ifb egress -> cake”?
Except that if you instantiate cake on the interface connecting to the
outers LAN/WLAN side (let
How to archive "cake follows iptables"? is it "wan ingress -> iptables
-> wifi egress/LAN egress -> ifb egress -> cake"?
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 5:10 PM, moeller0 wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>> On Oct 12, 2016, at 10:11 , ching lu wrote:
>>
>> For egress, setting DSCP field should work.
>>
>> iptables ->
Hi,
> On Oct 12, 2016, at 10:11 , ching lu wrote:
>
> For egress, setting DSCP field should work.
>
> iptables -> wan egress -> cake
>
> But is it possible to set DSCP to 0x0 after cake's classification? i
> do not know how ISP handle non-zero DSCP, there seems to be no
> standard for this.
For egress, setting DSCP field should work.
iptables -> wan egress -> cake
But is it possible to set DSCP to 0x0 after cake's classification? i
do not know how ISP handle non-zero DSCP, there seems to be no
standard for this.
For ingress, DSCP field may not be set by network peer at all, and i
> On 12 Oct, 2016, at 08:52, ching lu wrote:
>
> I deprioritize bittorrent traffic by marking related connections in
> iptables (e.g. detect by port number) and route them to corresponding
> HTB class and qdisc.
>
> How can i archive the same goal using the cake qdisc?
Modify your iptables rul
My current config is HTB+fq-codel.
I deprioritize bittorrent traffic by marking related connections in
iptables (e.g. detect by port number) and route them to corresponding
HTB class and qdisc.
How can i archive the same goal using the cake qdisc?
I am aware that cake supports Diffserv by DSCP,
20 matches
Mail list logo
