Toke Høiland-Jørgensen writes:
> Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant writes:
>
>>> On 4 Mar 2019, at 17:36, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>>> < snips >
>>>
>>> Or act_dscp with 'get' and 'set' options :)
>>>
As I said earlier I couldn't work out how m_conntrack did… anything at
all to be
Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant writes:
>> On 4 Mar 2019, at 17:36, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> < snips >
>>
>> Or act_dscp with 'get' and 'set' options :)
>>
>>> As I said earlier I couldn't work out how m_conntrack did… anything at
>>> all to be honest!
>>
>> act_connmark is pretty straight
> On 4 Mar 2019, at 17:36, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> < snips >
>
> Or act_dscp with 'get' and 'set' options :)
>
>> As I said earlier I couldn't work out how m_conntrack did… anything at
>> all to be honest!
>
> act_connmark is pretty straight forward:
>
Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant writes:
>> On 4 Mar 2019, at 16:39, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>>
>> Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant writes:
>>
>> [ ... snipping a bit of context here ... ]
>>
>>> +void cake_update_ct_mark(struct sk_buff *skb, u8 dscp)
>>> +{
>>> + enum
> On 4 Mar 2019, at 16:39, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>
> Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant writes:
>
> [ ... snipping a bit of context here ... ]
>
>> +void cake_update_ct_mark(struct sk_buff *skb, u8 dscp)
>> +{
>> +enum ip_conntrack_info ctinfo;
>> +struct
Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant writes:
[ ... snipping a bit of context here ... ]
> +void cake_update_ct_mark(struct sk_buff *skb, u8 dscp)
> +{
> + enum ip_conntrack_info ctinfo;
> + struct nf_conn *ct;
> +
> + ct = nf_ct_get(skb, );
> + if (!ct)
> + return;
> On 4 Mar 2019, at 12:44, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>
> Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant writes:
>
>>> On 4 Mar 2019, at 11:17, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>>>
>>> Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant writes:
>>>
> On 4 Mar 2019, at 08:39, Pete Heist wrote:
>
>
>> On Mar 3, 2019, at
Agreed then! Thank you all for your insights!
___
Cake mailing list
Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
I added some text for the ingress keyword and related fairness behavior to the
cake man page, in case there’s feedback or changes:
https://github.com/dtaht/tc-adv/pull/25/commits/9a7905a8a768fc57926b1875e8be445865e08627
Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant writes:
>> On 4 Mar 2019, at 11:17, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>>
>> Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant writes:
>>
On 4 Mar 2019, at 08:39, Pete Heist wrote:
> On Mar 3, 2019, at 12:52 PM, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
> wrote:
>
> The very bad
> On 4 Mar 2019, at 11:17, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>
> Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant writes:
>
>>> On 4 Mar 2019, at 08:39, Pete Heist wrote:
>>>
>>>
On Mar 3, 2019, at 12:52 PM, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
wrote:
The very bad idea:
And it’s bad ‘cos it’s
Let action connmark continue to do that. You still need mirred anyway.
John
On 4 March 2019 11:04:39 GMT, "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" wrote:
>Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant writes:
>
>>> On 3 Mar 2019, at 12:22, John Sager wrote:
>>>
>>> If you are going to do that, I would suggest using a few of the
Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant writes:
>> On 4 Mar 2019, at 08:39, Pete Heist wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 3, 2019, at 12:52 PM, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The very bad idea:
>>>
>>> And it’s bad ‘cos it’s sort of incompatible with the existing fwmark
>>> implementation as described
Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant writes:
>> On 3 Mar 2019, at 12:22, John Sager wrote:
>>
>> If you are going to do that, I would suggest using a few of the upper bits
>> of the 32-bit fwmark/connmark space available, rather than the lowest bits.
>> Then that would allow to use fwmarks other purposes,
Just spent an hour chasing down a strange problem with gradually increasing UDP
packet loss with cake (but not fq_codel), which happens when testing with
iperf3 3.1.3, but not iperf or irtt. After compiling iperf3 from HEAD, poof,
the problem disappeared. It’s not just iperf3’s -l flag as I
> On 4 Mar 2019, at 08:39, Pete Heist wrote:
>
>
>> On Mar 3, 2019, at 12:52 PM, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
>> wrote:
>>
>> The very bad idea:
>>
>> And it’s bad ‘cos it’s sort of incompatible with the existing fwmark
>> implementation as described above. So an awful lot of our shenanigans
> On Mar 3, 2019, at 12:52 PM, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
> wrote:
>
> The very bad idea:
>
> And it’s bad ‘cos it’s sort of incompatible with the existing fwmark
> implementation as described above. So an awful lot of our shenanigans above
> is due to DSCP not traversing the internet
> On Mar 4, 2019, at 5:22 AM, Ryan Mounce wrote:
>
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 at 13:47, Jonathan Morton wrote:
>>
>>> On 4 Mar, 2019, at 4:55 am, Georgios Amanakis wrote:
>>>
>>> …the fairness logic wouldn't account for that "ingress traffic" and would
>>> yield fairer results.
>>
>> Well there
18 matches
Mail list logo
