* David Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-08-23 19:49]:
> >> And here we come full circle. Given the OpenBSD now IS a router --
> >> whether it's a little two-interface pf box for home use or some big
> >> studly hardware running OpenBGPD and OpenOSPFD box for ISPs, I would say
> >> the addition of
>> And here we come full circle. Given the OpenBSD now IS a router --
>> whether it's a little two-interface pf box for home use or some big
>> studly hardware running OpenBGPD and OpenOSPFD box for ISPs, I would say
>> the addition of support for DSCP re-marking would be a very desirable
>> featur
On 2007/08/23 11:59, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > >> And here we come full circle. Given the OpenBSD now IS a router --
> > >> whether it's a little two-interface pf box for home use or some big
> > >> studly hardware running OpenBGPD and OpenOSPFD box for ISPs, I would say
> > >> the addition of suppo
> >> And here we come full circle. Given the OpenBSD now IS a router --
> >> whether it's a little two-interface pf box for home use or some big
> >> studly hardware running OpenBGPD and OpenOSPFD box for ISPs, I would say
> >> the addition of support for DSCP re-marking would be a very desirable
>
On 2007/08/23 10:26, Henning Brauer wrote:
> > ISPs tend to run at much higher utilization levels than enterprises and
> > congestion is a reality on at least some of their pipes.
>
> i know the ISP market very well, and I have yet to see that. at least
> in europe, basically everybody has spare
* David Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-08-23 01:30]:
> >> Also, I noticed today that Google marks all their stuff with a DSCP of
> >> 0x38 (high throughput, low delay). Nice trick, but also an excellent
> >> argument for re-marking capability in all routers.
> >
> > nice trick? rather useless. I
* Nick Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-08-23 02:59]:
> > > 4) trusts externally set TOS/DSCP
> >
> > No one should trust external TOS or DSCP markings. Again, what Google is
> > doing is an excellent argument for re-marking capability in all routers.
>
> Yeah, really. Maybe we are misunderstand
On 8/22/07, David Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> >
> >> Also, I noticed today that Google marks all their stuff with a DSCP of
> >> 0x38 (high throughput, low delay). Nice trick, but also an excellent
> >> argument for re-marking capability i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/22/07 5:22 AM, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * David Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-08-21 21:41]:
>> Question: Can OpenBSD and/or pf itself set TOS and/or DSCP values?
>
> not for forwarded traffic, no.
> for locally originating traffic, there are so
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/21/07 7:31 PM, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
> On a related note, I work with some equipment that uses TOS values and
> some that uses DSCP.
>
> When you see a TOS value in tcpdump (0x68 for instance) just divide by 4
> to get the DSCP (and throw away a
* David Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-08-21 21:41]:
> Question: Can OpenBSD and/or pf itself set TOS and/or DSCP values?
not for forwarded traffic, no.
for locally originating traffic, there are socket options.
> Also, I noticed today that Google marks all their stuff with a DSCP of
> 0x38 (hi
On a related note, I work with some equipment that uses TOS values and
some that uses DSCP.
When you see a TOS value in tcpdump (0x68 for instance) just divide by 4
to get the DSCP (and throw away any remainder.) The DSCP value uses the same
field in the IP packet as TOS, but ignores the last bit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'm setting up ALTQ and hfsc to prioritize VoIP traffic. The pf.conf(5)
says pf uses TOS values to assign packets to queues.
Question: Can OpenBSD and/or pf itself set TOS and/or DSCP values?
Only some of my VoIP gear does DSCP marking.
Also, I not
13 matches
Mail list logo
