moeller0 <moell...@gmx.de> writes: > So, my take on this is that we want to be able to re-map DSCP to zero. On > ingress if we do not trust our upstream to do the right thing on egress if we > do > not want to leak internal information to our upstream. As far as I can tell > DSCP > is supposed to be domain specific and I consider a home net equivalent with a > domain. This is why I tried to argue for the existing squash/wash combination. > Since Dave had already implemented the squashing on ingress per iptables in > SQM, > we will still be able to offer this functionality in SQM independent on > whether > cake offers this natively or not (but note the sqm implementation re-mapped > after using the DSCP marks)*. I tried to divine which mis-feature Jonathan > referred to and remembered his unhappiness with that feature, and since I > really > want to see cake go somewhere I am fine with “sacrificing” this feature to > make > upstreaming more likely.
I'm guessing this was probably discussed before and I've simply forgotten; but why does this (rewriting dscp bits) need to be part of the qdisc when you can do it with iptables? -Toke _______________________________________________ Cake mailing list Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
