Hi Toke, > On Jun 1, 2016, at 13:20 , Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <t...@toke.dk> wrote: > > 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?
Well, cake looks at the DSCP bits already, if it can do the re-mapping we potentially would not need to touch iptables at all, which cakes goal being simplicity seemed on-focus. But since this feature turned out to be contentious, I vote for throwing it out and just rely on iptables… I believe Jonathan argued that the re-mapping really is an orthogonal issue that does not conceptually belong into a qdisc, a valid points as by now everyone agrees… Best Regards Sebastian > > -Toke _______________________________________________ Cake mailing list Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake