On Mar 31, 2009, at 3:36 PM, Sebastien Roy wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 12:23 -0700, Kais Belgaied wrote: >> On 03/25/09 05:47, Darren Reed wrote: >>> Now that we've got crossbow, is there any remaining need for IPQoS? >>> Or is it necessary to wait for future crossbow work first? >> >> good question. >> Crossbow opted for the speed of parsing and steering packets to >> flows, >> which necessitates keeping >> the flow description rather basic. >> We lack some of the features of ipqos, such as the support of port >> ranges for instance, or more combinations of flow selectors. >> On the policy side, ipcosconf (at least on paper) expresses property >> like committed burst, peak_burst, etc >> which are currently not yet offered by crossbow. > > There is also the tagging of outgoing packets with VLAN priority tags. > I don't know how widely used that is, though.
A lot of switches out there support CoS, and some of those (Juniper, namely) have CoS observation "on" by default, but with neutral classifications (everything's the same). /dale, who has taken a crash-course on this subject recently due to CoS interface flags being mysteriously turned on with current s10 kernel patches :/
