Kais Belgaied wrote:
> On 03/31/09 22:25, Dale Ghent wrote:
>> 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.
>
> yep. The support of DSCP tagging had to be delayed in the first phase
> of Crossbow. It need to be finished.
In my opinion, this would be a pre-requisite for removal of the IPQoS.
Unless you can somehow prove that nobody is using IPQoS in this manner...
-- Garrett
