Re: [squid-users] tos - setsockopt() problem - fwmarking possible?]

2005-03-04 Thread Henrik Nordstrom
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, lartc wrote: I think that you mis-typed the RFC it's actually 3168 ... Indeed. The ip TOS is now 4 bits, so the squid.conf.default ought to be changed to reflect 0 -> 63 rather than 0 -> 255 as is now indicated. Agreed. It's 6 bits (0 - 63). Looking thru the archive, i noticed

[squid-users] tos - setsockopt() problem - fwmarking possible?]

2005-03-01 Thread lartc
[ sorry for the delay -- lost use of one hand -- hunt and peck on the keyboard ] Hi Henrik Thanks very much for your note. I think that you mis-typed the RFC it's actually 3168 ... anyway. The ip TOS is now 4 bits, so the squid.conf.default ought to be changed to reflect 0 -> 63 rather than 0 ->

Re: [squid-users] tos - setsockopt() problem

2005-02-19 Thread Henrik Nordstrom
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: has anyone noticed on fc3 a tos setsockopt() problem ?? if i try to set tos_outgoing to 0x8 it works just fine. set it to 0xEE and no tos marking happens. The ToS octet in TCP/IP has a long muddled history, but things have now settled and these days it

[squid-users] tos - setsockopt() problem

2005-02-17 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
hi all, has anyone noticed on fc3 a tos setsockopt() problem ?? if i try to set tos_outgoing to 0x8 it works just fine. set it to 0xEE and no tos marking happens. tested this with the zph patch and it behaves the same. debugging the setsockopt() yields "success" but the tos field remains unchang