Christopher Zimmermann <[email protected]> wrote:
> We are not doing it different. But in my mind especially the mapping
> of PCP / prio 0 / 1 is not intuitive and may be confusing (but is
> correct!). That's why I think this should be documented in detail.
Right.
> >> The 802.1Q and 802.1ad protocols include a 3-bit priority code point
> >> (PCP):
> >> PCP 1 is defined as the lowest priority (“background”)
> >> PCP 0 is the default (“best effort”) - second lowest priority.
> >> PCPs 2-7 are increasing priority above best effort.
> >> The priority may be altered via pf.conf(5); see the prio option for
> >> more
> >> information.
> >> “prio 0” is mapped to PCP 1.
> >> “prio 1” is mapped to PCP 0.
> >> “prio 2-7” are mapped to PCP 2-7.
> >> Alternatively, the txprio property of an interface can set a specific
> >> priority for transmitted packets.
You say it twice. But my eyes still glazed over it, not seeing what was
going on the first two times.
Maybe something more like
prio 0 and 1 are mapped out of order to PCP 1 and 0, but prio 2 to
7 are mapped directly to PCP 2 to 7.
No that still doesn't quite capture it in a visible way. How about
prio 2 to 7 are mapped directly to PCP 2 to 7, but prio 0 and 1
are mapped backwards, to PCP 1 and 0, because <.......>
Something which will draw the eye+brain to 'something is different here'.
The table alone doesn't do that.
