Andrew M. Bishop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Joerg Sommer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Andrew M. Bishop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Joerg Sommer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > >> >> does wwwoffle set the ip TOS flag? Maybe is 'Minimize monetary cost' set >> >> while fetching or 'Maximize throughput' for ftp (as requested in RFC >> >> 1349) set? >> > >> > There are no TOS options set in WWWOFFLE for any of the types of >> > connection that it makes. >> > >> > It is difficult to know which of the TOS options would be the best one >> > for WWWOFFLE to use: > >> I didn't find any definition how the TOS flags should be used with http >> and I don't have any idea which flag to use. But there is a definition >> for ftp in the RFC 1349. > > The definition in RFC 1349 is actually just a copy of a table from > RFC 1060 which is obsoleted by RFC 1340 which is obsoleted by RFC 1700 > which is obsoleted by an online reference (see RFC 3232).
So now http://www.iana.org/assignments/ip-parameters is the standard and that's the same as 1349. >>From this is would seem that HTTP could be low delay or high > throughput since they may interact with the user and may have large > blocks of data. Yes. >> Because wwwoffle does also support ftp and for ftp a usage of the TOS >> flags is defined, wwwoffle should at least support this. > > It is recommended, not defined as a requirement. I talked to some people and they told me TOS isn't respected in internet. There is a high potential of abuse which causes the carrier to ignore the TOS bits. But I found also some hosts that set the bits. e.g. www.google.de or ftp.kernel.org do so. J�rg. -- Alles, wovor wir Angst haben m�ssen, ist die Angst selbst. (Fraklin D. Roosevelt)
