| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:47:45 -0500 From: Steven Blake <slblake@...ri-meat.com> To: "Philip A. Prindeville" <philipp_subx@...fish-solutions.com> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv4: add DiffServ priority based routing On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:33:05 -0800, "Philip A. Prindeville" <philipp_subx@...fish-solutions.com> wrote: > On 01/12/2010 01:03 PM, David Miller wrote: >> What they do is they have a set of semantics inside of their cloud of >> routers and switch points for diffserv, and when packets come in the >> TOS field is rewritten to whatever scheme is being used inside of that >> cloud. > > Uh, no. Net Neutrality very much requires consistent end-to-end > interpretation of ToS bits by backbone carriers. If you know of a carrier > that isn't honoring ToS bits, I have a group of lawyers I'd like them to > meet. Few if any ISPs are honoring any DSCP bits outside of negotiated contracts. >> And the diffserv bits only have meaning and effect within that cloud. > > Have you read RFC-2474 lately? You only need to get as far as the > Abstract: > > The services may be either end-to-end or intra-domain; they include > both those that can satisfy quantitative performance requirements (e.g., > peak bandwidth) and those based on relative performance (e.g., "class" > differentiation). > > "end-to-end"... seems pretty clear to me. David's understanding of RFC 2474 is correct. Regards, // Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists