netdev - Re: [PATCH] ipv4: add DiffServ priority based routing

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4B4CEA91.3070201@redfish-solutions.com>
Date:	Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:33:05 -0800
From:	"Philip A. Prindeville" <philipp_subx@...fish-solutions.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	torsten.schmidt@...06.tu-chemnitz.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv4: add DiffServ priority based routing

On 01/12/2010 01:03 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Philip A. Prindeville" <philipp_subx@...fish-solutions.com>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:59:36 -0800
> 
>> What has changed is how network equipment is required to interpret
>> the meaning of those bits.
>>
>> Even if we pass the bits "as is" to the network, if the network is
>> applying entirely new semantics (and when I say "entirely new", I
>> mean those mandated since 1998), then compatibility in the host
>> kernel API doesn't matter a hoot since the packets will still be
>> handled by every transited router according to the modern semantics.
> 
> People really don't assign global meaning to bits set by applications
> in the TOS field.

Since I'm not a clairvoyant, I can't speak for "people".  But I will say that I do assign such a meaning, and based on that interpretation, other people have code reviewed patches and accepted them, so at least "some people" share my interpretation.

I've submitted QoS fixes for NTP, Proftp, Cyrus, Apache/apr, Sendmail, CURL, Thunderbird, Firefox, and a several other packages.

All of which very much depend on host compliance with RFC-2474 and 2597/2598.

> 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.

> 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.

> So really, having a syscall that sets the TOS bits exactly by
> applications is just fine.
> 
> People are doing diffserv right now with Linux and have done so
> for years.

Right, and I suspect in most cases, the default behavior of the host is to misinterpret the bits and put the packet in the wrong output queue.

-Philip
--
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