Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:07:26 -0800 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> To: Ingo <chaoztc@confusion.at> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] 802.1p priority (fixed) Message-ID: <20050121230726.GB18608@odin.ac.hmc.edu> In-Reply-To: <20050121235344.E93890-100000@ix.reflection.at> References: <20050121195050.GA2866@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <20050121235344.E93890-100000@ix.reflection.at>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 12:01:10AM +0100, Ingo wrote: > Hi, > > > My concern is that 802.1p is like the TOS bits in that it differentiates > > packets within a network rather then segregating them in to networks > > like 802.1Q. In a switch it makes sense to handle priorities as separate > > networks, but I'm not sure it makes sense in a host. If nothing else, > > it seems to make sense to be able to set priorities on vlan encapsulated > > frames. > > In an Isp backbone I trust 802.1Q packets because no customer has access > to tagged vlan connections. > Trusting in TOS bit is in such a network no good idea because every > customer could send IP traffic. And overwriting the TOS bit at all network > edges could be a pain to not miss some edges. > 802.1Q is some kind of "out of band" QOS for IP. > > L2 Ethernet switches could also handle 802.1Q but not the TOS bits in the > IP header. I'm not sure what your point is. It's certaintly the case that they are only useful if you trust all hosts on the ethernet. -- Brooks -- Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4 [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFB8YstXY6L6fI4GtQRAjTcAJ9cr2mTIrH/0dU2nUSTO+5L1f99ugCfZEbw AS1NKMg8iFrgb5NFP6O7phU= =84FZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050121230726.GB18608>