From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 21 23:07:26 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D492416A4CE for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2005 23:07:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from odin.ac.hmc.edu (Odin.AC.HMC.Edu [134.173.32.75]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98D0C43D49 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2005 23:07:26 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from brdavis@odin.ac.hmc.edu) Received: from odin.ac.hmc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by odin.ac.hmc.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j0LN7QoI009641; Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:07:26 -0800 Received: (from brdavis@localhost) by odin.ac.hmc.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0/Submit) id j0LN7Q6f009640; Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:07:26 -0800 Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:07:26 -0800 From: Brooks Davis To: Ingo Message-ID: <20050121230726.GB18608@odin.ac.hmc.edu> References: <20050121195050.GA2866@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <20050121235344.E93890-100000@ix.reflection.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="E39vaYmALEf/7YXx" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050121235344.E93890-100000@ix.reflection.at> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=8.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on odin.ac.hmc.edu cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] 802.1p priority (fixed) X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 23:07:26 -0000 --E39vaYmALEf/7YXx Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 12:01:10AM +0100, Ingo wrote: > Hi, >=20 > > 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 separa= te > > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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 --=20 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 --E39vaYmALEf/7YXx Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFB8YstXY6L6fI4GtQRAjTcAJ9cr2mTIrH/0dU2nUSTO+5L1f99ugCfZEbw AS1NKMg8iFrgb5NFP6O7phU= =84FZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --E39vaYmALEf/7YXx--