Re: [PATCH] 802.1p priority (fixed)
From: Brooks Davis (brooks_at_one-eyed-alien.net)
Date: 01/22/05
- Previous message: Ingo: "Re: [PATCH] 802.1p priority (fixed)"
- In reply to: Ingo: "Re: [PATCH] 802.1p priority (fixed)"
- Next in thread: Ingo: "Re: [PATCH] 802.1p priority (fixed)"
- Reply: Ingo: "Re: [PATCH] 802.1p priority (fixed)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:07:26 -0800 To: Ingo <chaoztc@confusion.at>
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
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
- Previous message: Ingo: "Re: [PATCH] 802.1p priority (fixed)"
- In reply to: Ingo: "Re: [PATCH] 802.1p priority (fixed)"
- Next in thread: Ingo: "Re: [PATCH] 802.1p priority (fixed)"
- Reply: Ingo: "Re: [PATCH] 802.1p priority (fixed)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
