Re: [PATCH] 802.1p priority (fixed)

From: Brooks Davis (brooks_at_one-eyed-alien.net)
Date: 01/23/05

  • Next message: Brooks Davis: "Re: [PATCH] 802.1p priority (fixed)"
    Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:24:44 -0800
    To: Jeremie Le Hen <jeremie@le-hen.org>
    
    
    

    On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 12:22:19PM +0100, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
    > > > Having the possibility to test and set the 802.1p or TOS values
    > > > separately would avoid making a "trust"/"override" subtlety and will
    > > > obviously make it more flexible.
    > >
    > > I agree on this point. The one thing to be careful of is that 802.1p
    > > priorities and TOS values work rather differently in that TOS values fit
    > > in to an existing field of the packet and 802.1p values require
    > > modifications to the header and adding data between the header and the
    > > real body, possiably with a resuling reduction in MTU (though what
    > > you're doing trying to use 802.1p priority with crappy nic I don't know
    > > :-).
    >
    > I do not understand your point here. TOS is indeed an existing field
    > of the IPv4 header but AFAIK, this is the same for the 802.1p header [1].
    > There are already 3 bits reserved for priority (802.1p) near the 802.1q
    > field which are both inside what they call "Tag Control Information".

    At the point you are examining layer 3 state, you either have already
    stripped off the ethernet header or have not created it yet so you can't
    just modify it. At least according to what I've read, you may or may
    not want to tag all traffic so if you strip the tags, you not want to
    use a vlan tag on the packet. You do have the actual storage the TOS
    values will use since you have the IP header. I'm basicly saying that
    they aren't necessicairly as similar as you might think. It might make
    sense to modify the TOS bits directly in the firewall, but it is simply
    not possiable to modify the 802.1p bits at that point because there's no
    where to put them.

    -- 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
    
    



  • Next message: Brooks Davis: "Re: [PATCH] 802.1p priority (fixed)"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: [PATCH] 802.1p priority (fixed)
      ... What I mean is that if I can set the 802.1p header then why ... we won't actually touch the packet at all in the 801.1p case and will ... Setting TOS values could be done in place since we have the ... priorities and TOS values work rather differently in that TOS values fit ...
      (freebsd-net)
    • Re: Security Warning
      ... >>> To comply with the TOS I have set up a genuine Yahoo! ... Required Header lines ... The "From" line contains the electronic mailing address of the ... You are /required/ to provide a 'From' header, ...
      (uk.rec.cycling)
    • Re: [PATCH] 802.1p priority (fixed)
      ... The one thing to be careful of is that 802.1p ... > priorities and TOS values work rather differently in that TOS values fit ... > modifications to the header and adding data between the header and the ... There are already 3 bits reserved for priority near the 802.1q ...
      (freebsd-net)
    • Re: iptables precedence bits
      ... But iptables only allows to set those 5 mnemonics. ... to set one of the top three TOS bits of IP header. ... TOS bits i want to set third bit. ...
      (comp.os.linux.networking)
    • Re: Perfrom Thru
      ... The _only_ rational point of having labels between 1000-Start and the ... end of 1000-Exit is to allow GO TOs. ... > want to insure that anyone can read, understand, and modify your code ... > mixing PERFORM_THRU and PERFORM's in the same program can give you more ...
      (comp.lang.cobol)