On 8/22/07, David Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > > >> Also, I noticed today that Google marks all their stuff with a DSCP of > >> 0x38 (high throughput, low delay). Nice trick, but also an excellent > >> argument for re-marking capability in all routers. > > > > nice trick? rather useless. I'd be extremely surprised if it makes any > > difference at all. > > i mean, who is really > > 1) looking at DSCP/TOS at all, > > - and - > > 2) using them for different forward9ng priorities > > - and - > > 3) has congestion/fwd capa shortage so that it actually makes a > > difference, > > - and - > > For various reasons I can't name names, but I can tell you that there > are some VERY large service provider and enterprise networks using DSCP > classification and prioritization. > > ISPs tend to run at much higher utilization levels than enterprises and > congestion is a reality on at least some of their pipes. So is the > layer-8 urge to charge a premium to one set of customers over another. > And even in the absence of congestion, there's still a desire to service > delay- and jitter-sensitive voice and video ahead of other traffic. > > > 4) trusts externally set TOS/DSCP > > No one should trust external TOS or DSCP markings. Again, what Google is > doing is an excellent argument for re-marking capability in all routers.
Yeah, really. Maybe we are misunderstanding, but wouldn't remarking capability be exactly the ability to say "I don't trust these externally set TOS/DSCP bits"? Henning, could you explain to the luddites? > And here we come full circle. Given the OpenBSD now IS a router -- > whether it's a little two-interface pf box for home use or some big > studly hardware running OpenBGPD and OpenOSPFD box for ISPs, I would say > the addition of support for DSCP re-marking would be a very desirable > feature.
