Christopher Zimmermann [chr...@openbsd.org] wrote: > On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 04:41:07PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > You say it twice. But my eyes still glazed over it, not seeing what was > > going on the first two times. > > > > Maybe something more like > > > > prio 0 and 1 are mapped out of order to PCP 1 and 0, but prio 2 to > > 7 are mapped directly to PCP 2 to 7. > > > > No that still doesn't quite capture it in a visible way. How about > > > > prio 2 to 7 are mapped directly to PCP 2 to 7, but prio 0 and 1 > > are mapped backwards, to PCP 1 and 0, because <.......> > > > > Something which will draw the eye+brain to 'something is different here'. > > The table alone doesn't do that. > > I agree. How about this? > > The 802.1Q and 802.1ad protocols include a Priority Code Point (PCP). By > default, the 802.1p PCP in a transmitted packet is based on the priority > of packets sent over the interface, which may be altered via pf.conf(5); > see the prio option for more information. Alternatively, the ifconfig(4) > txprio option can set a specific priority for transmitted packets. On > vlan and svlan interfaces priorities 2 to 7 will be mapped directly to > PCP 2 to 7, but priorities 0 and 1 are mapped backwards, to PCP 1 and 0. > This is because 802.1p defines PCP 1 as lowest priority and PCP 0 as > second lowest priority, which is meant to be used as default (???best > effort???). >
I think the best way to get someone's attention is to mention the conflict first, like in Theo's example. Yours seems wordy, a person has to read several sentences before they even realize something unusual going on here. Chris
