On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Henning Brauer <lists-open...@bsws.de> wrote: > * Andy <a...@brandwatch.com> [2014-06-02 18:21]: >> So whilst the impact may be minimal, if I have a busy firewall (BIG GIANT >> and all that..) so the CPU is working very hard, I would want prio the >> prioritize my voice/video packets inwards during ingress and queue on the >> other side during egress. > > that works. > > no guarantees on any effect, tho :) > >> Theoretically the packets dropped due to CPU thrashing would be limited to >> the lower prio packets..?!? > > depends on which layer drops it... if MCLGETI kicks in (likely, it is > a bit too agressive for machines only/mostly forwarding packets, but > OpenBSD has a lot more uses than just that -> compromise) you have zero > control over what gets dropped since the NIC does it already. > > -- > Henning Brauer, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org > BS Web Services GmbH, http://bsws.de, Full-Service ISP > Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS. Virtual & Dedicated Servers, Root to Fully > Managed > Henning Brauer Consulting, http://henningbrauer.com/ >
I just read info about <Source quench> icmp packet and those are apparently armful but i did not find any measurement or 'proof' of that. Maybe i slide a bit of topic, i saw openBSD has <Explicit Congestion Notification> is there a relationship between the dropped packet and this ? (i do not completly understand ECN yet) Shaping on ingress is (in most case) a waste of time, but shaping on egress will be if the previous hop flood with udp or non TCP data, i wonder why this <Source quench> is so poor and abandoned. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\
