Brooks Davis wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 11:05:19AM +0500, Boris Kovalenko wrote:
> > And what this changes? Some switches totally ignore 802.1p. We're
> > talking about IEEE standard and should fully support it. Also, may You
> > point me where You have read this?
Chiming in somewhe
Hello!
Is this patch looks ok for You now? Or should I do something more?
--
With respect,
Boris
--- sbin/ifconfig/ifconfig.h.orig Wed Jan 19 10:44:20 2005
+++ sbin/ifconfig/ifconfig.hFri Jan 21 09:11:22 2005
@@ -49,6 +49,8 @@
extern void setvlantag(const char *, int, i
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 09:16:02AM +0500, Boris Kovalenko wrote:
> Hello!
>
> >by this specific implementation. I'm sure we can keep an interface that
> >handles priorities as seperate interfaces, but I'm not sure we'll want
> >to do it via the vlan device (attractivly simple though that is.)
> >
Hello!
by this specific implementation. I'm sure we can keep an interface that
handles priorities as seperate interfaces, but I'm not sure we'll want
to do it via the vlan device (attractivly simple though that is.)
This patch appears to be against 4 or 5. In 6 we've largly rewritten
ifconfig so
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 08:32:12AM +0500, Boris Kovalenko wrote:
> Brooks Davis wrote:
> Hello!
>
> >
> >
> >I still don't see how this usefull differs from taking action or not
> >taking action.
> Just more simple to understand (trusted or not trusted vlan (IMHO)), but
> taking action via IPFW o
Brooks Davis wrote:
Hello!
I still don't see how this usefull differs from taking action or not
taking action.
Just more simple to understand (trusted or not trusted vlan (IMHO)), but
taking action via IPFW of course will be more flexible.
What Cisco does is of rather limited relevence IMO. The
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 11:05:19AM +0500, Boris Kovalenko wrote:
> Hello!
>
>
> >I'm not sure why you need trust and override. It seems like you only
> >need the ability to set or remove values as well as acting on already
> >attached tags (which we're going to need to carry around as m_tags so
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 b
> > 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 differ
Hello!
>I'm not sure why you need trust and override. It seems like you only
>need the ability to set or remove values as well as acting on already
>attached tags (which we're going to need to carry around as m_tags so >we
>can filter on and modify them in conjunction with layer 3 information).
F
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 04:25:46PM +0100, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
> > 2. Mark 802.1p at PF/IPFW level. But we shold foresee a keyword to trust
> > application level information or override it. For example
> > ipfw add 802.1p trust 6 on any to any ssh <-- this trust application
> > level information
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 10:50:18AM +0500, Boris Kovalenko wrote:
> Hello!
>
> 802.1p is just a 3 bits of 802.1Q header. Based on it Layer 2
> devices may assign packets to different output queues (more simple,
> 802.1p
> is QoS at Layer 2). So, You have right, this value differentia
> 2. Mark 802.1p at PF/IPFW level. But we shold foresee a keyword to trust
> application level information or override it. For example
> ipfw add 802.1p trust 6 on any to any ssh <-- this trust application
> level information and set 802.1p to 6 if it is omitted
> ipfw add 802.1p override 6 on an
Hello!
802.1p is just a 3 bits of 802.1Q header. Based on it Layer 2 devices
may assign packets to different output queues (more simple, 802.1p is
QoS at Layer 2). So, You have right, this value differentiates packets
within a vlan and Layer 2 device may make a decision what packets should
be
Hi
> > 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 mi
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
> > netw
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,
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 11:42:31AM +0500, Boris Kovalenko wrote:
> Brooks Davis wrote:
> Hello!
>
> >>Yes, the outgoing packets are tagged with specified priority. Then next
> >>device (Cisco Catalyst for example) will assign traffic to different
> >>queues according to 802.1p header information
Brooks Davis wrote:
Hello!
Yes, the outgoing packets are tagged with specified priority. Then next
device (Cisco Catalyst for example) will assign traffic to different
queues according to 802.1p header information. The only thing (IMHO)
that may be coded for FreeBSD is to allow PF & IPFW assign
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 08:25:22AM +0500, Boris Kovalenko wrote:
> Brooks Davis wrote:
> >>Because of my little BSD network infrastructure knowledge I hope that
> >>guru will look at it and point me to the right way :)
> >
> >This lets you create vlans, but I'm not sure what the point is if
> >not
Andre Oppermann wrote:
is this enough for BSD community or should I look and patch something more?
Not a bad idea. :-)
Thanks :)
To make it perfect the packet priority should be settable from anywhere
in the system (ipfw, dummynet, pf, etc.) through a mtag and then inserted
into the ethernet frame
Brooks Davis wrote:
Because of my little BSD network infrastructure knowledge I hope that
guru will look at it and point me to the right way :)
This lets you create vlans, but I'm not sure what the point is if
nothing is done with the priority. Is it simply that it lets you handle
traffic that is
Boris Kovalenko wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> I want to implement 802.1p priority tagging for VLAN. I made this
> dirty
> patch and wonder - it works for me. May somebody look at it and tell me
> is this enough for BSD community or should I look and patch something more?
Not a bad idea. :-)
To
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 04:23:01PM +0500, Boris Kovalenko wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Sorry, when compiling all in one, have used one older wrong diff. Of
> course, this one should be used. If BSD community will approve my patch,
> I also will make updates to vlan(4) and ifconfig(8) man pages.
> B
Hello!
Sorry, when compiling all in one, have used one older wrong diff. Of
course, this one should be used. If BSD community will approve my patch,
I also will make updates to vlan(4) and ifconfig(8) man pages.
Because of my little BSD network infrastructure knowledge I hope that
guru will loo
В чт, 20/01/2005 в 08:54 +0500, Boris Kovalenko пишет:
> Hello!
>
> I want to implement 802.1p priority tagging for VLAN. I made this dirty
> patch and wonder - it works for me. May somebody look at it and tell me
> is this enough for BSD community or should I look and patch something more?
Hello!
I want to implement 802.1p priority tagging for VLAN. I made this dirty
patch and wonder - it works for me. May somebody look at it and tell me
is this enough for BSD community or should I look and patch something more?
--
With respect,
Boris
--- sbin/ifconfig/ifconfig.h.orig
27 matches
Mail list logo
