On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 08:29:42PM +0200, Oleksandr Natalenko wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Thank you for your response. Please find my comments inline.
>
> On pondělí 27. června 2022 19:31:27 CEST Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 08:58:07PM +0200, Oleksandr Natalenko wrote:
> > > Add a couple of aliases for well-known DSCP values.
> > >
> > > As per RFC 4594, add "df" as an alias of "cs0" with 0x00 value.
> > >
> > > As per RFC 5865, add "va" for VOICE-ADMIT with 0x2c value.
> >
> > Quickly browsing, I don't find "va" nor 0x2c in this RFC above? Could
> > you refer to page?
>
> As per my understanding it's page 11 ("2.3. Recommendations on implementation of an Admitted Telephony Service Class") here:
>
> Name Space Reference
> --------- ------- ---------
> VOICE-ADMIT 101100 [RFC5865]
>
> Am I wrong?
Ok, hence the 'va'.
> > > As per RFC 8622, add "le" for Lower-Effort with 0x01 value.
> >
> > This RFC refers to replacing CS1 by LE
> >
> > o This update to RFC 4594 removes the following entry from its
> > Figure 4:
> >
> > |---------------+------+-------------------+---------+--------+----|
> > | Low-Priority | CS1 | Not applicable | RFC3662 | Rate | Yes|
> > | Data | | | | | |
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > and replaces it with the following entry:
> >
> > |---------------+------+-------------------+----------+--------+----|
> > | Low-Priority | LE | Not applicable | RFC 8622 | Rate | Yes|
> > | Data | | | | | |
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > static const struct symbol_table dscp_type_tbl = {
> > .base = BASE_HEXADECIMAL,
> > .symbols = {
> > [...]
> > SYMBOL("cs1", 0x08),
> > [...]
> > SYMBOL("le", 0x01),
>
> I think we shouldn't remove existing symbol, should we? Please let
> me know if I missed any suggested action item for myself here.
Not removing. I mean, if I understood correctly, the RFC says LE == cs1 ?
But the values are different.
> > > tc-cake(8) in diffserv8 mode would benefit from having "le" alias since
> > > it corresponds to "Tin 0".
> >
> > Aliasing is fine, let's just clarify this first.
>
> I mean, "le" would be an alias to "0x01", not to "cs1".
>
> BTW, the reason I included Loganaden Velvindron in Cc is that "le"
> was already added in the past, but got quickly reverted as it broke
> some tests. Shall "le" interfere with "less-equal", or what could be
> the issue with it? If the name is not acceptable, "lephb" or similar
> can be used instead.
Oh right, this is an issue for the parser, the 'le' keyword is an
alias of '<='.
What does 'lephb' stands for BTW?
Note that these aliases will be lost when listing back the ruleset
from the kernel, so it is only working as an input.
