* [PATCH] src: proto: support DF, LE, VA for DSCP
@ 2022-06-20 18:58 Oleksandr Natalenko
2022-06-27 17:31 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Oleksandr Natalenko @ 2022-06-20 18:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: netfilter-devel; +Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso, Florian Westphal, Loganaden Velvindron
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.
As per RFC 8622, add "le" for Lower-Effort with 0x01 value.
tc-cake(8) in diffserv8 mode would benefit from having "le" alias since
it corresponds to "Tin 0".
Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@natalenko.name>
---
src/proto.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/src/proto.c b/src/proto.c
index a013a00d..84555b9e 100644
--- a/src/proto.c
+++ b/src/proto.c
@@ -684,7 +684,9 @@ static const struct symbol_table dscp_type_tbl = {
SYMBOL("cs5", 0x28),
SYMBOL("cs6", 0x30),
SYMBOL("cs7", 0x38),
+ SYMBOL("df", 0x00),
SYMBOL("be", 0x00),
+ SYMBOL("le", 0x01),
SYMBOL("af11", 0x0a),
SYMBOL("af12", 0x0c),
SYMBOL("af13", 0x0e),
@@ -697,6 +699,7 @@ static const struct symbol_table dscp_type_tbl = {
SYMBOL("af41", 0x22),
SYMBOL("af42", 0x24),
SYMBOL("af43", 0x26),
+ SYMBOL("va", 0x2c),
SYMBOL("ef", 0x2e),
SYMBOL_LIST_END
},
--
2.36.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] src: proto: support DF, LE, VA for DSCP
2022-06-20 18:58 [PATCH] src: proto: support DF, LE, VA for DSCP Oleksandr Natalenko
@ 2022-06-27 17:31 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2022-06-28 18:29 ` Oleksandr Natalenko
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Pablo Neira Ayuso @ 2022-06-27 17:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Oleksandr Natalenko
Cc: netfilter-devel, Florian Westphal, Loganaden Velvindron
Hi,
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 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),
> 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.
Thanks.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] src: proto: support DF, LE, VA for DSCP
2022-06-27 17:31 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
@ 2022-06-28 18:29 ` Oleksandr Natalenko
2022-06-29 17:24 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Oleksandr Natalenko @ 2022-06-28 18:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pablo Neira Ayuso; +Cc: netfilter-devel, Florian Westphal, Loganaden Velvindron
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?
> > 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.
> > 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.
Thanks.
Thanks.
--
Oleksandr Natalenko (post-factum)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] src: proto: support DF, LE, VA for DSCP
2022-06-28 18:29 ` Oleksandr Natalenko
@ 2022-06-29 17:24 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2022-06-29 17:34 ` Oleksandr Natalenko
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Pablo Neira Ayuso @ 2022-06-29 17:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Oleksandr Natalenko
Cc: netfilter-devel, Florian Westphal, Loganaden Velvindron
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] src: proto: support DF, LE, VA for DSCP
2022-06-29 17:24 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
@ 2022-06-29 17:34 ` Oleksandr Natalenko
2022-07-11 10:27 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Oleksandr Natalenko @ 2022-06-29 17:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pablo Neira Ayuso; +Cc: netfilter-devel, Florian Westphal, Loganaden Velvindron
Hello.
On středa 29. června 2022 19:24:28 CEST Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 08:29:42PM +0200, Oleksandr Natalenko wrote:
> > 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'.
Yes.
> > > > 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 ?
To my understanding, no. The RFC talks about obsoleting:
"This specification obsoletes RFC 3662 and updates the DSCP recommended in RFCs 4594 and 8325 to use the DSCP assigned in this specification."
> But the values are different.
Yes, as a consequence of obsoleting, not replacing.
> > > > 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 '<='.
OK, then another name should be found.
> What does 'lephb' stands for BTW?
"LE PHB" originally, as described in the RFC, it's Lower-Effort Per-Hop Behavior.
> Note that these aliases will be lost when listing back the ruleset
> from the kernel, so it is only working as an input.
Sure thing.
Thanks.
--
Oleksandr Natalenko (post-factum)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] src: proto: support DF, LE, VA for DSCP
2022-06-29 17:34 ` Oleksandr Natalenko
@ 2022-07-11 10:27 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Pablo Neira Ayuso @ 2022-07-11 10:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Oleksandr Natalenko
Cc: netfilter-devel, Florian Westphal, Loganaden Velvindron
On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 07:34:40PM +0200, Oleksandr Natalenko wrote:
> Hello.
>
> On středa 29. června 2022 19:24:28 CEST Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 08:29:42PM +0200, Oleksandr Natalenko wrote:
> > > 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'.
>
> Yes.
OK.
> > > > > 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 ?
>
> To my understanding, no. The RFC talks about obsoleting:
>
> "This specification obsoletes RFC 3662 and updates the DSCP recommended in RFCs 4594 and 8325 to use the DSCP assigned in this specification."
>
> > But the values are different.
>
> Yes, as a consequence of obsoleting, not replacing.
OK.
> > > > > 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 '<='.
>
> OK, then another name should be found.
>
> > What does 'lephb' stands for BTW?
>
> "LE PHB" originally, as described in the RFC, it's Lower-Effort Per-Hop Behavior.
Fine with me.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-07-11 11:13 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-06-20 18:58 [PATCH] src: proto: support DF, LE, VA for DSCP Oleksandr Natalenko
2022-06-27 17:31 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2022-06-28 18:29 ` Oleksandr Natalenko
2022-06-29 17:24 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2022-06-29 17:34 ` Oleksandr Natalenko
2022-07-11 10:27 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.