From: Daniel Golle <daniel@makrotopia.org>
To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Cc: WireGuard mailing list <wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com>
Subject: Re: passing-through TOS/DSCP marking
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 21:26:10 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YMpPnKhUuTHNU1Q0@makrotopia.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHmME9omR=NXkJj-AJviWhcDDY=X9vQbLxn5WbeamUGhVWHhJw@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Jason,
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 06:28:12PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> WireGuard does not copy the inner DSCP mark to the outside, aside from
> the ECN bits, in order to avoid a data leak.
That's a very valid argument.
However, from my experience now, Wireguard is not suitable for VoIP/RTP
data (minimize-delay) being sent through the same tunnel as TCP bulk
(maximize-throughput) traffic in bandwidth constraint and/or high-latency
environments, as that ruins the VoIP calls to the degree of not being
understandable. ECN helps quite a bit when it comes to avoid packet drops
for TCP traffic, but that's not enough to avoid high jitter and drops for
RTP/UDP traffic at the same time.
I thought about ways to improve that and wonder what you would suggest.
My ideas are:
* have different tunnels depending on inner DSCP bits and mark them
accordingly on the outside.
=> we already got multiple tunnels and that would double the number.
* mark outer packets with DSCP bits based on their size.
VoIP RTP/UDP packets are typically "medium sized" while TCP packets
typically max out the MTU.
=> we would not leak information, but that assumption may not always
be true
* patch wireguard kernel code to allow preserving inner DSCP bits.
=> even only having 2 differentl classes of traffic (critical vs.
bulk) would already help a lot...
What do you think? Any other ideas?
Cheers
Daniel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-16 22:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-16 13:24 passing-through TOS/DSCP marking Daniel Golle
2021-06-16 16:28 ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2021-06-16 19:26 ` Daniel Golle [this message]
2021-06-16 23:33 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-06-17 7:55 ` Florent Daigniere
2021-06-17 9:41 ` Daniel Golle
2021-06-17 12:24 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
[not found] ` <CAMaqUZ09KRtp01OK3u-Di52X_kH9eT4E-wmnPc6QzjSCd5dEiw@mail.gmail.com>
2021-06-17 20:54 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-06-17 23:04 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-06-18 12:24 ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2021-06-21 12:36 ` Daniel Golle
2021-06-21 14:27 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-06-30 17:23 ` Daniel Golle
2021-06-30 20:55 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-07-04 14:15 ` Daniel Golle
2021-07-05 15:21 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-07-05 16:05 ` Daniel Golle
2021-07-05 16:59 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-07-05 17:26 ` Daniel Golle
2021-07-05 21:20 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-07-06 7:00 ` Florent Daigniere
2021-07-06 20:08 ` Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YMpPnKhUuTHNU1Q0@makrotopia.org \
--to=daniel@makrotopia.org \
--cc=Jason@zx2c4.com \
--cc=wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).