Re: Patch to add netfilter mark support

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 19:06:50 -0600, Alex Rousskov
<rousskov_at_measurement-factory.com> wrote:
> On 09/06/2010 04:13 PM, Andrew Beverley wrote:
>> On Mon, 2010-09-06 at 23:06 +0100, Andrew Beverley wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> * I find the terminology inconsistent and confusing: outgoing,
>>>>>> clientside, upstream. No wonder you have to explain the difference
>>>>>> twice. Unless these are all standard RFC-like terms, please use
>>>>>> something consistent like fromClient, toClient, fromServer,
toServer.
>>>>>> Others may suggest a better scheme, but this one at least does not
>>>>>> require constant doc lookups to understand where "out" and "up" is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed. This confusion is also present in the names of the
>>>>> configuration
>>>>> parameters: initially I found the current ones confusing (it took me
a
>>>>> while to realise that one was server side and one client side).
>>>>>
>>>>> At the minute they are tcp_outgoing_tos and clientside_tos. Would
>>>>> there
>>>>> be any objection to changing the tcp_outgoing_tos to serverside_tos?
>>>>> Or
>>>>> would you prefer not to break existing squid.conf configurations?
>>>>
>>>> IMHO, both: Change the documented/primary option names but accept the
>>>> old ones with a "deprecated" warning. There may even be a built-in
>>>> mechanism for that (multiple NAME values?), but I am not sure.
>>>
>>> Ah yes, you can specify multiple NAME values. Funnily enough, this is
>>> already the case for tcp_outgoing_tos, which is also known as
>>> tcp_outgoing_ds and tcp_outgoing_dscp. The disadvantage of this is
that
>>> it doesn't display a deprecated warning.
>>>
>>>> You probably want to wait for others to comment before changing
>>>> squid.conf option names though.
>>>
>>> How about I change the "default" name to serverside_tos, and leave
>>> tcp_outgoing_tos with tcp_outgoing_ds and tcp_outgoing_dscp as an
>>> accepted name?
>>
>> Or maybe they should be serverside_outgoing_tos and
>> clientside_outgoing_tos to make it even clearer?
>
> IMHO, "outgoing" is a bad term because its meaning changes depending on
> whether you are a forward or reverse proxy.
>
> Similarly, "serverside" is bad because that is what developers call the
> client side of Squid.
>
> from_client, to_server, etc. do not come with the above problems.
>

Oh dear. Disagreement in the ranks ;). Status-quo: leave it as-is for this
patch. We can argue this out and get a better model in.

What I'd really like to see in the future is completion of the "flows"
concept:

  qos_flows tos [flags] [ allow|deny [acl acl ...] ]

That is a rather larger change to both config and underlying code which
won't make it into 3.2.

Amos
Received on Tue Sep 07 2010 - 02:23:42 MDT