Can you please describe in more detail, what you want to do? There is a request about DSCP regarding 1.4.1 as well. We should consolidate these requests.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
If we interprete IEC 61375-3-4: Ethernet Consist Network (ECN) 4.6.3 Assignment of priority level: "The binary representation of DSCP field shall be as follows LLL000" correctly the value from XML has just to be shifted by 5. Therefore we implemented it the following way:
sockOptValue = (int) (pOptions->qos << 5);
Therefore the "user" can decide what the DSCP has to look like, this is at least the most flexible way.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
However my colleague Holger Waldmann recognized that there is a gap between the interpretation of DSCP IEC has and how it is widely used in other internet applications :-(
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
This is because of changes in the meaning and the reinterpretation of the TOS field. The support and handling as DSCP field depends on the router vendor and is optional for TCN-ETB. In IEC61375-2-5 C. 11 ETB Quality of Service the DSCP and VLAN QoS are mangled and in 61375-3-4 C. 4.9.5.1 Consist Switch it says that a layer 2 consist switch needs to check for the IP (layer 3) DSCP field...
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Can you please describe in more detail, what you want to do? There is a request about DSCP regarding 1.4.1 as well. We should consolidate these requests.
If we interprete IEC 61375-3-4: Ethernet Consist Network (ECN) 4.6.3 Assignment of priority level: "The binary representation of DSCP field shall be as follows LLL000" correctly the value from XML has just to be shifted by 5. Therefore we implemented it the following way:
sockOptValue = (int) (pOptions->qos << 5);
Therefore the "user" can decide what the DSCP has to look like, this is at least the most flexible way.
However my colleague Holger Waldmann recognized that there is a gap between the interpretation of DSCP IEC has and how it is widely used in other internet applications :-(
This is because of changes in the meaning and the reinterpretation of the TOS field. The support and handling as DSCP field depends on the router vendor and is optional for TCN-ETB. In IEC61375-2-5 C. 11 ETB Quality of Service the DSCP and VLAN QoS are mangled and in 61375-3-4 C. 4.9.5.1 Consist Switch it says that a layer 2 consist switch needs to check for the IP (layer 3) DSCP field...
Closed as the QoS handling has been changed by setting the DSCP and the QoS (VLAN priority), at least in the POSIX implementation.