Re: [aqm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-04.txt

On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 May 2015, Simon Barber wrote:
>
>> My recent attention to DSCP has come from looking at what correct mappings
>> to 802.1D (now 802.1Q) would be. I have also run across a couple of comments
>> that legacy IP Precedence maps CS1 -> higher priority than BE. Do you have
>> any knowledge of how prevalent this interpretation would be today, and
>> whether it happens in any place that would be a problem? (i.e. are there
>> applications that would generate these values, and rely on the behaivour, or
>> routers that mis-prioritize things at places that are likely a bottleneck)?
>> I.E. How important is it to consider these legacy behaivours today?
>
>
> If ISPs today allowed DSCP marking to get propagated Internet wide and
> didn't change their settings from what they have today, some would treat AF1
> and AF2 higher than BE, some would treat AF1 lower than BE and AF2 higher
> than BE, some would treat AF1 and AF2 lower than BE.
>
> That's why I'm saying AF1 and AF2 for less-than-BE isn't incrementally
> deployable.

Which is why I gave up and suggested that utterly new codepoints for
background and least effort traffic be created.

> --
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se
>
> _______________________________________________
> aqm mailing list
> aqm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm

-- 
Dave Täht
Open Networking needs **Open Source Hardware**

https://plus.google.com/u/0/+EricRaymond/posts/JqxCe2pFr67