IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk Wed, 13 May 2015 06:43 UTC

Return-Path: <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A87631A1A22 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 May 2015 23:43:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fyAOciDoERZQ for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 May 2015 23:43:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:241:204::f0f0]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A2C51A06FD for <aqm@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 May 2015 23:43:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from erg.abdn.ac.uk (galactica.erg.abdn.ac.uk [139.133.210.32]) by pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPA id D87D91B001EA; Wed, 13 May 2015 07:43:46 +0100 (BST)
Received: from 212.159.18.54 (SquirrelMail authenticated user gorry) by erg.abdn.ac.uk with HTTP; Wed, 13 May 2015 07:42:50 +0100
Message-ID: <fc82e9f0932a70aa7607ef22edd79db8.squirrel@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <3F128D69-8283-4EEC-93E6-D9B980AE44C1@cisco.com>
References: <20140514180039.16149.79444.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <554D8240.7050809@superduper.net> <20150510015811.GB53172@verdi> <5552CDA8.3040305@superduper.net> <3F128D69-8283-4EEC-93E6-D9B980AE44C1@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 07:42:50 +0100
From: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.23 [SVN]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/6Segq-28nBOAwJheEB3S4y8bkIc>
Cc: Simon Barber <simon@superduper.net>, John Leslie <john@jlc.net>, "aqm@ietf.org" <aqm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [aqm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-04.txt
X-BeenThere: aqm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for active queue management and flow isolation." <aqm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/aqm>, <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/aqm/>
List-Post: <mailto:aqm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm>, <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 06:43:46 -0000

Form my side, I think Scavenger support is still a topic worth trying to
take forward, and it does compliment AQM.

The recent discussion of  DiffServ interconnection classes and practice in
tsvwg at Dallas also touched on this topic. It is a topic that could
easily be discussed again at a tsvwg meeting, if there was interest.

Gorry

>
>> On May 12, 2015, at 9:06 PM, Simon Barber <simon@superduper.net> wrote:
>>
>> Where would be the best place to see if it would be possible to get
>> agreement on a global low priority DSCP?
>
> I’d suggest
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4594
> 4594 Configuration Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes. J.
>      Babiarz, K. Chan, F. Baker. August 2006. (Format: TXT=144044 bytes)
>      (Updated by RFC5865) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)
>
> It refers to
>
>    [QBSS]     "QBone Scavenger Service (QBSS) Definition", Internet2
>               Technical Report Proposed Service Definition, March 2001.
>
> (http://mgoutell.free.fr/gridftp/QBSS/qbss-definition.txt) and states that
>
>> Within QBone, traffic marked with DSCP 001000 (binary) shall be
>> considered in the QBSS class and should be given the service described
>> in this document.  Notice that while DSCP values generally have only
>> local significance we are assigning global significance to this
>> particular codepoint within QBone.  We refer to packets marked
>> with DSCP 001000 as being marked with the "QBSS code point”.
>
>
> That’s where we came up with recommending CS1 (001000) for the traffic
> class.
>
> I’m pretty sure the latter ultimately resulted in an RFC, but for some
> reason I’m not finding it. The closest thing I see is
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6297
> 6297 A Survey of Lower-than-Best-Effort Transport Protocols. M. Welzl,
>      D. Ros. June 2011. (Format: TXT=46532 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)
> _______________________________________________
> aqm mailing list
> aqm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email