IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Wed, 13 May 2015 07:33 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
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 3C8061A1A31 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 May 2015 00:33:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -114.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 ZCZPYMqTleY3 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 May 2015 00:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D0E81A1A6D for <aqm@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 May 2015 00:33:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4006; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1431502424; x=1432712024; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=F+F6GJ/J2VsF5z+Ybs9soh8vI2RQxJMWRIcKDWQEl2Y=; b=QBvqOkid155qn+xLZJd+45K0Q5OKJ9Xpf7uEo4IXieXxug26RIR02TPu LbMup0nZc00kGSXJEVrb68D9bgZnUSwplRLCRzDCacKP7u6F79J2toLfZ J1v7doWxCMA2kf0jzyNViLYy8b7CsZZPlOzYcD5O3tuBkiMjmUKPFO6JT s=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 487
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AWBQDD/VJV/4cNJK1cDoMBVF4GgxjDPAqGBQKBNkwBAQEBAQGBC4QgAQEBAwEBAQEVC0sLBQsCAQYCGCoCAicLJQIEDgUOiBYIDZhZnQeSNwEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAReLOoUFB4JoL4EWBZJWggqBP16EP4IKgTgrlRMjggYfgRQ+b4FFgQEBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,420,1427760000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="419276497"
Received: from alln-core-2.cisco.com ([173.36.13.135]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 May 2015 07:33:43 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com [173.37.183.84]) by alln-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t4D7Xhqv031236 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 13 May 2015 07:33:43 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.148]) by xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([173.37.183.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 13 May 2015 02:33:43 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: "gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk" <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Thread-Topic: [aqm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-04.txt
Thread-Index: AQHQjU8jyCG3JogHO0KZZAoGPESD4Q==
Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 07:33:43 +0000
Message-ID: <2D5592EB-1739-4871-90DB-4D91E52E7001@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> <fc82e9f0932a70aa7607ef22edd79db8.squirrel@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <fc82e9f0932a70aa7607ef22edd79db8.squirrel@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.118]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F362E8CF-B341-48FA-BFBD-1378B1EDC2ED"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/CqVgIkBmEHlmUh-l5AfryzxyEC8>
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 07:33:54 -0000

Found it. BTW, 4594 also refers to it, I just didn’t find it there either.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3662
3662 A Lower Effort Per-Domain Behavior (PDB) for Differentiated
     Services. R. Bless, K. Nichols, K. Wehrle. December 2003. (Format:
     TXT=39029 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)

   Either a Class Selector (CS) PHB [RFC2474], an Experimental/Local Use
   (EXP/LU) PHB [RFC2474], or an Assured Forwarding (AF) PHB [RFC2597]
   may be used as the PHB for the LE traffic aggregate.  This document
   does not specify the exact DSCP to use inside a domain, but instead
   specifies the necessary properties of the PHB selected by the DSCP.
   If a CS PHB is used, Class Selector 1 (DSCP=001000) is suggested.

> On May 12, 2015, at 11:42 PM, gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote:
> 
> 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?
>> 
>> Iâ?Td 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�.
>> 
>> 
>> Thatâ?Ts where we came up with recommending CS1 (001000) for the traffic
>> class.
>> 
>> Iâ?Tm pretty sure the latter ultimately resulted in an RFC, but for some
>> reason Iâ?Tm 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