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

[Mikael Abrahamsson <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, 24 May 2015, Simon Barber wrote:

> Hi Mikael,
>
> I can't find reference to DSCP 000010 or 000110, where are they defined?

What do you mean? I mapped the drop probability bits to BE and suggested 
this might be used.

> I know the title 'assured forwarding' seems to imply better than best 
> effort, but I think this is a mistake for AF1 - which seems to be 
> recommended for bulk traffic that is not latency sensitive. You can't 
> make everything high priority! I believe AF1 according to the list of 
> recommended applications, would be better served at less than best 
> effort priority - so the 4 queue 1a mapping based on the top 3 bits of 
> the TOS byte would be OK. AF2 -> lower than best effort would be wrong 
> however.

This is already impossible to do in real life, see my notes that AF1 and 
AF2 being lower priority in a default configured 4-queue TOS->.1p L2 
environment.

My suggestions is from what might be incrementally deployable in todays 
real life networks. I don't care about history or existing documents, I 
care about what might actually get used Internet-wide.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [e-mail]