IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Sun, 24 May 2015 18:33 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 71E941A1BD4 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 May 2015 11:33:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.062
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.062 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 djENFj5rLmVC for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 May 2015 11:33:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 233B31A1BAC for <aqm@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 May 2015 11:33:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 5C889A1; Sun, 24 May 2015 20:33:30 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1432492410; bh=aBGXnqsS12jkCM0EZnDHtWvkJDK/0rxTrpxkbNftgvM=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Q+4KbKzRZdLQM7QfNgDrcMNWfZHMiInNVHBCw8ciasB5lRMV2NVw93b8hFp0gemk2 4oM57+Z2lNSSoqsyX0EIN1OLKXBHXM76RPj+WU9/WWpnAY7Whgm4QQNUYQsZfonaIZ 6Xi1OQ2BdCOt5oXp6Iw7HNSA8c8ik/pVcFXQZilE=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 522179F; Sun, 24 May 2015 20:33:30 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 20:33:30 +0200
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Simon Barber <simon@superduper.net>
In-Reply-To: <5562121C.2050801@superduper.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1505242031260.9487@uplift.swm.pp.se>
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> <555A0ACA.3010903@kit.edu> <5562121C.2050801@superduper.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/ZRS8iOkbNEhtYgvtChvNRP0Wl-k>
Cc: "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: Sun, 24 May 2015 18:33:36 -0000

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.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email