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 05:01 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 0E3441A00EA for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 May 2015 22:01:19 -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 wQoLA9zrcK6I for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 May 2015 22:01:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FD571A00EC for <aqm@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 May 2015 22:01:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2522; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1431493277; x=1432702877; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=PvTMwWL+mYDywjz8xR66V9FSYHUMsBHA5O+GsxHMQqM=; b=PDq6eTaEHSEvbcnZDsNflIVdBjjSRgSXpW1rVNH1DR1h1b9fFLGo1sYz gbNIh1AnNya2a8Ba+znNP9Zlr8Che3jTCFHkx/Kpds2c8m3++cJ/X9O6y 47YEpaInYQOcFun7TGuS/dNhKKs2+OcXaTx7DDyn0d53+2t4iFp690yXY g=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 487
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BPBQAz2VJV/5RdJa1cgw9UXgaDGMNqhgUCgTZMAQEBAQEBgQuEIAEBAQMBGAtWBQsCAQgYKgICMiUCBA4FDogWCA21T5I1AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBF4s5hQUHgmgvgRYFklSCCoE/XYQ+ggmBOCuVEyOCBh+BUm+BRYEBAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,419,1427760000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="416148882"
Received: from rcdn-core-12.cisco.com ([173.37.93.148]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 May 2015 05:01:16 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com [173.36.12.88]) by rcdn-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t4D51GWN019968 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 13 May 2015 05:01:16 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.148]) by xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com ([173.36.12.88]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 13 May 2015 00:01:16 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: Simon Barber <simon@superduper.net>
Thread-Topic: [aqm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-04.txt
Thread-Index: AQHQjTnXXM6B3IuBX0usCKIA59Olmw==
Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 05:01:16 +0000
Message-ID: <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>
In-Reply-To: <5552CDA8.3040305@superduper.net>
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=_2EF3539F-71D2-4AC3-AFDC-4252C2F3FE2F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/mEsOgdaYULfzzVy0WgNWkMu6OBU>
Cc: 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 05:01:19 -0000

> 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)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email