IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Mon, 25 May 2015 02:42 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 F36D11A009C for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 May 2015 19:42:50 -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 DQXEsg-QI7wO for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 May 2015 19:42:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C43D21A0091 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 May 2015 19:42:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2502; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1432521767; x=1433731367; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=oFj4PiLoUPrqAIbpMAdzE3NIVyE+Gq+r3ejRtF0I8u4=; b=Y8uyt2YdleT4qFkrYvJaxh8OLVPWTtQuitNKiiyV6tNDyfBXAoPmkfl/ V480Mm/STpf2p0pUqRJTQRkvULptDQDLO2nmWybzD4loXihD9WxHm0te8 KfuZ+ocbtFO9HB+9S3PiXm28JjQ5uXHwOKc4Q98E8Y7YlTk9vMZgY5A6J I=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 487
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0D7AwARi2JV/5BdJa1cgxCBMgbDPgmHUAKBKDgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhCIBAQEDASdSBQsCAQgYLjIlAgQOBQ6IFgjSeAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAReLOoUFB4MXgRYBBIUNjXuCEoFDhSeCE5cvI4N4b4FGgQEBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,488,1427760000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="152872083"
Received: from rcdn-core-8.cisco.com ([173.37.93.144]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 May 2015 02:42:47 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com [173.36.12.80]) by rcdn-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t4P2gj1O022753 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 25 May 2015 02:42:45 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.134]) by xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com ([173.36.12.80]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Sun, 24 May 2015 21:42:45 -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: AQHQlpR6AqFpJaYaAEe7nIMfGLNCYg==
Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 02:42:44 +0000
Message-ID: <79ECF1A8-12A0-4AD9-84EC-E52C1D67151F@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> <555A0ACA.3010903@kit.edu> <5562121C.2050801@superduper.net>
In-Reply-To: <5562121C.2050801@superduper.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.120]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_878C6A07-362F-4F64-9F3F-7518DE6411FB"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/thB0baNWHA-2gKHWdYn6NIu_iVc>
Cc: "Bless, Roland (TM)" <roland.bless@kit.edu>, 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: Mon, 25 May 2015 02:42:51 -0000

> On May 24, 2015, at 11:02 AM, Simon Barber <simon@superduper.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi Roland,
> 
> 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?
> 
> Simon

What, specifically, does this have to do with the subject line? Could I trouble you to change the subject line, or at least reference a current internet draft?

> On 5/18/2015 8:52 AM, Bless, Roland (TM) wrote:
>> CS1 is maybe a problem because originally (rfc 2474) CS1 means better priority than CS0. At that point in time of RFC3662 the discussion was to use CS1, because also in 802.1p 1 means "background". However, this inconsistency makes it now hard to rely on any semantics of DSCP CS1. IIRC the Diffserv chairs were opposed to spend another DSCP on LE and therefore proposed to use an existing one. In retrospect, this seems to have been a wrong decision given the problems of rtcweb and so on these days.
> 
>> Regards, Roland
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email