[Diffserv-interest] Re: Diffserv-interest digest, Vol 1 #104 - 2 msgs

"John H. Shuler" <johnshuler@mac.com> Thu, 30 October 2003 19:41 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06712 for <diffserv-interest-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 14:41:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFIfH-0002hr-0T for diffserv-interest-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 14:41:03 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9UJf2gn010397 for diffserv-interest-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 14:41:02 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFIfF-0002hI-Py; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 14:41:01 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFIec-0002dr-Br for diffserv-interest@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 14:40:22 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06688 for <diffserv-interest@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 14:40:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFIeZ-0000pH-00 for diffserv-interest@ietf.org; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 14:40:19 -0500
Received: from a17-250-248-85.apple.com ([17.250.248.85] helo=smtpout.mac.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFIeY-0000pD-00 for diffserv-interest@ietf.org; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 14:40:19 -0500
Received: from mac.com (smtpin08-en2 [10.13.10.153]) by smtpout.mac.com (Xserve/MantshX 2.0) with ESMTP id h9UJeIKk023401 for <diffserv-interest@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 11:40:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (12-235-5-14.client.attbi.com [12.235.5.14]) (authenticated bits=0) by mac.com (Xserve/smtpin08/MantshX 3.0) with ESMTP id h9UJeHZq014310 for <diffserv-interest@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 11:40:18 -0800 (PST)
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.4.030702.0
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 09:37:55 -0800
From: "John H. Shuler" <johnshuler@mac.com>
To: <diffserv-interest@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <BBC68C73.1494F%johnshuler@mac.com>
In-Reply-To: <20031029170004.1709.5925.Mailman@www1.ietf.org>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Diffserv-interest] Re: Diffserv-interest digest, Vol 1 #104 - 2 msgs
Sender: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: diffserv-interest@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv-interest>, <mailto:diffserv-interest-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Differentiated services general discussion <diffserv-interest.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:diffserv-interest@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:diffserv-interest-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv-interest>, <mailto:diffserv-interest-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

It is my understanding that DiffServ does not attempt to prevent congestion
at all, but only to ensure the the best chance for services to get the
treatment they need (vs. Want) by making choices about queuing priorities.

It is up to the carrier to monitor congestion periodically to prevent
lowest-priority traffic from being too congested. EF should ALWAYS get
through on-time, and AF CIR should always get through, if somewhat delayed
and jittery. The cases when this is NOT true should be rare and bizarre
(earthquakes, major network outages, etc.) unless the carrier is not doing
their job... Which is simply to make sure they engineer total network
bandwidth above the level of peak CIR.

The only alternative to this -- admission control -- imposes a signaling
requirement that just adds to the total network burden and is not responsive
enough to deal with the unpredictable burstiness of the internet.

Am I off-base, here?

j

> From: diffserv-interest-request@ietf.org
> Reply-To: diffserv-interest@ietf.org
> Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:00:04 -0500
> To: diffserv-interest@ietf.org
> Subject: Diffserv-interest digest, Vol 1 #104 - 2 msgs
> 
> Send Diffserv-interest mailing list submissions to
> diffserv-interest@ietf.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv-interest
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> diffserv-interest-request@ietf.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> diffserv-interest-admin@ietf.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Diffserv-interest digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>  1. Re: congestion in diffserv network (John Schnizlein)
>  2. Re: congestion in diffserv network (Brian E Carpenter)
> 
> --__--__--
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:30:55 -0500
> To: "Feng Y" <feng6@uwindsor.ca>
> From: John Schnizlein <jschnizl@cisco.com>
> Subject: Re: [Diffserv-interest] congestion in diffserv network
> Cc: diffserv-interest@ietf.org
> 
> The simple reason that congestion can occur is that the TCA
> need not limit incoming traffic sufficiently to avoid it.
> The TCA for expedited forwarding is the only one, of many=20
> traffic classes, that seeks to eliminate potential congestion,=20
> in order to minimize delay and jitter.
> 
> The parameters of other class definitions, assured forwarding
> for example, are intended to mark traffic at different ingress
> rates for different treatment when congestion occurs. Note
> that this anticipates that congestion will occur.
> 
> Please recall that the high link utilization in an IP network
> is obtained in large measure because traffic loads are high
> enough to produce occasional congestion. Cooperative management
> of this congestion is the responsibility of transport-layer
> protocols.
> 
> John
> 
> At 10:43 AM 10/28/2003, Feng Y wrote:
>> ... I wonder why the
>> overloading or even congestion occurs in diffserv network.
>> In diffserv architecture, the =93DS ingress node is
>> responsible for ensuring that the traffic entering the DS
>> domain conforms to any traffic conditioning agreement (TCA)
>> between it and the other domain to which the ingress node
>> is connected=94 [RFC 2475]. Moreover,   =93Traffic conditioning
>> performs metering, shaping, policing and/or re-marking to
>> ensure that the traffic entering the DS domain conforms to
>> the rules specified in the TCA, in accordance with the
>> domain's service provisioning policy=94. So what causes the
>> overloading or congestion in diffserv? Does anyone explain
>> it for me or give me some references. Thanks in advance.
> 
> 
> 
> --__--__--
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:07:02 +0100
> From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
> Organization: IBM
> To: John Schnizlein <jschnizl@cisco.com>
> CC: Feng Y <feng6@uwindsor.ca>ca>, diffserv-interest@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Diffserv-interest] congestion in diffserv network
> 
> Another way to look at it is that what diffserv does is split the network=
> 
> into several separate networks, but each of them retains the statistical
> properties of a single Internet.
> 
>  Brian
> 
> John Schnizlein wrote:
>> =
> 
>> The simple reason that congestion can occur is that the TCA
>> need not limit incoming traffic sufficiently to avoid it.
>> The TCA for expedited forwarding is the only one, of many
>> traffic classes, that seeks to eliminate potential congestion,
>> in order to minimize delay and jitter.
>> =
> 
>> The parameters of other class definitions, assured forwarding
>> for example, are intended to mark traffic at different ingress
>> rates for different treatment when congestion occurs. Note
>> that this anticipates that congestion will occur.
>> =
> 
>> Please recall that the high link utilization in an IP network
>> is obtained in large measure because traffic loads are high
>> enough to produce occasional congestion. Cooperative management
>> of this congestion is the responsibility of transport-layer
>> protocols.
>> =
> 
>> John
>> =
> 
>> At 10:43 AM 10/28/2003, Feng Y wrote:
>>> ... I wonder why the
>>> overloading or even congestion occurs in diffserv network.
>>> In diffserv architecture, the =93DS ingress node is
>>> responsible for ensuring that the traffic entering the DS
>>> domain conforms to any traffic conditioning agreement (TCA)
>>> between it and the other domain to which the ingress node
>>> is connected=94 [RFC 2475]. Moreover,   =93Traffic conditioning
>>> performs metering, shaping, policing and/or re-marking to
>>> ensure that the traffic entering the DS domain conforms to
>>> the rules specified in the TCA, in accordance with the
>>> domain's service provisioning policy=94. So what causes the
>>> overloading or congestion in diffserv? Does anyone explain
>>> it for me or give me some references. Thanks in advance.
>> =
> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Diffserv-interest mailing list
>> Diffserv-interest@ietf.org
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv-interest
> 
> -- =
> 
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Brian E Carpenter =
> 
> Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM =
> 
> 
> NEW ADDRESS <brc@zurich.ibm.com> PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK
> 
> 
> 
> --__--__--
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Diffserv-interest mailing list
> Diffserv-interest@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv-interest
> 
> 
> End of Diffserv-interest Digest


_______________________________________________
Diffserv-interest mailing list
Diffserv-interest@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv-interest