[iccrg] ccrg/iccrg: FYI - 6MAN: looking for feedback to draft-eckert-6man-qos-exthdr-discuss (Re: New Version Notification for ...)

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

[ Just FYI for something we are proposing  to investigate with 6MAN, e.g.: best to reply to thread on 6MAN. ]

Goal is to see if we can standardize a  common framework for IPv6 extension headers (hop-by-hop and end-to-end)
in support of QoS functions. This is primarily driven because we have several candidates of possible interest
in the industry for controlled networks (intradomain), but packetization for each of these mechanisms would
have recurring common issues, so unless we have an extension header framework that unifies these problems/solutions,
it would likely end up stifling innovation by arriving at thinking like "oh, lets try to find a single algo
that makes everyone happy".

In any case, i think the very same problem has existed for decdes with a lot of research and experimental
QoS algorithm for advanced congestion control. I included my pet favourite example into the draft, Dynamic
Packet State (DPS). So maybe there are some of you folks working in CCWG or ICCRG that think it would be
helpful for QoS to not for all eternities to be limited to 8 TOS bits in packet headers (ECN and DSCP), and
if you, then please chime into the thread in 6MAN. Examples of your personal pet beneficial QoS/CC
algorithm suffering from lack of per-hop metadata welcome, would be happy to include into this draft.

Thanks for reading!
    Toerless

In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>

On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 09:36:38PM +0100, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> Dear 6MAN-WG:
> 
> I have just posted an extremely rough draft draft-eckert-6man-qos-exthdr-discuss, to help start a discussion
> about common IPv6 extension headers for (mostly) stateless QoS beyond what we can do with just DSCP.
> Right now this is a discussion draft not intended to become RFC because it's my impression that the
> 6MAN community might benefit from some useful summary of how DetNet (and potentially other WGs) might
> use this work, but this would not be part of a final spec draft, and likewise i have a wide range of
> open questions instead of answers, and i included those questions into the draft seeking for feedback from
> 6MAN. 
> 
> Overall, i didn't want to go down a possible rabbit hole of working on details of the spec if it just
> turns out to involve insurmountable IETF process obtacles to go this route. For example, we could continue to
> standardize all advanced forwarding functions only into MPLS and ignore IPv6 as DetNet has done so far
> (*mumble ;-).
> 
> The lack of such extension headers has IMHO held back innovation into better (stateless) QoS, especially
> in many controlled networks since at least 25 years, for example when draft-stoica-diffserv-dps
> was abandomed because it was too painfull trying to get to through all the IETF IPv6 bureaucracy -
> for just one algorithm, when there are so many that would deserve experimentation in specific
> networks. But given the good recent/ongoing work for example into  I-D.ietf-6man-hbh-processing,
> i would hope that we're closer now to actually wanting our extensibility of IPv6 actually be used
> by the industry (instead of all this happening only in MPLS).
> 
> With DetNet we are too in the situation that we have multiple candidates on the table and IMHO
> it will not be very useufl trying to run a lottery for a single "winner" and standardize just that.
> 
> I have seen a lot more success in the industry by just letting different algorithms compete with
> each othrer in products and let the market decide. That was quite a lot happening in e.g.: packet
> scheduling in routers at least since the end of the 90th when in my impression every new
> hardware forwarding router implemented it's own new packet scheduler based on the just hired lead
> engineers PhD thesis. And over a period of 20 years, a lot of commonality and industry
> knowledge evolved in that space. For this type of scheduling, this innovation was possible because it did not
> require new packet headers, but just a lot of (ab)use of DSCP and/or more or less horrenduous
> QoS configurations. But for those solutions that do require additional in-packet-QoS metadata,
> we never created a viable method where it was easy for the  innovators/implementers to concentrate
> on the novelties of the algorithm in question and get all the knucklehead "how to packetize and what generic 
> requirements/functionalities" be provided as much as possible by an existing framework/RFC.
> 
> So, i'd be very happy to find interest to help progress this work, aka: writing something
> that ultimately would become a draft-ietf-6man-common-qos-exthr or the like. I have tentatively
> asked for a slot for IETF119 6MAN to present and get feedback, if you think that would be time well
> spent, pls. chime in.
> 
> Cheers
>     Toerless, for the authors
> 
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 12:30:53PM -0800, [e-mail] wrote:
> > A new version of Internet-Draft draft-eckert-6man-qos-exthdr-discuss-00.txt
> > has been successfully submitted by Toerless Eckert and posted to the
> > IETF repository.
> > 
> > Name:     draft-eckert-6man-qos-exthdr-discuss
> > Revision: 00
> > Title:    Considerations for common QoS IPv6 extension header(s)
> > Date:     2024-03-04
> > Group:    Individual Submission
> > Pages:    27
> > URL:      https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-eckert-6man-qos-exthdr-discuss-00.txt
> > Status:   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eckert-6man-qos-exthdr-discuss/
> > HTMLized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-eckert-6man-qos-exthdr-discuss
> > 
> > 
> > Abstract:
> > 
> >    This document is written to start a discussion and collect opinions
> >    and ansers to questions raised in this document on the issue of
> >    defining IPv6 extension headers for DETNET-WG functionality with
> >    IPv6.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > The IETF Secretariat

-- 
---
[e-mail]