Re: Naive question on multiple TCP/IP channels and please dont start a uS NN debate here unless you really want to.

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sat, 07 February 2015 01:56 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7D041A00B9; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 17:56:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 nC4G6P7fDuiX; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 17:56:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-x22b.google.com (mail-pa0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02DEB1A0086; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 17:56:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id fa1so5749710pad.2; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 17:56:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=n6cqs8LKlOC12xUoOvdrzT8SQ38DVrvT42yjmYBuhiM=; b=Si1so3HrIo1RVeDK+MaY6MFuLvuqyU0OoATGyTPeRkEx+K8hiboRROjab8BhK9swZH qwWwPInzN0Fv2EPiwSjII4iz0ZvKq1hJwGPxSOK6G6RimLh1eW5cYFjAhHUTkp1MBjT3 qFdfnLYF3w0DTo4TMJxJawD6oeI7OUGSurpgif4Hm58tDvcRdpOhtj6nVbLJ7xFaRl3I rohGm7qZ3L19xe1Harcb5aK1qjPhRedgOwZXQlmmq1n3vKc98yV7LmJzKqBXoX9nM3Eo +Po21iFLtTWbZ9F9ygZwL6lDhfBeUDjUYRkb5lPeypXisqPC/EtDykBgFVuhXRN+px1h MJKw==
X-Received: by 10.68.189.167 with SMTP id gj7mr10214719pbc.58.1423274217229; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 17:56:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:5239:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:5239:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id l4sm9309626pdj.47.2015.02.06.17.56.53 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 06 Feb 2015 17:56:56 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54D570EF.7020609@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2015 14:57:03 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us>, Piers O'Hanlon <p.ohanlon@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Naive question on multiple TCP/IP channels and please dont start a uS NN debate here unless you really want to.
References: <D0F962E2.1E9B2%richard@shockey.us> <CAGhGL2AAda10+YY54GJRN4Af_pGC4ZaMv=97=6aNRzqKfJBqkg@mail.gmail.com> <28651.1423241869@sandelman.ca> <F60D7FE0-7EA9-4F07-8B7A-1F822DD34BDF@gmail.com> <D0FA7092.1EC23%richard@shockey.us> <33CECEE4-7C13-4C0C-A275-987DBF1D9837@gmail.com> <54D515A3.5050104@gmail.com> <D0FA831C.1EC55%richard@shockey.us>
In-Reply-To: <D0FA831C.1EC55%richard@shockey.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/2vgfOPlIij9dpII1Y3MIXLrROKs>
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>, Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2015 01:57:00 -0000

Hi Richard,
On 07/02/2015 08:51, Richard Shockey wrote:
> 
> On 2/6/15, 2:27 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 07/02/2015 08:05, Piers O'Hanlon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6 Feb 2015, at 18:24, Richard Shockey wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Fine now how do you get the labeling/queueing across the AS boundary?
>>>> I
>>>> don¹t know any ISP that accepts or recognizes the packet labeling of
>>>> another AS.
>>>>
>>> Sure - that's another whole ballgame! A number of ISPs blow away the
>>> DSCP bits in packets from and to the home, as I understand they use
>>> their own set of DSCPs internally.
>>
>> That is entirely in keeping with the diffserv architecture, which is
>> explicit that DSCPs are domain-specific and that traffic may be
>> reclassified at domain boundaries. (Which is what operators wanted
>> when diffserv was designed.)
>>
>>> But agreements of use across boundaries aren't that clear and probably
>>> wouldn't generally be extended to end users.
>>
>> Agreements across boundaries require mutual trust, so it's to be
>> expected that ISPs will reclassify traffic arriving from subscribers.
>> For ISP/ISP boundaries, see
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon
>>
>>> I guess they're also using things like MPLS, or SDN (e.g. Google B4)
>>> for traffic engineering.
>>
>> Diffserv isn't traffic engineering, however.
> 
> 
> Well Brian after Feb 26 we don¹t know what DIFFSERV will be.  It may be
> illegal unless you can define what a ³specialized service², ³reasonable
> network management² or ³commercially reasonable²  actually is.

I assume you are referring to some particular jurisdiction, which isn't
a standards problem since diffserv is a voluntary standard anyway.
However, since the naive politicians blundering about in this area
usually attempt to forbid "prioritization" and diffserv is not a
priority-based scheme, I doubt that there will be a real problem.

   Brian