Re: [manet] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-pause-extension-06: (with DISCUSS)

Lou Berger <> Mon, 06 May 2019 10:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC7BC1200DE for <>; Mon, 6 May 2019 03:49:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fazaoZKYC2dO for <>; Mon, 6 May 2019 03:49:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0E781200BA for <>; Mon, 6 May 2019 03:49:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from CMGW (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD76F1E0BE8 for <>; Mon, 6 May 2019 04:49:14 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from ([]) by cmsmtp with ESMTP id NbBKhNXVfeyBxNbBKhn11s; Mon, 06 May 2019 04:49:14 -0600
X-Authority-Reason: nr=8
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version :Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=WDTm8CiKS2rRo81Psb0DXFP8LOtB2edJhXJnCW4IXJw=; b=I/bXkXZimDBv7pvLwjJ7Q5s8QN Zrfr5K9hQP8KQFtrmD+4xguize5rQFfz7Vby2l8Hi0wElp/60i439a6mLRrfUCNK20sq54B8ZYnMe UBTXfnVKhP70WJV8HnZfh5rQM;
Received: from ([]:39078 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <>) id 1hNbBK-0001PG-8Y; Mon, 06 May 2019 04:49:14 -0600
To: Magnus Westerlund <>, "Ratliff, Stanley" <>, The IESG <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, Bob Briscoe <>, "" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Lou Berger <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 6 May 2019 06:49:13 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-L: No
X-Exim-ID: 1hNbBK-0001PG-8Y
X-Source-Sender: ([IPv6:::1]) []:39078
X-Email-Count: 5
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [manet] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-pause-extension-06: (with DISCUSS)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 May 2019 10:49:18 -0000

Thanks Magnus.   I'll upload a rev with the change today (was waiting on 
AD/Shepherd, but now assume they will ask for the upload)...


On 5/6/2019 3:56 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> Thanks Lou,
> I think that clarifies my issue. I will clear with the assumption that
> you will include this.
> Thanks
> Magnus
> On 2019-05-06 02:40, Lou Berger wrote:
>> Hi Magnus/Bob,
>> 	I've updated the intro to try to address your points, while also trying
>> to bring in Stan's point, :
>>     The base DLEP specification does not include any data plane flow
>>     control capability.  The extension defined in this document supports
>>     flow control of data traffic based on explicit messages sent via DLEP
>>     by a modem to indicate when a router should hold off sending traffic,
>>     and when it should resume.  This functionality parallels the flow
>>     control mechanism found in PPP over Ethernet (PPPoE) per [RFC5578].
>>     The extension also optionally supports DSCP (differentiated services
>>     codepoint) aware flow control for use by DiffServ-aware modems.  (For
>>     general background on Differentiated Services see [RFC2475].)  This
>>     functionality is very similar to that provided by Ethernet Priority
>>     flow control, see [IEEE.802.1Q_2014].  The extension defined in this
>>     document is referred to as "Control Plane Based Pause".  Other flow
>>     control methods are possible with DLEP, e.g., see
>>     [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension] and
>>     [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control].
>> Please let me/us know what you think.
>> Lou
>> On 4/11/19 8:12 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I don't have a text proposal. I think if you work with Bob to detail out
>>> the use case and
>>> clarifications on the limitations with the protocol that should solve my
>>> issue here.
>>> Cheers
>>> Magnus
>>> On 2019-04-11 13:47, Lou Berger wrote:
>>>> Magnus,
>>>> On 4/5/2019 5:11 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> Thanks for the replies.
>>>>> I think the main point here is if one should treat router + modem as one
>>>>> common queue when it comes to meeting PHBs or treat them as two in
>>>>> sequence queues. If one treat them as two queues then you get the same
>>>>> behavior as two routers in sequence. And that is acceptable from one
>>>>> angle, but it also results in additional jitter and latencies.
>>>> I think Stan's response already covered the above. From my perspective,
>>>> I agree with stan that a modem that reports DSCPs should be expected to
>>>> honor them like any other transit IP device (router, middlebox, etc.).
>>>> I think that the following is possible in the non-diffserv modem aware
>>>> case - but another approach would be to not deploy such limited modems
>>>> in a network that requires DSCP support - just like you wouldn't deploy
>>>> a router that doesn't support a particular PHB in network that expects
>>>> to support it.
>>>>> If we take the Expedited Forwarding PHB (RFC 3246) treating this as two
>>>>> queue results in that the error is E_a1 (router) + E_a2 (mode) rather
>>>>> than a E_a for the combined queue. The question is if E_a actually will
>>>>> be smaller than E_a1+E_a2 when one uses this type of control? In the
>>>>> combined case if the modem queue is so shallow that E_a2 << E_a1 as well
>>>>> as that time for performing the DLEP signalling is so short that the
>>>>> main variations ends up being in the router queue where one can apply
>>>>> suitable policies to control queue load to prevent violation of the
>>>>> targets.
>>>>> I think my main concern will be what happens if one attempts to
>>>>> implement L4S dual queues or DETNET and have DLEP in the path. Will this
>>>>> require additional extensions to provide more detailed flow control
>>>>> information so that lower latency or more deterministic behavior can be
>>>>> achieved?
>>>> Quite likely -- I think this is not the flow control you'd want with
>>>> DetNet (I can't speak to L4S), i'd personally use something like what's
>>>> covered in ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension.
>>>>> I noticed that TSVART reviewer Bob Briscoe asked for a use case
>>>>> description of the case when the main queue is pushed to the router. I
>>>>> think that appears to be a good idea. I think what I am wondering is if
>>>>> there need to be some applicability statement here due the limitations
>>>>> of the technology?
>>>> I certainly have no objection to such, particularly given
>>>> ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension.  If you have any suggested text,
>>>> that would be helpful.  Otherwise, as I mentioned in response to Bob, if
>>>> really needed I can work with the Shepherd/WG on some applicability text.
>>>> Lou
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> Magnus