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

Lou Berger <> Thu, 11 April 2019 11:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5786C120223 for <>; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 04:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 DEBL7X37kIBh for <>; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 04:47:34 -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 21FBE1201DA for <>; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 04:47:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 839891404EA for <>; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 05:47:33 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from ([]) by cmsmtp with ESMTP id EYB3hfOvRszDUEYB3hrUkg; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 05:47:33 -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=d2rKPnVWmKBwm0OHOjI2ka+0EWHAHx7QasZwUD2Shnw=; b=d/bJQ3V5XyhO0XHUk7Ipgeo1O6 logowe6qbWNxeha7vfutYUhIx3ySdddPvywSyHewcdyfy5QEAIAm6xXHwKnrGoavQzifpV1oe3cvE 8SIs392u7/SiwWNKwCfYgD473;
Received: from ([]:49720 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <>) id 1hEYB3-003eKQ-7c; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 05:47:33 -0600
To: Magnus Westerlund <>, "Ratliff, Stanley" <>, The IESG <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
References: <> <> <> <>
From: Lou Berger <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 07:47:32 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.1
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: 1hEYB3-003eKQ-7c
X-Source-Sender: ([IPv6:::1]) []:49720
X-Email-Count: 7
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: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 11:47:36 -0000


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.


> Cheers
> Magnus