Re: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension-04.txt

Lou Berger <> Mon, 05 March 2018 20:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A32312E87F for <>; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 12:50:39 -0800 (PST)
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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 CkyHKBVexdLr for <>; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 12:50:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEC2A12EA81 for <>; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 12:50:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cmgw2 (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87F401E0AC4 for <>; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 13:50:35 -0700 (MST)
Received: from ([]) by cmgw2 with id JLqY1x00m2SSUrH01LqbQ0; Mon, 05 Mar 2018 13:50:35 -0700
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=M5g9E24s c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=v2DPQv5-lfwA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=szSFffFGKA8wTrglacMA:9 a=qdZAQL9wj6ejI5oZ:21 a=DSS_s5A0En_i6o91:21 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22
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:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Cc: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=7wLskwOgOVR6g2xcVgIlTOGLJ1gmiTdmL7d/bPrnz3U=; b=L1/VgRCYl9FwPzdndDpjkJOPGt qN0Yx2jQBkfPJwjslQa1Uu7ulp6FyBPz91NjyYCPJTceuYMGjPmJO09KJfAScnrv+ubIAUdI/t6ik nh/6JQ9B0T3NZoZcocUQdTOX7;
Received: from ([]:54152 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89_1) (envelope-from <>) id 1esx44-000yU5-Bi; Mon, 05 Mar 2018 13:50:32 -0700
To: Rick Taylor <>, "" <>
References: <> <> <> <>
From: Lou Berger <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 15:50:25 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
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-Exim-ID: 1esx44-000yU5-Bi
X-Source-Sender: ([IPv6:::1]) []:54152
X-Email-Count: 4
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension-04.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 20:50:42 -0000

Hi Rick,

Thanks for the comment, see below...

On 3/3/2018 5:45 AM, Rick Taylor wrote:
> Hi Lou,
> I'm starting to receive quite a few enquiries from industry for DLEP support for modem systems where different traffic classes flow via different paths to destinations, so called 'hub-assist' modems.  For these types of modem (an others) the ability to describe the metrics per-flow to a destination is required.

I've been thinking about the case quite a bit.  Some of the degenerate 
use cases seem really complex from a representation standpoint, but my 
thinking hasn't matured enough to see an elegant solution.  So I'd be 
thrilled with *any* discussion on this topic.

> As I've mentioned before, I think there is benefit in splitting out the concept of Traffic Class Ids (as specified in this draft) into its own draft, including both the DSCP and Ethernet TOS examples, and then referring to that draft from this one, and also from others including 'metrics per TCID'.

> I'm in London, and do think this is a useful topic of conversation for the meeting/future work.
> @chairs: Would you like Lou or I to grab 10 mins at the mic to talk about this, or try to work it out offline?

I think it would be really useful to hear your perspective on the 
problem and possible solutions.  In the context of the credit window 
draft, I think it's pretty trivial to say that for destinations that 
share the same CID, that data sent to one reduces the available 
bandwidth to the other destinations -- as this is what a credit window 
implies.  But the more general issue of the relationship of shared 
resources and representation of such metrics is really interesting and 


> Cheers,
> Rick
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: manet [] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
>> Sent: 02 March 2018 22:47
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension-
>> 04.txt
>> Hi,
>> There are a few items outstanding on the credit draft:
>> I received an offline comment that I think should be noted in the draft.  The
>> comment was that it might not be obvious that since queues/credit windows
>> can be shared among (disjoint) sets of endpoints, that sending to one
>> destination in a set reduces the available capacity to other destinations.  I'll
>> propose some text on this shortly.
>> There are also two questions that are still open:
>> (A) does the WG want to keep the document as is or break apart the current
>> document into two documents?
>> - the first being the credit window and generic traffic classification definition
>> and the second being the DA/DSCP extension and traffic classification sub-DI
>> I can't speak for my co-authors, but I'm okay proceeding either way, but now
>> is the time to decide.
>> (B) finally, does the WG want to take the notional Ethernet/PCP based traffic
>> classification which was added as an appendix, see [1], to sanity check the
>> current functional decomposition and make it a full blown Ethernet/PCP
>> extension
>> my personal preference is to do this, it's not much effort and seems
>> worthwhile.
>> any thoughts and/or comments would be appreciated.
>> I also look forward to discussing this in London (in the joint meeting with
>> ccamp).
>> Lou
>> [1]
>> 04#appendix-B
>> On 3/1/2018 6:03 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> This version completes the updates discussed at the last IETF. The
>>> notable changes are:
>>> - Separate credit control from traffic classification
>>> - Ensure traffic classification is extendable to other flow
>>> identification methods
>>>        - This included definition of a Notional Ethernet Credit Window
>>> Traffic Classification (in an appendix) as a sanity check on separation
>>> of mechanisms.  This can be removed at some point or moved to it's own
>>> document/extension.
>>> - Add a management considerations section
>>> - other minor corrections/fixes.
>>> - One note, Traffic Class. Identifier (TID) was not changed as discussed
>>> at IETF 100
>>> Lou
>>> On 3/1/2018 4:45 PM, wrote:
>>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>> directories.
>>>> This draft is a work item of the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks WG of the IETF.
>>>>            Title           : DLEP DiffServ Aware Credit Window Extension
>>>>            Authors         : Bow-Nan Cheng
>>>>                              David Wiggins
>>>>                              Lou Berger
>>>> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension-04.txt
>>>> 	Pages           : 26
>>>> 	Date            : 2018-03-01
>>>> Abstract:
>>>>       This document defines an extension to the DLEP protocol that enables
>>>>       a DiffServ aware credit-window scheme for destination-specific and
>>>>       shared flow control.  The extension is logically composed of two
>>>>       mechanisms.  The first provides credit window control, the second
>>>>       identifies how flows are identified and mapped to a credit window.
>>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> extension/
>>>> There are also htmlized versions available at:
>> extension-04
>>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> extension-04
>>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
>> submission
>>>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at
>>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> manet mailing list
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> manet mailing list
>> _______________________________________________
>> manet mailing list