Re: [NSIS] Dual Token Bucket Requirements -- Re: AD review of draft-ietf-nsis-y1541-qosm-07
Jukka Manner <jukka.manner@tkk.fi> Tue, 08 December 2009 05:28 UTC
Return-Path: <jukka.manner@tkk.fi>
X-Original-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E195D3A6800 for <nsis@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Dec 2009 21:28:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.186
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.186 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.413, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5ErN3AEKK3Oy for <nsis@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Dec 2009 21:28:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-4.hut.fi (smtp-4.hut.fi [130.233.228.94]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 427603A67B4 for <nsis@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Dec 2009 21:28:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (katosiko.hut.fi [130.233.228.115]) by smtp-4.hut.fi (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id nB85RmuB027079; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 07:27:48 +0200
Received: from smtp-4.hut.fi ([130.233.228.94]) by localhost (katosiko.hut.fi [130.233.228.115]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 06123-228; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 07:27:48 +0200 (EET)
Received: from smtp.netlab.hut.fi (luuri.netlab.hut.fi [130.233.154.177]) by smtp-4.hut.fi (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id nB85RYKG027045; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 07:27:34 +0200
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.netlab.hut.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id E597F1E159; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 07:27:33 +0200 (EET)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at luuri.netlab.hut.fi
Received: from smtp.netlab.hut.fi ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (luuri.netlab.hut.fi [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id ldAZBy0K6HA6; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 07:27:29 +0200 (EET)
Received: from mailsrv.netlab.hut.fi (mailsrv.netlab.hut.fi [130.233.154.190]) by smtp.netlab.hut.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3B751E018; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 07:27:29 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [130.233.154.59] (pc59.netlab.hut.fi [130.233.154.59]) by mailsrv.netlab.hut.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D590120050; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 07:27:24 +0200 (EET)
Message-ID: <4B1DE3C1.7040209@tkk.fi>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 07:27:29 +0200
From: Jukka Manner <jukka.manner@tkk.fi>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Gerald Ash <gash5107@yahoo.com>
References: <2727_1259611345_ZZ0KTX000RBUBSGV.00_53366.64256.qm@web63604.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <2727_1259611345_ZZ0KTX000RBUBSGV.00_53366.64256.qm@web63604.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-TKK-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.1.2-hutcc at katosiko.hut.fi
Cc: draft-ietf-nsis-y1541-qosm@tools.ietf.org, NSIS <nsis@ietf.org>, David Black <black_david@emc.com>
Subject: Re: [NSIS] Dual Token Bucket Requirements -- Re: AD review of draft-ietf-nsis-y1541-qosm-07
X-BeenThere: nsis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Next Steps in Signaling <nsis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis>, <mailto:nsis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nsis>
List-Post: <mailto:nsis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nsis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis>, <mailto:nsis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 05:28:09 -0000
As long as an implementer is able to leave with the dual token bucket spec, that is enough for me. If I need to choose, I'd typically take the simpler approach of two options, and would remove the Bp, but I don't have a strong opinion either way. If no one really objects, we'll just keep the Bp since it is has been in the spec for quite some time. Jukka Gerald Ash wrote: > All, > > The draft > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-nsis-y1541-qosm-07.txt currently > requires a dual token bucket and peak bucket size parameter (Rp) be > specified. However, in expired draft > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-vaananen-mpls-svc-diff-framework-00.txt, > it says: > > " - Three color marker based service [RFC 2697, RFC 2698]: Here the > customerÆs traffic is marked with one of three colors (using a dual > token bucket scheme) and the packets marked with each color are > guaranteed a certain maximum loss probability. Practically this > could mean that packets conforming to committed rate specification > have better delivery guarantee than those that exceed it." > > Since the QSPEC draft > (http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-22.txt) currently provides > 2 TMOD parameters to accommodate the 3-color marker based service, it > appears that a dual token bucket capability is already provided by the > QSPEC and there is no further need to specify the Rp parameter in the > Y.1541-QOSM draft. It would be up to an individual QOSM specification > to detail the use of the 2 TMOD parameters to achieve a dual token bucket. > > Comments? > > Thanks, > Jerry > > > --- On *Fri, 11/13/09, Gerald Ash /<gash5107@yahoo.com>/* wrote: > > > From: Gerald Ash <gash5107@yahoo.com> > Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-nsis-y1541-qosm-07 > To: "NSIS" <nsis@ietf.org>, "Al Morton" <acmorton@att.com> > Cc: "Jerry Ash" <gash5107@yahoo.com>, "Magnus Westerlund" > <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, > draft-ietf-nsis-y1541-qosm@tools.ietf.org > Date: Friday, November 13, 2009, 5:30 PM > > I wasn't aware that Al Morton was taking this question to the list, > so I would like to clarify the points I'm making regarding the dual > token bucket parameter Bp: > > 1. The basis for including the parameter Bp is the ITU-T > Recommendation "Signaling Requirements for IP-QoS" (available at > http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Q.Sup51/en), which REQUIRES the dual > token bucket parameters (including Bp) for QoS signaling. IMO if > the the ITU doesn't want to require a dual token bucket for QoS > signaling, they should revise the requirements. Perhaps co-authors > of the ITU-T QoS signaling requirements could comment. > > 2. Magnus only asked for a definition of Bp, which is readily > available. Magnus made no claim that Bp was too complex or any > suggestion that the parameter should be removed. But rather than > simply providing the definition as requested, Al Morton has now > decided that Bp is too complex and should be removed. > > 3. The intent of the Y.1541-QOSM document is to specify an NSIS QoS > model (QOSM) based on all QoS signaling requirements contained > in ITU-T recommendations, not only the Y.1541 QoS classes, but also > the Q.Sup51 traffic model (TMOD) signaling requirements, and > restoration priority signaling requirements. > > Thanks, > Jerry > > --- On *Fri, 11/13/09, Al Morton /<acmorton@att.com>/* wrote: > > > From: Al Morton <acmorton@att.com> > Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-nsis-y1541-qosm-07 > To: "Magnus Westerlund" <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, > draft-ietf-nsis-y1541-qosm@tools.ietf.org, "NSIS" <nsis@ietf.org> > Date: Friday, November 13, 2009, 2:54 PM > > NSIS WG, > > At 08:47 AM 10/16/2009, Magnus Westerlund wrote: > >3. Section 3.1: What are the definitions of the Bp and M > parameter? > > Those of us who have discussed Magnus' comment above are > trying to agree on a path forward. > > Both parameters have standard definitions: > A reference definition for M, max datagram size, is in RFC 2212. > ITU-T Y.1221 seems to be the only standard where Bp, > the peak Bucket Size of a dual token bucket is specified. > > I have proposed removing Bp because the additional complexity > of a dual token bucket is not essential to the main subject > of the draft (the Y.1541 classes). > I have asked at this week's ITU-T meeting, and the only implementors > of ITU-T Y.1221 indicated that they were not using Bp, > only the parameters for a single token bucket. > > Jerry Ash would like to retain Bp, citing the informational > ITU-T Supplement referenced in the draft, and indicated that > dual token buckets are well-established and non-controversial. > > Others have asked me to phrase the question to the list. > So, with the above background, should we simplify and drop Bp, > or keep it in? > > thanks and regards, > Al > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > nsis mailing list > nsis@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis -- Jukka MJ Manner, Professor, PhD. Phone: +358+(0)9+451 2481 Helsinki University of Technology Mobile: +358+(0)50+5112973 Department of Communications Fax: +358+(0)9+451 2474 and Networking (Comnet) Office: G320 (Otakaari 5A) P.O. Box 3000, FIN-02015 TKK E-mail: jukka.manner@tkk.fi Finland WWW: www.comnet.tkk.fi
- Re: [NSIS] Dual Token Bucket Requirements -- Re: … Jukka Manner