Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosmarking-01.txt
Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> Mon, 26 January 2015 17:44 UTC
Return-Path: <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF0C31A6F03 for <nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 09:44:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 ZAYKncti6uWI for <nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 09:44:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-x236.google.com (mail-lb0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18E5B1A6EFE for <nvo3@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 09:44:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f182.google.com with SMTP id l4so8837351lbv.13 for <nvo3@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 09:44:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=bD+YN0nNzN58r1yBjPYBbHJGl+zutNeZZAzUhH5rlvw=; b=g6DshXzOMEygG45xs3t7B9Kzqyy/ItdPYDV2cLHdjbaq1PgOgyTezFdwJLnFfGEoM1 ZhbuZRHBX9cGlsaET5gS+MiQzCtf3Jtr9fwiCBt7r2H+2CMjTeK+q4yMA5cSTQfArH2Q 3BrkkVtzh54p1Q3EADI9whnQQ76J+ZyiZugcvRWOupFrI006OshTJvnm4iMPaBovEwzs J0/Ia2qKrmNOFLFOhY5uKP18K6yjIgClb54SH3OsAz0UcZMp98W/5CDM1TJTvCvtrBZL 256bSlvDhoxrUgXJFgv9maOVpAP3nQiJvklyIxneL5M4crLceNFGHq2+To/0T/klV7CK VS4A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.42.198 with SMTP id q6mr11441263lal.48.1422294263409; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 09:44:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.114.80.231 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 09:44:23 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362C2ABF@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com>
References: <20141110200919.27869.2915.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5461854F.3020305@gmail.com> <CAC8QAce9kWVp_3+MeMcNpFinhnTcCgk0k1eDtip2j47iCWAbpg@mail.gmail.com> <CAC8QAceh3xPsg-ADthB8WuO2YgLpvso9HAGc1jHnPQ6jBoFk7w@mail.gmail.com> <5463B636.9020501@queuefull.net> <4F0C8596-E563-43DA-8AF1-07DE58610C2A@gmail.com> <CAC8QAcemHNpci3mvxY9=V4aR_uF5DB6a4eKQiO2XLivjE7xhog@mail.gmail.com> <182B38DB-6C67-44C5-803E-44F03A8EA787@gmail.com> <CAC8QAcfvEYXEm+U1tJMVfNrzE7GLuFgvJ1Djvhw2TSrgO7FZdA@mail.gmail.com> <E1E0F148-2E28-478F-BF86-3927C2ADF5BF@gmail.com> <546534E9.6040206@queuefull.net> <CAC8QAce7eB+XFPa79O6RLjhH=OfdzoHc+UMxFFYePrW4u-W_ag@mail.gmail.com> <546571C2.9040801@acm.org> <CAC8QAcfUD2MKQXmgYgkpD15s=QKYSThNndoQ9GHyk09zmBx9Jw@mail.gmail.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362C2ABF@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 11:44:23 -0600
Message-ID: <CAC8QAceXgkviSj-DL3NqypxjFME9NheUo4vnPc6J9TCPN-4M2w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
To: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>, Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org>
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="001a11c34dae56644e050d91b02f"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/I88Xd_96hCQU8rYceHrVNmykAiQ>
Cc: Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net>, "nvo3@ietf.org" <nvo3@ietf.org>, "draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosmarking@tools.ietf.org" <draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosmarking@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosmarking-01.txt
X-BeenThere: nvo3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org
List-Id: "Network Virtualization Overlays \(NVO3\) Working Group" <nvo3.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/nvo3>, <mailto:nvo3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nvo3/>
List-Post: <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nvo3-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3>, <mailto:nvo3-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 17:44:29 -0000
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Black, David <david.black@emc.com> wrote: > Hmm, in http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nvo3/current/msg04211.html, > > one of our WG chairs wrote: > > > I talked offline with Benson on this. The draft authors had not asked for WG adoption yet. Where does the consensus issue come into picture, I don't understand. I-Ds can be discussed freely and revised accordingly. This is what IETF does. I am asking Benson to clarify his statement on the consensus. Some people may have expressed opinions on an earlier version but now we have Erik's challenge on tenant-based QoS. The new version is on this, so I request fair treatment of this new version. Benson, please clarify! > At this point, I maintain my view that the NVO3 consensus is: there is > no QoS > > gap that needs to be addressed in the overlap encap layer. > > > Would you be kind enough to reply Erik's mail? As a diffserv expert you probably can answer this best. Please do so. > If NVO3 is not interested in this draft, what’s the purpose of further > work on it? > > These are biased statements. Regards, Behcet > > > Thanks, > --David > > > > *From:* nvo3 [mailto:nvo3-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Behcet Sarikaya > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 16, 2014 12:11 PM > *To:* Erik Nordmark; Brian E Carpenter > *Cc:* Benson Schliesser; nvo3@ietf.org; Dino Farinacci; > draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosmarking@tools.ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosmarking-01.txt > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org> wrote: > > On 11/13/14 4:00 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net> > wrote: > > Hi, Behcet - > > Stepping back from the conversation about bits... What is the problem that > you're trying to solve, Behcet? > > I see multiple existing QoS mechanisms both in the underlay and in the > overlay, and I don't see any QoS gap that needs to be addressed in the > overlap encap layer. I believe that my point of view is consistent with the > WG consensus at this point. > > > > I am not familiar with any QoS mechanism that is based on the tenant, i.e > static mapping. > > Let me know which document discusses it? > > > Google search points me at rfc2983, rfc6040; latter is for ECN. > > There might be other RFCs. > > > > > > Sorry for this belated reply. > > > > I agree that there doesn't seem to be another document on tenant-based > QoS. I read RFC 2983, certainly it is not. > > > > This is possibly because multi tenancy is a new concept in IETF introduced > by nvo3. > > > > Brian Carpenter once suggested to discuss this draft in tcpm, maybe this > was the reason? > > > > We are ready to present it in tcpm and discuss this concept with QoS > experts in tcpm. > > > > Having said that I don't take this comment as negative. I think it is a > valid point. > > > > Regards, > > > > Behcet > > > > Erik > > > > > > > Thx, > > > > Behcet > > Thanks, > -Benson > > > *Dino Farinacci* <farinacci@gmail.com> > > November 13, 2014 at 12:02 PM > > Sorry there are no EXP bits mentioned in RFC 7348. MPLS is out of scope. > > EXP is 3 bits long, DSCP is 6 bits and dividing it into two 3 bit > pieces, I am not sure if David will like it. > > > > I am referring to user-priority bits below: > > > > > > Dino > > *Benson Schliesser* <bensons@queuefull.net> > > November 12, 2014 at 9:34 AM > > Hi, Behcet - > > Perhaps I'm confused about what comment (from Dino) that you are referring > to... But in general, I think of it this way: > > Assuming the encap stack looks something like: IP1 / Eth1 / VXLAN / UDP / > IP2 / Eth2 (progressing L->R as inner->outer) > > Then e.g. tenant VMs can mark the IP1 and Eth1 headers with whatever > appropriate markings they desire. The NVE can mark the IP2 and Eth2 headers > with whatever appropriate markings. > > Specifically, one could imagine the NVE copying the IP1 DSCP codepoint > into the IP2 header. Alternatively one could imagine the NVE imposing an > underlay DSCP in IP2, e.g. to discriminate between tenants. Possibly, one > could also imagine some kind of translation policy which maps IP1 > codepoints into IP2 codepoints. And that's not even considering mechanisms > that leverage the Eth headers, use different encap stacks, etc. > > Cheers, > -Benson > > *Behcet Sarikaya* <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> > > November 12, 2014 at 9:01 AM > > Hi Dino, > > Regarding your comment on copying IP header QoS bits into VXLAN header, > > note that IP packet is coming from the VMs. > > Yes for dynamic marking these bits can be copied. > However, VMs may not be configured to mark these fields. > > For static marking these bits can not be used because VMs are not > aware of the VNI. So NVE has to do the static marking. > > Hope this clarifies. > > Regards, > > Behcet > > > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > nvo3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > > *Behcet Sarikaya* <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> > > November 10, 2014 at 5:47 PM > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Brian E Carpenter > > <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: > > [resend with corrected address, sorry] > > > > Hi, > > > > The first three bits (bits 5-7) are precedence bits. They are > > assigned according to [RFC0791]. Precedence values '110' and '111' > > are selected for routing traffic. > > > > The last three bits (bits 8-10) are class selector bits. Thet are > > assigned as follows: > > > > 001 - BK or background traffic > > ... > > As can be seen the markings are the same as in IEEE 802.1p... > > This is not in any way compatible with RFC 2474, which also made the > > relevant part of RFC 791 obsolete. > > > > If you want to be compatible with RFC 2474 you should not specify the > > bits at all - just say that they are exactly as defined in RFC 2474 > > and the various PHB definitions that have been published. > > I think that diffserv is less relevant in the context of VXLAN. > > > > If you > > want to be compatible with IEEE 802.1p that is a different matter, > > Yes this is more relevant for VXLAN. > > > > but you cannot mix the two up in this way. > > I now understand that we confused the two very different things. > > > > Regards, > > > > Behcet > > Brian > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > nvo3 mailing list > > nvo3@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > nvo3 mailing list > > nvo3@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > > > >
- Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosma… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [nvo3] [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxl… Black, David
- Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosma… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosma… Benson Schliesser
- Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosma… Osama Zia
- Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosma… Larry Kreeger (kreeger)
- Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosma… Black, David
- Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosma… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosma… Black, David
- Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosma… Andrew Qu
- Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosma… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosma… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosma… Black, David
- Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosma… Dino Farinacci
- Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosma… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosma… Dino Farinacci
- Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosma… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosma… Dino Farinacci
- Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosma… Benson Schliesser
- Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosma… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosma… Osama Bin Zia
- Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosma… Benson Schliesser
- Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosma… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosma… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosma… Erik Nordmark
- Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosma… Benson Schliesser
- Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosma… John E Drake
- Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosma… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosma… Black, David
- Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosma… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosma… Benson Schliesser
- Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosma… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosma… Behcet Sarikaya