Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosmarking-01.txt

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Black, David <[e-mail]> wrote:

>   > A differentiated services boundary may be co-located with a host,
> subject to local policy.
>
>  >
>
> > So using diffserv is an option that needs to be set in VXLAN, so far we
> did not say anything on this in the draft.
>
>
>
> How does that conclusion follow from the first statement?
>
>
Because using diffserv at the host level or VM level in our case is a local
policy issue. Hosts or VMs are not required to diffserv mark the packets be
it at the outer IP header or VXLAN header.



>
>
> Thanks,
> --David
>
>
>
> *From:* Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 12, 2014 4:03 PM
> *To:* Black, David
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>
> *Subject:* Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosmarking-01.txt
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Black, David <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Another +1, and please see RFC 2983, which is relevant to the DiffServ
> aspects here.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> RFC 2474 says that::
>
>
>
> A differentiated services boundary may be co-located with a host, subject
> to local policy.
>
>
>
> So using diffserv is an option that needs to be set in VXLAN, so far we
> did not say anything on this in the draft.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Behcet
>
>   Thanks,
> --David
>
>
>
> *From:* nvo3 [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Larry Kreeger
> (kreeger)
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 12, 2014 3:27 PM
> *To:* Osama Zia; Benson Schliesser; [e-mail]
>
>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; Dino Farinacci;
> [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosmarking-01.txt
>
>
>
> +1
>
>
>
> I don't ever see a case where packets are being forwarded with only the
> VXLAN header and not the outer IP header, or IP/Ethernet headers.
>
>
>
>  - Larry
>
>
>
> *From: *Osama Zia <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:20 AM
> *To: *Benson Schliesser <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <
> [e-mail]>
> *Cc: *"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>,
> "[e-mail]" <
> [e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosmarking-01.txt
>
>
>
> I would ask this question in another way…
>
>
>
> At what point do we need to make QoS decisions based on VXLAN header? I do
> not see any.
>
>
>
> From VM to NVE it can be done in IP/Ethernet. From NVE to rest of the
> network again it can be based on IP/Ethernet header. I do not see a value
> of using VXLAN/Geneve/GUE header bits for QoS
>
>
>
> *From:* nvo3 [mailto:[e-mail] <[e-mail]>] *On
> Behalf Of *Benson Schliesser
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 12, 2014 11:34 AM
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; Dino Farinacci;
> [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [nvo3] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosmarking-01.txt
>
>
>
> 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* <[e-mail]>
>
> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
>
>   *Behcet Sarikaya* <[e-mail]>
>
> November 10, 2014 at 5:47 PM
>
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Brian E Carpenter
>
> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> 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
>
> [e-mail]
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
>
>
>