Re: [p2pi] TANA proposed charter -- packet marking question

"Robb Topolski" <robb@funchords.com> Fri, 24 October 2008 19:51 UTC

Return-Path: <p2pi-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: p2pi-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-p2pi-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F9AA3A6859; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 12:51:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: p2pi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: p2pi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C1583A6849 for <p2pi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 12:51:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 atvYtb6pgvRd for <p2pi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 12:51:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gx0-f16.google.com (mail-gx0-f16.google.com [209.85.217.16]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 403983A67AF for <p2pi@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 12:51:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gxk9 with SMTP id 9so132015gxk.13 for <p2pi@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 12:52:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.65.215.14 with SMTP id s14mr2985823qbq.47.1224877960690; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 12:52:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.65.234.2 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 12:52:40 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <3efc39a60810241252t7670ac41gbfaf550443ecd53b@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 12:52:40 -0700
From: "Robb Topolski" <robb@funchords.com>
To: "John Leslie" <john@jlc.net>
In-Reply-To: <20081024145218.GB88592@verdi>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <36BFC323-FDD5-42DD-9A17-F32DDE7DDF5E@cisco.com> <AEDCAF87EEC94F49BA92EBDD49854CC707E291F2@E03MVZ1-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <3615ACF9-49D1-4D66-A1AE-345684CF1A9D@shlang.com> <20081024145218.GB88592@verdi>
Cc: tana@ietf.org, p2pi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [p2pi] TANA proposed charter -- packet marking question
X-BeenThere: p2pi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: P2P Infrastructure Discussion <p2pi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi>, <mailto:p2pi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/p2pi>
List-Post: <mailto:p2pi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:p2pi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi>, <mailto:p2pi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0637110783=="
Sender: p2pi-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: p2pi-bounces@ietf.org

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 7:52 AM, John Leslie <john@jlc.net> wrote:

>   However, I wonder how many of us are on the same page when it comes
> to the question of packet marking.
>
>   Some of us quite clearly see this as a question of _how_ to use
> DiffServ; others of us see this as how to _avoid_ DiffServ.
>
>
It's not clear to me what exactly you are referring to here.  If DiffServ is
something to be avoided, then something is wrong.

I think the goal is something akin to "get the appropriate and desired next
hop behavior if the ISP supports it" and get the ISPs out of the business of
trying to guess.  If you're worried about someone trying to use this work to
game the system, then I think a quota on the exploited DSCPs could provide
the necessary disincentive.

-- 
Robb Topolski (robb@funchords.com)
Hillsboro, Oregon USA
http://www.funchords.com/
_______________________________________________
p2pi mailing list
p2pi@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi