Re: [pcp] I-D Action: draft-vinapamula-flow-ha-03.txt

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Fri, 19 September 2014 06:08 UTC

From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com>, "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>, "cheshire@apple.com" <cheshire@apple.com>
Thread-Topic: I-D Action: draft-vinapamula-flow-ha-03.txt
Thread-Index: Ac/TU6bH7pGLI6+MSL2FizvHY3vI8wAe8PHQ
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 06:08:14 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933006B05A@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A2832B5B2@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A2832B5B2@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pcp/5lAaTcgEVuWZXLBy7xyUIONaFJA
Subject: Re: [pcp] I-D Action: draft-vinapamula-flow-ha-03.txt
Precedence: list

Hi Tiru, 

Please see inline. 

Cheers,
Med

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) [mailto:tireddy@cisco.com]
>Envoyé : jeudi 18 septembre 2014 17:18
>À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; pcp@ietf.org; cheshire@apple.com
>Objet : RE: I-D Action: draft-vinapamula-flow-ha-03.txt
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
>> [mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 11:57 AM
>> To: Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy); pcp@ietf.org; cheshire@apple.com
>> Subject: RE: I-D Action: draft-vinapamula-flow-ha-03.txt
>>
>> Hi Tiru,
>>
>> There are two approaches to address this issue:
>> (1) consider a unified priority level: that is all flows associated with
>the option
>> in the draft should be "processed" equally.
>> (2) add another level of granularity among flows that are associated with
>the
>> option in this draft.
>>
>> The current version of the I-D argues that adding another level of
>granularity
>> to signal a priority level (i.e., approach (2)) may not be that helpful
>because
>> applications will be tempted to systematically set the priority level to
>the
>> highest value in order to increase the chance to have the corresponding
>flow
>> check-pointed/protected.
>
>I can think of two to three ways to address this problem
>1)Applications with required authorization can only signal that it's a high
>priority flow.
>2)End User with the help of a web-portal let's say provided by Home Gateway
>or ISP can re-arrange priorities of flows. Applications like uTorrent
>already provide UI so that user can assign priorities for different file
>downloads.
>3)Just like various good background applications use LEDBAT to limit
>congestion, we can except that such applications in future will explicitly
>signal that it's a low priority flow.
>

[Med] Do you mean PCP messages will be modified in path?

>>
>> Wouldn't (1) be sufficient to address the case you mentioned in your
>> message?
>
>I don't think it is sufficient, it does not provide relative priority.

[Med] Do these flows require check-pointing too? Or you only care about prioritizing these flows during congestion events?

Re: [pcp] I-D Action: draft-vinapamula-flow-ha-03… Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
Re: [pcp] I-D Action: draft-vinapamula-flow-ha-03… mohamed.boucadair
Re: [pcp] I-D Action: draft-vinapamula-flow-ha-03… Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
Re: [pcp] I-D Action: draft-vinapamula-flow-ha-03… mohamed.boucadair
Re: [pcp] I-D Action: draft-vinapamula-flow-ha-03… Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
Re: [pcp] I-D Action: draft-vinapamula-flow-ha-03… Bertz, Lyle T [CTO]
Re: [pcp] I-D Action: draft-vinapamula-flow-ha-03… mohamed.boucadair