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

["Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail]
> [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 11:57 AM
> To: Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy); [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> 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. 

> 
> 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.

> 
> BTW, do you think the draft should be updated to call out explicitly the case
> you are mentioning (use of the CHECKPOINT option as a trigger to other
> traffic management blocks than the HA module) ?

Yes, that will help.

-Tiru

> 
> Thank you.
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
> >-----Message d'origine-----
> >De : Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) [mailto:[e-mail]] Envoyé :
> >jeudi 18 septembre 2014 06:40 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN;
> >[e-mail]; [e-mail] Objet : RE: I-D Action:
> >draft-vinapamula-flow-ha-03.txt
> >
> >Hi Med,
> >
> >I think adding priority level will be useful to this draft. For example
> >ISP can use priority level to identify and penalize low-priority flows
> >during congestion. Conex WG in
> >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-conex-mobile-
> >04 explains that Mobile Networks are using DPI to identify dispensable
> >flows for management of congestion.
> >
> >This enhancement will help solve the above problem without DPI (which
> >will anyways not work with HTTP/2.0, Opportunistic security etc.)
> >
> >-Tiru
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [e-mail]
> >> [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 11:36 AM
> >> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
> >> Subject: TR: I-D Action: draft-vinapamula-flow-ha-03.txt
> >>
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> This updated version takes into account the comments received during
> >> the interim meeting, particularly:
> >>
> >> * the comment from Tiru about the mis-use of the option to help an
> >attacker
> >> identify critical flows.
> >> * the comment raised by Stuart about PREFER_FAILURE.
> >>
> >> We do think this version is stable enough to consider wg adoption.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Med
> >>
> >> -----Message d'origine-----
> >> De : I-D-Announce [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part
> >> de [e-mail] Envoyé : vendredi 5 septembre 2014 07:58
> >> À : i-
> >d-
> >> [e-mail] Objet : I-D Action: draft-vinapamula-flow-ha-03.txt
> >>
> >>
> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> >directories.
> >>
> >>
> >>         Title           : Application-Initiated Flow High Availability
> >Awareness
> >> through PCP
> >>         Authors         : Suresh Vinapamula
> >>                           Senthil Sivakumar
> >>                           Mohamed Boucadair
> >> 	Filename        : draft-vinapamula-flow-ha-03.txt
> >> 	Pages           : 9
> >> 	Date            : 2014-09-04
> >>
> >> Abstract:
> >>    This document specifies a mechanism for a host to signal via PCP
> >>    which connections should be protected against network failures.
> >>    These connections will be elected to be subject to high availability
> >>    mechanisms enabled at the network side.
> >>
> >>    This approach assumes that aplications/users have more visibility
> >>    about sensitive connections rather than any heuristic that can be
> >>    enabled at the network side to guess which connections should be
> >>    secured.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vinapamula-flow-ha/
> >>
> >> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vinapamula-flow-ha-03
> >>
> >> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> >> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-vinapamula-flow-ha-03
> >>
> >>
> >> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> >submission
> >> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> >>
> >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> I-D-Announce mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> >> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or
> >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt