Re: [rmcat] [tsvwg] FW: Fwd: Submitted ID on delay vs. loss-only rate-adaptive for DiffServ
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 17 July 2013 19:55 UTC
Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8D2621E808F; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 12:55:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.203, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u9q12SWwZBGL; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 12:55:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x234.google.com (mail-pa0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2807821E808E; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 12:55:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id kq14so1223298pab.11 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 12:55:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=fDpb336s2yPg/i3JFSLDqJoKOLkmWuYd3jt28YEfpy0=; b=Jmpd8zQH22R3VMH9NV/tCiTXTGfFIkEg3YxxIrF0p1idIz1aOLkGR7NxKg9Vj29C5C 1nZ2lRNS1nruN03fSglc8vIQrblQhr/DqOinlwgGfoHpIfXfBh7JklQVrhc4TJRWa5+L s9HGdclv9ZZvlI/q5icAw4+xJO1xB5S99J7re+CGhX54geUN4kb7YUPrOeeiHHyjIvdP GfDjpsw1HtHaRb727v6LIYrtamxHg1MFGVAL0oHTCjaRnty4tEFJhLlLcPFLPN9fFJpr lbUjLnJOsNOjX51inyopnsj5T25tTSJW/YJK4hjVToHUtQZ9a/11hyvtnB9AJoNZeGIj jc9g==
X-Received: by 10.66.163.130 with SMTP id yi2mr9565837pab.7.1374090947845; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 12:55:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.23] (33.198.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.198.33]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ib9sm9383159pbc.43.2013.07.17.12.55.43 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 17 Jul 2013 12:55:46 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51E6F6C2.8090202@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 07:55:46 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
References: <201307160608.r6G680RY026646@rcdn-core-4.cisco.com> <025A278C-55F2-4EB4-A12F-677F8F01A0D0@netapp.com> <D21571530BF9644D9A443D6BD95B910315595CC7@xmb-rcd-x12.cisco.com> <D21571530BF9644D9A443D6BD95B910315595D97@xmb-rcd-x12.cisco.com> <A860EC86B79FA646BF3F89165A88626415339C25@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com> <201307162111.r6GLBSwF029514@rcdn-core-5.cisco.com> <3879D71E758A7E4AA99A35DD8D41D3D91D494900@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> <a7eb5ace4bbdbaa945f5df9ac6e37bc8.squirrel@www.erg.abdn.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <a7eb5ace4bbdbaa945f5df9ac6e37bc8.squirrel@www.erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 02:00:48 -0700
Cc: "rmcat@ietf.org" <rmcat@ietf.org>, "Michael Ramalho (mramalho)" <mramalho@cisco.com>, "James Polk (jmpolk)" <jmpolk@cisco.com>, "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <mzanaty@cisco.com>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rmcat] [tsvwg] FW: Fwd: Submitted ID on delay vs. loss-only rate-adaptive for DiffServ
X-BeenThere: rmcat@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques \(RMCAT\) Working Group discussion list." <rmcat.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rmcat>, <mailto:rmcat-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rmcat>
List-Post: <mailto:rmcat@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rmcat-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmcat>, <mailto:rmcat-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 19:55:49 -0000
On 17/07/2013 18:50, gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote: > I think the question of sharing diffserv is important, and my current > suggestion is that RMCAT should use one or at most two DSCPs and design a > CC that works well within the class - however this does not absolve RMCAT > from also having to work in the Internet without this class. This will > likely be the main use-case! > > Although the proposal could help these applications - the IETF can not > somehow mandate this is universally deployed - and even if the DSCP(s) > were universally recognised, it would still be aggregated within some > networks and on L2 technologies that support fewer classes than DSCP > markings. > > It would be interesting to know if others think we should be considering > more DSCPs for this? If you mean "more" in the sense of defining new PHBs, I sincerely hope not. Diffserv works best with a small set of highly differentiated PHBs. Also, in order to get cross-domain agreements on DSCP assignments, the fewer there are the better. Brian > > Gorry > >> I support something like what this draft proposes, to segregate RMCAT (and >> potentially other delay-adaptive traffic) from other traffic which does >> not adapt to delay trends (and therefore incurs maximum queue delay for >> all traffic in its queue). Of course, this only helps when such queue >> segregation is available in the network, but effective active queue >> management is not available (otherwise there would be no delay signals for >> delay-adaptive traffic to act on). >> >> An open question in my mind, that I think this draft needs to address, is >> whether all delay-adaptive traffic should share the same queue/DSCP, or >> whether we need different queues/DSCPs for different delay-adaptive >> protocols/applications (for example, RMCAT vs. LEDBAT). >> >> Mo >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: rmcat-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rmcat-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >> James Polk (jmpolk) >> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 5:11 PM >> To: Cheng-Jia Lai (chelai); James Polk (jmpolk); Toerless Eckert (eckert); >> Michael Ramalho (mramalho); tsvwg@ietf.org; rmcat@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [rmcat] [tsvwg] FW: Fwd: Submitted ID on delay vs. loss-only >> rate-adaptive for DiffServ >> >> CJ >> >> Thank you for the quick review. >> >> I'll ask you the same question I just asked Michael, the draft isn't >> very long (under 8 pages currently), and it is a work in progress - >> but do you have text or just points that this draft needs to cover >> that it doesn't currently? >> >> James >> >> At 01:36 PM 7/16/2013, Cheng-Jia Lai (chelai) wrote: >>> Same here... I feel it makes sense to create a new DSCP / CS4 for >>> transport of video flows that have rate adaptive behaviors and/or >>> intra-flow preferential drop priorities as indicated in the I-D. The >>> service provided by the network may thus be considered new, i.e. >>> different from what exists in AF4x, so IMHO, using a new or reusing >>> CS4 service class adds clarity for the user applications. >>> >>> Regards, >>> CJ >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org] On >>> Behalf Of Michael Ramalho (mramalho) >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 6:36 AM >>> To: tsvwg@ietf.org >>> Subject: [tsvwg] FW: [rmcat] Fwd: Submitted ID on delay vs. >>> loss-only rate-adaptive for DiffServ >>> >>> TSVWG Members, >>> >>> I should have copied you on my email to the RMCAT mailer below. >>> >>> I strongly support the creation of a new DSCP for transports in >>> which their congestion control can adapt based on delay. >>> >>> The current ID in support of this >>> (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-polk-tsvwg-delay-vs-loss-ds-service-classes-00.txt >>> ) is a work in progress, but a step in the right direction. >>> >>> It is a given that the ability of the eventual RMCAT adaptation >>> mechanisms to achieve low delay will be function of the other >>> dominant traffic it is competing against. If the dominant competing >>> traffic DEPENDS on loss, the RMCAT packets are held hostage to being >>> delayed by the bottleneck queue delay maximum. >>> >>> Thus, whenever possible, it will be preferable for RMCAT flows to >>> compete with other congestion control transports that adapt on >>> delay. Even this may not get us to the desired low-delay goals when >>> a portion of the traffic has long RTTs (i.e., adaptation control >>> loops that are long in time), or for links that have a highly-time >>> varying capacity, but it will help for a lot of common bottleneck >>> topologies (e.g., slowly time-varying access bufferbloat). >>> >>> It is my hope that this topic has some discussion time in the Berlin >>> Transport WG (not the specific codepoint to be chosen, but rather >>> the need for one). >>> >>> Off Soapbox, >>> >>> Michael Ramalho, Ph.D. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Michael Ramalho (mramalho) >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 9:06 AM >>> To: rmcat@ietf.org >>> Subject: RE: [rmcat] Fwd: [tsvwg] Submitted ID on delay vs. >>> loss-only rate-adaptive for DiffServ >>> >>> RMCAT Design Team, >>> >>> The draft Lars references below is a formal request for a DSCP >>> dedicated to "RMCAT-only (or other nice delay-based cc) traffic". >>> >>> It will take a while to become socialized ... and we can progress >>> our RMCAT work in the interim. >>> >>> Michael Ramalho >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: rmcat-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rmcat-bounces@ietf.org] On >>> Behalf Of Eggert, Lars >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 5:26 AM >>> To: WG WG >>> Cc: draft-polk-tsvwg-delay-vs-loss-ds-service-classes@tools.ietf.org >>> Subject: [rmcat] Fwd: [tsvwg] Submitted ID on delay vs. loss-only >>> rate-adaptive for DiffServ >>> >>> Possibly of interest to RMCAT. >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> From: James Polk <jmpolk@cisco.com> >>>> Subject: [tsvwg] Submitted ID on delay vs. loss-only >>> rate-adaptive for DiffServ >>>> Date: July 16, 2013 8:07:59 GMT+02:00 >>>> To: <tsvwg@ietf.org> >>>> >>>> (as an author) >>>> >>>> Toerless and I put together a draft about legacy rate-adaptation >>> based only on loss vs. what RMCAT is looking to (for RTCWEB), which >>> is based on delay and loss. Here's the URL. >>>> >>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-polk-tsvwg-delay-vs-loss-ds-service-classes-00.txt >>>> It's more raw than we had in mind, but we believe this is >>> necessary, based on implementation experience and what users and >>> customers have in their networks, or are planning on having in >>> their networks soon. >>>> James & Toerless >>>> > > >
- Re: [rmcat] Fwd: [tsvwg] Submitted ID on delay vs… Michael Ramalho (mramalho)
- [rmcat] Fwd: [tsvwg] Submitted ID on delay vs. lo… Eggert, Lars
- Re: [rmcat] [tsvwg] FW: Fwd: Submitted ID on dela… Cheng-Jia Lai (chelai)
- Re: [rmcat] [tsvwg] FW: Fwd: Submitted ID on dela… James Polk
- Re: [rmcat] [tsvwg] FW: Fwd: Submitted ID on dela… Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)
- Re: [rmcat] [tsvwg] FW: Fwd: Submitted ID on dela… gorry
- Re: [rmcat] [tsvwg] FW: Fwd: Submitted ID on dela… Michael Welzl
- Re: [rmcat] [tsvwg] FW: Fwd: Submitted ID on dela… Wesley Eddy
- Re: [rmcat] [tsvwg] FW: Fwd: Submitted ID on dela… Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)
- Re: [rmcat] [tsvwg] FW: Fwd: Submitted ID on dela… Cheng-Jia Lai (chelai)
- Re: [rmcat] [tsvwg] FW: Fwd: Submitted ID on dela… James Polk
- Re: [rmcat] [tsvwg] FW: Fwd: Submitted ID on dela… James Polk
- Re: [rmcat] [tsvwg] FW: Fwd: Submitted ID on dela… Eggert, Lars
- Re: [rmcat] [tsvwg] FW: Fwd: Submitted ID on dela… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rmcat] [tsvwg] FW: Fwd: Submitted ID on dela… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rmcat] [tsvwg] FW: Fwd: Submitted ID on dela… Michael Welzl
- Re: [rmcat] [tsvwg] FW: Fwd: Submitted ID on dela… Black, David
- Re: [rmcat] [tsvwg] FW: Fwd: Submitted ID on dela… Michael Ramalho (mramalho)
- Re: [rmcat] [tsvwg] FW: Fwd: Submitted ID on dela… Michael Welzl
- Re: [rmcat] [tsvwg] FW: Fwd: Submitted ID on dela… ken carlberg
- Re: [rmcat] [tsvwg] FW: Fwd: Submitted ID on dela… Michael Ramalho (mramalho)
- Re: [rmcat] [tsvwg] FW: Fwd: Submitted ID on dela… Michael Welzl
- Re: [rmcat] [tsvwg] FW: Fwd: Submitted ID on dela… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rmcat] [tsvwg] FW: Fwd: Submitted ID on dela… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rmcat] [tsvwg] FW: Fwd: Submitted ID on dela… Zaheduzzaman Sarker
- Re: [rmcat] [tsvwg] FW: Fwd: Submitted ID on dela… Michael Ramalho (mramalho)
- Re: [rmcat] [tsvwg] FW: Fwd: Submitted ID on dela… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rmcat] [tsvwg] FW: Fwd: Submitted ID on dela… Michael Welzl
- Re: [rmcat] [tsvwg] FW: Fwd: Submitted ID on dela… Scott Brim
- Re: [rmcat] [tsvwg] FW: Fwd: Submitted ID on dela… Dave Taht
- Re: [rmcat] [tsvwg] FW: Fwd: Submitted ID on dela… Dave Taht
- Re: [rmcat] [tsvwg] FW: Fwd: Submitted ID on dela… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rmcat] [tsvwg] FW: Fwd: Submitted ID on dela… Scott Brim
- Re: [rmcat] [tsvwg] FW: Fwd: Submitted ID on dela… Randell Jesup