Re: [rtcweb] DSCP marking for STUN packets
Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Mon, 10 March 2014 14:24 UTC
Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22EF41A0489 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 07:24:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.24
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.24 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wFqhnzDZKsd1 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 07:24:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sessmg20.mgmt.ericsson.se (sessmg20.ericsson.net [193.180.251.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ABAE1A0488 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 07:24:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb32-b7f4c8e0000012f5-2c-531dcb2761e1
Received: from ESESSHC020.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sessmg20.mgmt.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 3A.CD.04853.72BCD135; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:24:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.80) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.347.0; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:24:39 +0100
Message-ID: <531DCB27.7070509@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:24:39 +0100
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)" <mperumal@cisco.com>, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
References: <E721D8C6A2E1544DB2DEBC313AF54DE22E30E33C@xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com> <CAOJ7v-2jnBAPEhkxjgRtNyntWPL6KBB-PQSLkUPUu91QHoPr3g@mail.gmail.com> <E721D8C6A2E1544DB2DEBC313AF54DE22E3108E4@xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <E721D8C6A2E1544DB2DEBC313AF54DE22E3108E4@xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrFLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvja7Gadlgg8en+Cy2ThWyuPNpDqvF 2n/t7A7MHlN+b2T1WLCp1GPJkp9MAcxRXDYpqTmZZalF+nYJXBmn191nL+gSqWi89JClgXGm QBcjJ4eEgInE7aVPmCBsMYkL99azdTFycQgJnGCU6NmyiQnCWc4o8X36DjaQKl4BbYnp0/Yw djFycLAIqEpsPpkDEmYTsJC4+aMRrERUIFhi54HfjBDlghInZz5hAbFFBFIkNs3fARZnFlCX uLP4HDuILSxgLLH0735miF2XGCX6JxwFS3AK+Eo8+HWZDWSXhIC4RE9jEESvnsSUqy1Qc+Ql mrfOZgaxhYBOa2jqYJ3AKDQLyepZSFpmIWlZwMi8ilGyOLW4ODfdyEAvNz23RC+1KDO5uDg/ T684dRMjMLwPbvlttIPx5B77Q4zSHCxK4rzXWWuChATSE0tSs1NTC1KL4otKc1KLDzEycXBK NTBuLub+pSuh37I/+MXD1Zv91ZTuXw7eZDRths1HrbJtkdv5ytO4J2w71GeQtMtc+EXqhmwj UUW+9i0TrpaJHbnx8l1+bPqOCycd9kz7PV0tgFkrrti/UCdJs3Z+FTcHn46AYNKcKzzTS2N3 6LidW2jisOT6LfkjKlseZZhs5nm1fFXLi3PpOveUWIozEg21mIuKEwGfrlt8PQIAAA==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/thuFa61YsnakUQbqVpeZsv3w7TA
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] DSCP marking for STUN packets
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 14:24:48 -0000
Hi, (as individual) I think we need to start with what the goals are with the STUN packets. In the initial connectivity establishment of ICE the purpose is to find paths that works. To make that determination at all, I would argue to maximize success one should use best effort markings as the network is least likely to do something strange with such packets, including dropping them for violating policy (even if they should just be downgraded). If one like to use STUN to determine the possibility to get DSCP != BE packets through the network from a peer to peer perspective, then I think one should consider specifying something like the STUN ECN check options that are documented in Section 7.2.2 in RFC 6679. To summarize, this sends an additional round of STUN packets after a working path has been found to check ECN compliance in this path. It includes and option indicating the ECT value entered, and the receiver echoes the received value back. Thus enabling a sender to determine that the path is ECT. Something similar could be specified if desired to determine that at least the network doesn't drop packets with DSCP != BE. For consent freshness I don't think we need to do that on a per traffic marking type level. Thus, the important is that it reaches the peer. And the packet reaching the just needs to be statistically high enough probability over a sequence of checks. Thus, I would say that the only important factor here is to not mark it so that it has significant higher drop probability. It also don't need to be minimal delay, thus EF appears overkill and although AFx could be used, that should rather be based on a traffic mix with a lot of AFx traffic. In the end, it might be easier to not use other DSCP marking that BE for the STUN, simple because it gives the most robust behavior and not subject to network issues due to policing or DSCP remarking. I think it will be important to take the considerations for using multiple DSCP on the same 5-tuple that DART will document into account here. Cheers Magnus Westerlund ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287 Färögatan 6 | Mobile +46 73 0949079 SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- [rtcweb] DSCP marking for STUN packets Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)
- Re: [rtcweb] DSCP marking for STUN packets Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] DSCP marking for STUN packets Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)
- Re: [rtcweb] DSCP marking for STUN packets Dave Taht
- Re: [rtcweb] DSCP marking for STUN packets Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] DSCP marking for STUN packets James Polk
- Re: [rtcweb] DSCP marking for STUN packets Simon Perreault
- Re: [rtcweb] DSCP marking for STUN packets Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] DSCP marking for STUN packets Dave Taht
- Re: [rtcweb] DSCP marking for STUN packets Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] DSCP marking for STUN packets Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] DSCP marking for STUN packets Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] DSCP marking for STUN packets Dave Taht
- Re: [rtcweb] DSCP marking for STUN packets Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)
- Re: [rtcweb] DSCP marking for STUN packets Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] DSCP marking for STUN packets Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] DSCP marking for STUN packets Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] DSCP marking for STUN packets Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] DSCP marking for STUN packets Dave Taht