[tcmtf] Traffic classification approach for tcmtf (Draft B)

Mirko Sužnjević <Mirko.Suznjevic@fer.hr> Thu, 21 February 2013 10:48 UTC

Return-Path: <Mirko.Suznjevic@fer.hr>
X-Original-To: tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64D9821F8E54 for <tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 02:48:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.477
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.477 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.822, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY=1.643]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0gSXFA+0R8rp for <tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 02:48:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.fer.hr (mail5.fer.hr [161.53.72.235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C14621F8E4F for <tcmtf@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 02:48:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from MAIL4.fer.hr ([2002:a135:48ea::a135:48ea]) by MAIL5.fer.hr ([2002:a135:48eb::a135:48eb]) with mapi id 14.02.0309.002; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:48:51 +0100
From: =?iso-8859-2?Q?Mirko_Su=BEnjevi=E6?= <Mirko.Suznjevic@fer.hr>
To: "tcmtf@ietf.org" <tcmtf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Traffic classification approach for tcmtf (Draft B)
Thread-Index: Ac4QIQk7g5eAEs3XRtWNa36jlGBO6w==
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:48:50 +0000
Message-ID: <E004A7C54DE04F4BB87DB9F32308DA5C012CC4@MAIL4.fer.hr>
Accept-Language: en-US, hr-HR
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [161.53.19.114]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E004A7C54DE04F4BB87DB9F32308DA5C012CC4MAIL4ferhr_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "mramalho@cisco.com" <mramalho@cisco.com>
Subject: [tcmtf] Traffic classification approach for tcmtf (Draft B)
X-BeenThere: tcmtf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Tunneling Compressed Multiplexed Traffic Flows \(TCMTF\) discussion list" <tcmtf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcmtf>, <mailto:tcmtf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf>
List-Post: <mailto:tcmtf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcmtf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf>, <mailto:tcmtf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:48:55 -0000

Hello everybody,
I have been surveying the literature of traffic classification approaches and I need an advice for the next version of draft B. The question is regarding a "suitable" traffic classification algorithm. What should we aim at? Speed or extra accuracy?
I have been thinking about it and I propose a following solution:

1)      Each new traffic flow observed is labeled "highest" priority (shortest multiplexing period) until we classify it. The time spent in this state might get rather long for the flows with low sending rate.

2)      Once classified and then assign it to an appropriate priority (i.e., multiplexing period)?


Also I have a question regarding sampling rate. Do you think it is possible that we will have complete samples of traffic or just partial for the classification? Because on very high speed links it is very hard to obtain all of the traffic for classification.

Cheers!
Mirko Suznjevic