[tsvwg] [Fwd: Re: Traffic protection as a hard requirement for NQB]

[Steven Blake <[e-mail]>]

Resending because for some reason this didn't reach the tsvwg list.

// Steve

--- Begin Message ---

On Fri, 2019-09-06 at 19:53 +0000, Greg White wrote:
> [GW] comments below
Greg,
I don't know how to reconcile any of this below with the text of your
draft (specifically Secs. 1 & 3), which talks about low-bandwidth
applications, specifically those over UDP. Are you contending that the
sum of these adds up to a significant fraction of traffic on any link?
> 
> 
> From: > tsvwg <[e-mail]> on behalf of Steven Blake <[e-mail]>
> 

> 
> 
>  
> 

> 
> 
> The objective as I understand it is to offer low queueing latency to non-admissioned-controlled/non-capacity-seeking traffic (NQB). First, this is only feasible if NQB traffic is naturally self-limiting to a small
>  fraction of total traffic (e.g., < 5%). Second, existence of this NQB service should not noticeably impact the QoS of capacity-seeking (QB) traffic. Third, implementations of this NQB service should try to ensure that capacity-seeking traffic trying to utilize
>  the NQB service gets worse service with very high probability (so that it doesn't even bother to probe).
> 

> 
> 
>  
> 

> 
> 
> [GW] If the WRR weight is 0.5 for each queue, then it is feasible for the NQB PHB to provide low queueing latency to NQB traffic up to 50% of the total link capacity (and more than 50% when QB traffic is not filling up the other 50%). 
> 

That claim is technically false. You cannot achieve 100% utilization on
any link (or link slice) at low queueing delay for uncoordinated, non-
admissioned controlled traffic. I'll bet you cannot find a carrier
anywhere that allocates 50% (or even 20%) of capacity on their metro or
long-haul networks to admissioned-controlled & tarriffed EF traffic. So
I don't see them doing so for non-admissioned controlled/non-tarriffed
traffic.

> 
>  
> 
> [GW] On the second point, you are correct, the existence of the NQB
> service will not noticeably impact the QoS of capacity-seeking QB
> traffic.  For example, if the NQB traffic did happen to be smooth
> traffic (CBR) at exactly 50% of link
>  capacity, then with NQB, the QB traffic flows have 50% of link
> capacity to compete with each other for. Let’s say that competition
> results in (e.g.) 0.1% packet drop/mark.  On the other hand, without
> the NQB service, and in the presence of the same CBR flow,
>  the capacity-seeking traffic flows similarly compete for the
> remaining 50% of link capacity, and settle in to the same 0.1% packet
> drop/mark rate (yet the CBR flow is unfortunately also subject to
> high queuing delay as well as 0.1% drop if the link doesn’t
>  support ECN).  Well, being picky, if the link didn’t support ECN
> then I guess the capacity seeking traffic would compete for 50.1% of
> link capacity without the NQB PHB, as opposed to 50% with the NQB
> PHB, but I would argue that isn’t a “noticeable impact”.
If I am writing a capacity seeking application, and I believe that
there is a lightly utilized link slice of 20%-50% of capacity where I
can grab more than my fair share, I would be highly tempted to setup
two connections, one-NQB marked and one not, and let them each grab as
much capacity as possible. Which benefits my app until everyone else
does the same, and then we are back to square one.
> 
> [GW] On your third point, I agree in concept, and it is an aspect that we’ve discussed privately several times.  At the end of the day, we could not convince ourselves of an appropriate “punishment” for mismarked QB traffic, other than
>  high packet loss in the case where QP is not implemented or potential for out-of-order delivery when QP is implemented.
> 
>  
> 
> Given this, using a WFQ-ish scheduler with a high NQB scheduler weight to achieve low latency is the wrong hammer to hit this nail, IMHO. A small queue by itself is insufficient to prevent capacity-seeking traffic
>  from trying to grab that large & isolated share of capacity. If I were implementing this (and only this) I would consider putting NQB traffic in a bounded strict priority queue, feeding it priority credits at say 2-4% of link capacity. I would also put a policer
>  in front of that queue set at a rate of 4-6% link capacity, with a large enough token bucket to let small NQB bursts through. That is a very simple implementation, available in lots of existing hardware, that achieves the stated objectives. 
> 

> 
> 
>  
> 
> [GW] But priority isn’t necessary, and it results in the need for limitations on NQB bandwidth.  For example, in your implementation, what would happen when the arrival rate at the link is only 20% of link capacity but all of it is NQB? 
>  I guess the policer would unnecessarily discard a large percentage of that traffic. 
> 

> 
>  
> 

> 
> 
> DoS-ing NQB traffic in this implemention is "easier" than DoS-ing it in your proposed scheduling approach, but a targeted NQB DoS attack will have less impact on capacity-seeking traffic, and DoS-ing residential
>  access links using only best-effort service is already a thing, so I'm not sure it really matters.
> 

> 
> 

> 

> 

> 
> 
> 
> 



How do you estimate how much NQB traffic there mi




Regards,

// Steve

--- End Message ---