Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps)

[Kyle Rose <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 8:30 AM De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> I understood the goal of your proposal. But before diving into the details
> of a DiffServ-based proposals, I'm taking a step back asking: Is using
> DiffServ an option at all.


Why wouldn't it be? The point of the proposal AIUI is to require networks
to take action to explicitly opt-in to this experiment. Given the DiffServ
bleaching that occurs by default at network boundaries, operators that take
no action will not find themselves ambushed by novel behavior.

This approach allows for experimenting with ECT(1) as a classifier in a
safe (contained, time-limited) way, thus allowing a path toward universal
deployment (i.e., removing the DSCP guard) if the experiment is successful
without requiring standardization and rollout of end-to-end DiffServ. And
it does so (a) without permanently burning the ECT(1) code point if the
experiment fails, and (b) in an opt-in manner that greatly reduces the
potential for unintended side effects on classic traffic.

This seems to me like the obvious path toward consensus on an experimental
deployment aimed at gathering real-world experience without first
committing to something unproven.

Kyle