[tsvwg] Naive question about L4S
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 26 July 2019 18:09 UTC
Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10FF0120331 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 11:09:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 QpO9zeU35eqH for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 11:08:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x735.google.com (mail-qk1-x735.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::735]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 473FD120179 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 11:08:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x735.google.com with SMTP id s22so39733037qkj.12 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 11:08:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=to:from:subject:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=BePK5a4qa8c+Z0dgT1fgpIOWj4RbUyJoTM8VkOtIaDw=; b=AkrFPTNIj6zyyNYZ88IVHc3z2ieHk5m972kZ+Do+PWiJD16E1yR6v8Ebvelg0RvNrS mHhGmdLFCTtrN5fPYAqUVqFQON3aYm1eiM0K5HP3/jq/6ztDtXjzc6lwkWQnGqgIlfsp nZpL+ZzOV+aGOzN+ofvLK5uwEOwRdI7TlKgsqA0JojrL4MuS8Aj71VisUFMPM7kh9Xcr sxAYoPmn0YB3eVQIVf8Qj1aNJULjmi1oF8aeGkOx/JDsAwNK+PiMh48W1DGSG1eqkCKc oqqc6YpAzz7KzGAmgZ1g+Byk0MogKO6EBWNJwXndJZOQGrsA9ODmC7ZpwlV2WjnvYT1c D6aQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:to:from:subject:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=BePK5a4qa8c+Z0dgT1fgpIOWj4RbUyJoTM8VkOtIaDw=; b=R1wxEtv8Dj8bWNUdqliXzQGX/GOP1RwIvfYm6eYaO/IX7nadvv3oVAB2OI8h05RSPG KlCAIcShK2W/CLDiA/XTeyUga8hAb2854l4C3uL015k2oBOLB2oAWYeL2WxJywfqisU+ 1C1FnmqlwtfbB6KaL6FfSoLDg767zS5sh7N+1kQhfMXRbMm0jKe0altIKEExlkzN9yUm nypvMohOj4+W+6j3vuu7Y7g19oeSu3H+QBn3OHyIf8KZxXs2k6GRGUYrp28Q9hcPSFu/ OnypFiXC3CSNB8pe7bxFN2jHol5sAAHHJdZCY6aLywzPRRK+cX8wnhr4wNX7mY0wr7Eh 0YOg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUKyL9Ei0IRlc/3wxWS5NUliwGgsHVvQPD3X7Gcac48cIV5s/Ib p7jQ4knszCQYWOUt/sbsymrP0JSi
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy9FgG2fNJle+1r35HBQpPBoJqY0jo8eCQJHwQ2bO5VVRaqF54B0HKIrgP9VgMzkkLhrouB5w==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:15b3:: with SMTP id f19mr62066398qkk.314.1564164538207; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 11:08:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [31.133.129.140] (dhcp-818c.meeting.ietf.org. [31.133.129.140]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h18sm21223987qkj.134.2019.07.26.11.08.57 for <tsvwg@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 26 Jul 2019 11:08:57 -0700 (PDT)
To: tsvwg@ietf.org
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <8fbb93b0-3d40-ddaf-3687-342fc6bc3769@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 06:08:55 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/2N-pCxzENj7xHVJVAxhE9YiBr30>
Subject: [tsvwg] Naive question about L4S
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 18:09:01 -0000
Hi, draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch says: > Therefore, the goal is an Internet service with ultra-Low queueing > Latency, ultra-Low Loss and Scalable throughput (L4S) - for _all_ > traffic. A service for all traffic will need none of the > configuration or management baggage (traffic policing, traffic > contracts) associated with favouring some packets over others. This > document describes the L4S architecture for achieving that goal. That, and some other comments in teh draft, suggests that L4S proponents don't see any value in conventional diffserv. In that case, could the ECT(1) signal be replaced by a pair of DS codepoints (technically a PHB Group in RFC 2474 terminology)? Yes, they'd need to be treated as end2end signals, which would be slightly heretical in RFC2474 terms, but I'm sure we could get round that. Regards Brian Carpenter
- [tsvwg] Naive question about L4S Brian E Carpenter