[tsvwg] operational feedback regarding draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-04

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Fri, 06 April 2018 07:06 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 8C107124234 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Apr 2018 00:06:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 txT6Nq_tkN3O for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Apr 2018 00:06:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9CAC124207 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Apr 2018 00:06:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 49E9EB1; Fri, 6 Apr 2018 09:06:46 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1522998406; bh=aa2kdwLwlebCPmttQkddv/pCmUALlMT9VUFWdC4i4dE=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:From; b=mIRYZeMhSlu31+rioeFnPqy1+mGf6Oc5j1srEhbn0dHXrX3HHYaTcU4aZmnT8N9Wx hRLJk0gOQi42zQsz1W34mVnk9OLCwgDk7p5cZIknw2Yt98A1/PNvJeYZ2BzOieBSf0 hErQVnMBgilx1blaUg1xuo7Lk8K11iYuUkKIGSLA=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 474FBB0 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Apr 2018 09:06:46 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2018 09:06:46 +0200
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: tsvwg@ietf.org
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1804060854370.18650@uplift.swm.pp.se>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/3LZx6D07za7ttasVpSU6PVCx_3A>
Subject: [tsvwg] operational feedback regarding draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-04
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 06 Apr 2018 07:06:50 -0000

Hi,

I have asked people in the operational community what they think about 
this proposal, and the little feedback I have received so far has been 
that one person thought CS1 should be used instead, others have said that 
000001 seems fine. In the process of this there have been patches proposed 
for ssh which historically has been using TOS:

https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=152251266032032&w=2

So it seems to me that there are applications out there that are using 
IPTOS_THROUGHPUT and IPTOS_LOWDELAY, in use today.

I found this in a header file:

/*
  * Definitions for IP type of service (ip_tos)
  */
#define	IPTOS_LOWDELAY		0x10
#define	IPTOS_THROUGHPUT	0x08
#define	IPTOS_RELIABILITY	0x04

So trying to figure out what bits go where, right-shifting two times and 
trying to not get this wrong (I frequently have gotten it wrong, but let's 
try again):

IPTOS_LOWDELAY      DSCP 000100
IPTOS_THROUGHPUT    DSCP 000010
IPTOS_RELIABILITY   DSCP 000001

So does this mean that the new LE DSCP CP maps to IPTOS_RELIABILITY?

Anyhow, I have also asked the RIPE Atlas team if they can do some 
measurement about bleaching in todays networks, seeing if there is any 
difference in bleaching for 000001 (LE) and 001000 (CS1).

I will also ask around and see if there is anyone with sFlow dumping from 
a major IX that can tell me what DSCP code points they see in the wild, 
and if I can get a summary. Or has this work already been done so I don't 
need to?

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se