Re: [tsvwg] Planned update of draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb

"Brian Trammell (IETF)" <ietf@trammell.ch> Tue, 21 November 2017 13:38 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@trammell.ch>
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 63F8E1201F8 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 05:38:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 RTflz0VPvR3r for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 05:38:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gozo.iway.ch (gozo.iway.ch [212.25.24.36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88F97126D3F for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 05:38:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gozo.iway.ch (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F0B5340551; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:38:14 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ACF/18338.29992); Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:38:14 +0100 (CET)
Received: from switchplus-mail.ch (switchplus-mail.ch [212.25.8.236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gozo.iway.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:38:13 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [195.176.110.247] (account ietf@trammell.ch HELO public-docking-etx-1196.ethz.ch) by switchplus-mail.ch (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.1.18) with ESMTPSA id 36732681; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:38:13 +0100
From: "Brian Trammell (IETF)" <ietf@trammell.ch>
Message-Id: <8263E3A1-F304-4C64-89B2-031779FB4FC1@trammell.ch>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_998B5033-37BE-400E-933B-8E0BA1239266"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:38:12 +0100
In-Reply-To: <f6846a8c-71fe-c7c6-86b8-e27d7b6a7c12@kit.edu>
Cc: Roland Bless <roland.bless@kit.edu>
To: tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
References: <f6846a8c-71fe-c7c6-86b8-e27d7b6a7c12@kit.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/6rN_iHq9Pmjx1Kh2t3EciNXfvtI>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Planned update of draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb
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: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 13:38:22 -0000

> On 17 Nov 2017, at 04:04, Roland Bless <roland.bless@kit.edu> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> as just stated in the session, I plan to update draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb
> to version 3 with at least the following changes:
> 
> - Update the DSCP recommendation to pick a DSCP from Pool 3 (XXXX01),
>  either 1 or 5 (technical feedback on that appreciated).

For what it's worth, a student of ours, Michael Walter, is running some measurements on this just now. I'm waiting for a more detailed report from him, but in preliminary results using a Tracebox-like methodology on ~200k paths from a DigitalOcean node show that packets marked DSCP 46 are rewritten to DSCP 1 on about 300 paths, and to DSCP 5 on about 700 paths. So DSCP 1 seems preferable to DSCP 5 on a "not used in the Internet" sense, but both seem to be used on O(1e-3) paths.

Cheers,

Brian

> - Update to RFCXXXX (right now draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11):
>  put in a section (similar to section 6) that describes
>  changes to that RFC. To be clear here:
>  draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11 should not be updated, it should
>  proceed to RFC as is. draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb, however, would
>  add changes to that RFC, e.g.,
>   +---------------+------+---------+-------------+--------------------+
>   | Low-Priority  | LE   | RFC(LE) |     1       | AC_BK (Background) |
>   |     Data      |      |         |             |                    |
>   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
>  It is, however, not clear to me whether to replace the existing
>  mapping or to add it.
> - remove the LE-min, LE-strict discussion as it seems to be ok
>  recommending a LE transport (e.g., LEDBAT++) on top if one wants
>  LE-strict semantics.
> 
> Regards,
> Roland
>