IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] Doubts regarding motivation of draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-dscp-registry-04

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 08 May 2018 20:46 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 DA1BE12EABF for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 May 2018 13:46:21 -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_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 cp7f5Inq5W3Y for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 May 2018 13:46:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg0-x22e.google.com (mail-pg0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22e]) (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 E41DD12EABB for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 May 2018 13:46:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id m21-v6so21670851pgv.8 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 08 May 2018 13:46:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=FsQc7GDE0bPw9FeUPOFFMCjGZE/fbsMTG5UFTBZ4NiI=; b=Zn3NqTpb8EwdOMawQaYwdSc42QcU0JnUdPajwDvIcOZGNXJrcC8G2dwbSbe2fcIPr0 XMqOGqcnFHerG/aWXRHvWejGLruJsyMAyvuzJ+uGi88ETjm5DO75rnoz/qLQYeMO66S6 z8DXnYtYRAnEhsy/2UEzWjksx61JMrP7T7VWYQXsva627fePqvVyUe5T7wXRRtgtjoqG PQJ+8igO3g0Vt/YcyfcBi85GrMR2ZrpASCK7VX/XCdFshpqrMcF1VIiOLHxwV/a7HzYJ WbtRj7OOAnaIVoA/iMMVhFQMeqZZzB+d/VpYOm6lxRJPfvO2Mnlt2SGwcR2fwImNDDG/ Vs1A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=FsQc7GDE0bPw9FeUPOFFMCjGZE/fbsMTG5UFTBZ4NiI=; b=qc17/weg17k47Ym8jLd027wkYKsqaE1pCp9zNY4ZfSJtmZLtIXeCFlJxXnQ/90IgqJ 2HhDeGfTr8w02lNups6cWOh5F8BvRziPZXsGQYANKVEJ8bM5K3WG8nfRWF7ygrOzJv4I QuPOMettUUb48chSxhwaQHZ/LD18bMHxTGEutErz5iAJ9XrUdAL1CfjHqWmkNFiMUBHg qNNw0lhzY8FdbqAYx4nBLR/abGwCfqZLu1/4AOZhlVsrxKGUQZrh22Tigl8ewNcwZ03t /S/NRij87ibEdxtAyBkaWmWC5pftRQy2uqYztBYacLmoYjCMzU5yVYLLdwye/AWmPiLI Q2TA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tAMjbqWEL+02zktH3hZIyX9m4FecnO48B1jCY8H0eHEaUMMdcPY y43ojWkRnD/6jQMIxraC6digvA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZqmrGxEZNTc30hPYTeDka2iY3lt5x3e0wdeCTLW2vUV3CbM99gFziqX6FRX7OnQ7DWAwPijVg==
X-Received: by 10.98.130.140 with SMTP id w134mr33534069pfd.138.1525812379243; Tue, 08 May 2018 13:46:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.26] (65.21.255.123.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [123.255.21.65]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c87sm1707365pfd.78.2018.05.08.13.46.16 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 08 May 2018 13:46:18 -0700 (PDT)
To: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
Cc: "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>, "gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk" <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, "Bless, Roland (TM)" <roland.bless@kit.edu>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
References: <DB5PR0301MB1909E703CA7C90CBB6E0D5259D9A0@DB5PR0301MB1909.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <ceeabcb5-a66b-8c31-f094-4c37d617acd8@kit.edu> <DB5PR0301MB190945262AFB792AA5A1CE629D9A0@DB5PR0301MB1909.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949363010E8FF@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <DB5PR0301MB1909A75D64FF631A8C2C12729D9A0@DB5PR0301MB1909.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <6df5ae09-3a4e-2b34-05ba-d935c92afe0f@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 08:46:17 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <DB5PR0301MB1909A75D64FF631A8C2C12729D9A0@DB5PR0301MB1909.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/CyHcpO0zmH8x73zBDo-VpkKtKm4>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Doubts regarding motivation of draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-dscp-registry-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: Tue, 08 May 2018 20:46:22 -0000

On 09/05/2018 02:55, Alexander Vainshtein wrote:
> David,
> Lots of thanks for a very detailed explanation.
> 
> Coming back to my original doubt, , changing the IANA allocation policy on Pool 3 (16 values) in order to make just one value standard still looks an exaggeration to me. 
> What are we going to do with the remaining 15 values? 

To be honest, probably nothing. Having as many as 6 bits to select a per-hop
behaviour has always seemed like a lot (and led to rather complex solutions
such as 4 distinct AF classes each with 3 drop precedences).

However, if somebody ever came along with a need for a very large number
of local-use PHBs, there's nothing to stop them using Pool 3, since
all DSCP values are RECOMMENDED anyway, except for CS0-7. 
(Paragraph 3 at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2474#page-8 )

This is the irony of having misused CS1 for LE - it's one of the few code
points that is truly mandated by RFC2474.

    Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email