[tsvwg] Diffserv for interconnection
"Black, David" <david.black@emc.com> Sat, 24 November 2012 22:51 UTC
Return-Path: <david.black@emc.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 BB20E21F84BB for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Nov 2012 14:51:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.454
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.454 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.145, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aScljcBU6QOs for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Nov 2012 14:51:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (hop-nat-141.emc.com [168.159.213.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CD0C21F84B9 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Nov 2012 14:51:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hop04-l1d11-si02.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI02.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.55]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id qAOMpa0Y012216 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Nov 2012 17:51:36 -0500
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhubhoprd02.lss.emc.com [10.254.221.253]) by hop04-l1d11-si02.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor) for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Nov 2012 17:51:20 -0500
Received: from mxhub04.corp.emc.com (mxhub04.corp.emc.com [10.254.141.106]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id qAOMpKDc014285 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Nov 2012 17:51:20 -0500
Received: from mx15a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.120]) by mxhub04.corp.emc.com ([10.254.141.106]) with mapi; Sat, 24 Nov 2012 17:51:19 -0500
From: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
To: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 17:51:19 -0500
Thread-Topic: Diffserv for interconnection
Thread-Index: Ac3KljebdjQRdxroSiOKNiDbMqMC/A==
Message-ID: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE71284D3FF1B@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-EMM-MHVC: 1
Subject: [tsvwg] Diffserv for interconnection
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 22:51:39 -0000
Hello - this is your new tsvwg co-chair again, with <co-chair hat on>. The Atlanta tsvwg minutes are at: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/minutes/minutes-85-tsvwg This message is about my second action item, on use of Diffserv for network interconnection. Excerpt from the minutes (explanation below): --------------- Topic: interconnect liaison with ITU-T - (James Polk) describing set of code points (?) for the interconnection of core providers. - (Gorry Fairhurst) asks if we should make a new set of recommendations for a particular interface. - (David Black) thinks we should. As Chair, he asks the room if we should work on this? The room (by show of hands) indicates yes. So we'll put this on the list (Joel Halpern) thinks we don't need to do anymore at this meeting. We should state "this is an interesting problem, and we should do something about this" --------------- So the immediate question is what was "this" in Joel's comment? The short answer is that it's slide 6 in this set of slides: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides/slides-85-tsvwg-8.pdf The rationale for doing "this" is also on that slide - it's basically scaling/reuse of configuration, so that a carrier or operator can apply a single diffserv configuration to interconnections with multiple other networks. Also see draft-geib-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon-00 . The item that I recall asking about was whether the IETF should work on a single set of recommended diffserv behavior (PHBs) and codepoints (DSCPs) for use in carrier interconnection? The sense of the room in Atlanta (as noted in the minutes) was that the IETF should work on this, with details of how to do that TBD - in particular there was no assumption about the relationship of this work to RFC 5127 on aggregation of Diffserv Classes (e.g., if undertaken, this new work may or may not be carried out by revising RFC 5127). If anyone disagrees with the sense of the room in Atlanta, now would be a good time to speak up. If the sense of the room in Atlanta is confirmed, the next action is for me to work through the ITU-T SG12 liaison (primarily the draft of y.qosmap) and consult with Ruediger about what makes sense before bringing a proposal for what to do back to this list. Thanks, --David ---------------------------------------------------- David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 david.black@emc.com Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 ----------------------------------------------------
- [tsvwg] Diffserv for interconnection Black, David
- Re: [tsvwg] Diffserv for interconnection Ruediger.Geib
- Re: [tsvwg] Diffserv for interconnection mohamed.boucadair
- [tsvwg] Diffserv for interconnection and RFC 5127 Black, David
- Re: [tsvwg] Diffserv for interconnection Ruediger.Geib
- [tsvwg] Diffserv for interconnection - Atlanta "h… Black, David
- [tsvwg] RFC 5160 and Diffserv for interconnection Black, David