Re: [tsvwg] [rtcweb] STUN DSCP and draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos

Mirja Kuehlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@ericsson.com> Wed, 31 July 2019 09:22 UTC

Return-Path: <mirja.kuehlewind@ericsson.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 485CC120154; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 02:22:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ericsson.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 zreCda_aLRk0; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 02:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EUR04-DB3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr60074.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.6.74]) (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 788DD120096; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 02:22:00 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=EC0N5zKZEBEPEHce0O+xppOIfaw73SfYX/cah3eA47GmqDSu4scQD9jMOISZ2WZOHHdJnDlarPEQxAUbfKXCNAncprozqwgixCV0FBv3bZW3/RbpticUYMjOhfIM6EdQOgsrVtuxLLJBABNzwidLIbCrN4/iPLtSUPB1Hf0H1z4L07MWAGlqSlK67MnlZu6jwmXxXUwcPJSopKUpUgfh0G/1D5yojPW3BPAQ1i4065Pkk1KWP/TceH25Ex5IoGTiMJ9Fx1DAIDXwEjRLgsifuTL+ckmfOxGnYytwLorYdrphi78wvfTOsf1Wnf14A2AMBEWw8Bkzl1+Zwt6uprr4Lw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=7XhssAMP1LzT5jM2pkMIqFKXwLsWSrmsR+5ZeFlGcNI=; b=CO/580sRc2sw2/OjIPL3kZE+zfo+C2JIuRtb4u9M/qNRdBkCDp9Qfiwyt+ed4E+ArlhwsmAgRXIzzYL+IUf+gd2k0zWGiUcnW77/dvl5xPaDvkYNs0O5OYycjixH59D/RZJWgU663S5PD/5qnSQYodAnKC1jaDkszxCLiMMAp84g18grie7OCEiOzgR+lRwzj1YI78bKw7kP498tYs8YHTvJ8FgBCun7pCIrdkuKYCAp2G4x57QFtnXYqERnhhlgove3EM4iglxSac0sw+PiPPDbA6dpE/N2tVu1uNNBk/aaPdEdMn38ty798LKtkdYTNKxWvPAUkqYtj3VuvJgckg==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1;spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ericsson.com;dmarc=pass action=none header.from=ericsson.com;dkim=pass header.d=ericsson.com;arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ericsson.com; s=selector2; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=7XhssAMP1LzT5jM2pkMIqFKXwLsWSrmsR+5ZeFlGcNI=; b=OOPIFbK9syuXsxbrlc6p+n6o5ReJqGj8s9DfBDqiaQIycVrfmry+NhY5dvoMmE3S02a3FxMReYA8FlYexti9viQZxnFGNAwTXS0CzU2KlCPNZcDeAhh4keEcdbtCysqKdRU2sK2BbfjukLg80docZ3/MjOJ6+jffWEiSWSMq4fA=
Received: from AM0PR07MB4691.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (52.135.149.158) by AM0PR07MB4481.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (52.135.151.10) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2136.11; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 09:21:58 +0000
Received: from AM0PR07MB4691.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::118c:953f:8fb9:9e5]) by AM0PR07MB4691.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::118c:953f:8fb9:9e5%5]) with mapi id 15.20.2136.010; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 09:21:58 +0000
From: Mirja Kuehlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@ericsson.com>
To: "Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de" <Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de>, "juberti=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org" <juberti=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
CC: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [tsvwg] [rtcweb] STUN DSCP and draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos
Thread-Index: AQHVR15RiYmENo5dE0m0G61qgvCbHabkLnmAgAAWJYCAAAK1AIAACmGAgABD44A=
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 09:21:57 +0000
Message-ID: <A9A04BCC-6588-4759-91F4-C25BEF163683@ericsson.com>
References: <EA953E34-51FA-4B17-A0B2-6CF75146A754@contoso.com> <CAOJ7v-3tvxOiP073tE7iUPueZJYy+hSZnyGJznhMekShRbHg4A@mail.gmail.com> <64D66E22-E816-4AC7-8887-9CDC01A3252C@bluejeans.com> <CAOJ7v-2G+w0Luf7OF0xbf+rLOVRHa-QcbWXLmZ+_rLS9wnCA1w@mail.gmail.com> <D36DCE87-8A9E-4D3E-9241-3BA356D1ACFB@bluejeans.com> <CAOJ7v-2o95utN_89-8kDa1ySq3-=4TNfUh4tyyo_adxgorH9XQ@mail.gmail.com> <5D4135E9.90104@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <CAOJ7v-3ZDBniXeqQtmp_7FoZjo+v-dMAikQiRuNeQh5AWO_jJg@mail.gmail.com> <FRXPR01MB0710D9C908354A917443FE6D9CDF0@FRXPR01MB0710.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE>
In-Reply-To: <FRXPR01MB0710D9C908354A917443FE6D9CDF0@FRXPR01MB0710.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-GB
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=mirja.kuehlewind@ericsson.com;
x-originating-ip: [87.123.206.143]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 1f61d657-a24b-41af-49c7-08d715988971
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:AM0PR07MB4481;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: AM0PR07MB4481:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <AM0PR07MB4481B7F87B87FD746A024919F4DF0@AM0PR07MB4481.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 011579F31F
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(136003)(366004)(376002)(346002)(396003)(39860400002)(199004)(189003)(5660300002)(4326008)(8936002)(66066001)(102836004)(6506007)(53546011)(76176011)(486006)(476003)(99286004)(236005)(71200400001)(86362001)(71190400001)(229853002)(256004)(68736007)(446003)(33656002)(6512007)(11346002)(316002)(186003)(26005)(54906003)(110136005)(2616005)(44832011)(66476007)(6246003)(6436002)(36756003)(14454004)(66946007)(66556008)(6116002)(6486002)(64756008)(7736002)(54896002)(76116006)(91956017)(2501003)(6306002)(66446008)(8676002)(2906002)(25786009)(81166006)(53936002)(81156014)(3846002)(478600001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:AM0PR07MB4481; H:AM0PR07MB4691.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: ericsson.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: d2eL0JEppwXjwVFd8SpWaLssMzaahjjgLDJ48/kz7KYIaQYVPe/E98K7Si6zarCkw+9ZL9llI+3q/721Wm7OjgRT51HOLO0BTgjMMZea5Kop2nNO2Ce8igLHMwkU9RDOqykUeVvAaI3dHqwx/4TVollpTL2+/VeBeQpDk1xeW6ImFIWl2II5jZMF91QZYmlYW647SHejCcgFx42PdiG0bTYhAJBfXLQLGZnstRyX65UilHyrpIDeJovDhDdMTsDoAP19ScEtTLHskXSMMTjrHfsV517diqWFAzupa4SKzAk7Z3zFI4KKFqFUzzfPCM6vT0C+l3p0p2Cy/+dVgKHTBublqTfzvBh4WaqwjCC8stqUf79Ms2y9vz36pxhfYl1Er8x8rV3pgEWDoSxNrILU7WVbC+emFBQr+nZva3WRIVg=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_A9A04BCC6588475991F4C25BEF163683ericssoncom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: ericsson.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 1f61d657-a24b-41af-49c7-08d715988971
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 31 Jul 2019 09:21:58.0480 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 92e84ceb-fbfd-47ab-be52-080c6b87953f
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: mirja.kuehlewind@ericsson.com
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM0PR07MB4481
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/HqWM5Z9Ze9n_qQiQveBYxMNFfaA>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] [rtcweb] STUN DSCP and draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos
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: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 09:22:05 -0000

Yes, in measurements we usually see bleaching (not dropping). So it should be tested with the DSCP that is supposed to be used for the webrtc traffic and only tested without DSCP if connectivity for the case with DSCP was not successful.

The case Gorry mentioned, where some DSCP are rate-limited, is a problem but it’s not ICE’s problem (where the C stands for Connectivity).

Mirja



From: tsvwg <tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of "Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de" <Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de>
Date: Wednesday, 31. July 2019 at 09:19
To: "juberti=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org" <juberti=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>rg>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] [rtcweb] STUN DSCP and draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos

The conservative approach is to mark traffic by the default DSCP, especially if there’s no QoS SLA between interconnected providers. I’m not sure how many networks drop traffic with unknown DSCPs. If the solution to this issue is to send traffic with a set of DSCPs to figure out what’s passing, the application should also be able to deal with remarked traffic (which I assume to be a network behavior to be expected).

Regards, Ruediger

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 11:32 PM Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk<mailto:gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>> wrote:
On 31/07/2019, 06:12, Justin Uberti wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:10 PM Matthew Kaufman
> <mkaufman@bluejeans.com<mailto:mkaufman@bluejeans.com> <mailto:mkaufman@bluejeans.com<mailto:mkaufman@bluejeans.com>>> wrote:
>
>     I noted two of particular interest… one is the “network eats
>     DSCP-marked but allows non-marked” case. Arguments go both ways as
>     to what one should do in this case (follow network admin desires
>     vs. work as often as possible).
>
>
Is that a real observed case - that all traffic that sets a specific
DSCP is lost, rather than re-marked?

- There's also an obvious case where a specific DSCP is conditioned
(e.g. rate-limited), which means some packets traverse the path, but a
full media flow will not. However, not sure that observation helps at all.

I can't speak for others, but our experience with deploying DSCP en masse is that there are enough cases where dropping happens to outweigh the prioritization benefits.