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

[Roland Bless <[e-mail]>]

Hi Brian,

On 21.11.2017 at 14:38 Brian Trammell (IETF) wrote:
>> On 17 Nov 2017, at 04:04, Roland Bless <[e-mail]> 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.

Thanks for investigating this. DSCP 46 is EF and DSCP 1 and 5 are
local-use right now. So this is IMHO a weird behavior. Given the
small percentage, I don't see real problems here.

Regards,
 Roland


>> - 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
>>
>