IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] residential broadband BCP PHB and CP treatment Re: CC/bleaching thoughts for draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-04

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Mon, 23 April 2018 09:42 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 A26131201FA for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 02:42:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 XI-9TdBJmloY for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 02:41:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (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 1B5D91200A0 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 02:41:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id B5414AF; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 11:41:57 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1524476517; bh=xCiONGFhExh0gU9Gu+1DFJuZmEa3SS7mv80ol0WczwE=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=cqsZXiNt6s1o9OBS+lUlBGAEYB/odVxJKI2rV6hfbrtCEfTUYbVX1zDvV8Aizg1B4 sJ/inxVHAxcGacGoZc/xBt6AjvKsLkxT/gNRslaOtHx8oxqRMzVmyPJH0gR2nx9Fyu qhrNYtJOXtLzyNT81lq85vVmXI7kp1YErP9I018E=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id B338B9F; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 11:41:57 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 11:41:57 +0200
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de
cc: tsvwg@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <LEJPR01MB1033F2AB7F4E80F1777636F29C890@LEJPR01MB1033.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1804231138440.18650@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <20180406160344.xwfqgzhzfto56jhq@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <20180410090033.xkwsyfbfardg4pwx@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <ddac784e-3a88-c82d-0ed5-3816bffa2d72@gmail.com> <20180412023305.6nwyoway2m2exy2c@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <LEJPR01MB10334C794BDA7E125917576E9CBC0@LEJPR01MB1033.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1804190826550.18650@uplift.swm.pp.se> <adf6493b-45fd-9d0c-70f5-5d343cad22dd@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1804200635060.18650@uplift.swm.pp.se> <LEJPR01MB103305081F93A808ED0AF7159CB40@LEJPR01MB1033.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1804200849320.18650@uplift.swm.pp.se> <LEJPR01MB10338267E78F2107698C70BF9CB40@LEJPR01MB1033.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1804201458270.18650@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D24327794936300EBB0F@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1804210739060.18650@uplift.swm.pp.se> <LEJPR01MB1033F2AB7F4E80F1777636F29C890@LEJPR01MB1033.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/Mq3Sa3s54ioil8i9exMUtVKu7p4>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] residential broadband BCP PHB and CP treatment Re: CC/bleaching thoughts for draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-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: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 09:42:01 -0000

On Mon, 23 Apr 2018, Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de wrote:

> [RG] RFC8100 is about deployment of end-to-end PHBs in the presence of 
> DSCP remarking. Do I get that correct, you propose end-to-end DSCPs to 
> support local or endpoint PHB deployment?

I feel like what my wife probably feels when she says "3G" and means 
"mobile data" and I correct her (I stopped doing that).

I have no idea what you just said if that's what I want.

> [RG] draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos is restricted to home-networks, 
> residential networks and local wireless networks. It says "There are 
> cases where these DSCP markings do not help, but, aside from possible 
> priority inversion for "less than best effort traffic" (see Section 5), 
> they seldom make things worse if packets are marked appropriately." And 
> later " WebRTC use of multiple DSCP values may encounter network 
> blocking of packets with certain DSCP values." Are you suggesting any 
> changes to that?

No. That text seems fine.

> [RG] Interestingly, DSCP 46 / EF is the one next to default which can 
> almost be linked to end to end standard PHB and DSCP - if sender and 
> receiver have a service agreement in place. That holds for Germany 
> (public telephony, L3 VPNs, business and wholesale products, wireless 
> and IP sections of wireline packet transport).

This is exactly why I proposed to send it into the DSCP 2-63 queue instead 
of being sent into BE or LE queues.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email