[tsvwg] COMMENT PLEASE: Which DSCP value should we use for LE PHB?

Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Fri, 07 July 2017 10:59 UTC

Return-Path: <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
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 C662F126C22 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Jul 2017 03:59:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.751
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.751 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT=1.449, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 3Jc8k9At70Vg for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Jul 2017 03:59:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk [139.133.204.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50B6A126BF6 for <TSVWG@IETF.ORG>; Fri, 7 Jul 2017 03:59:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Gs-MacBook-Pro.local (at-zeroshell-1.erg.abdn.ac.uk [139.133.217.68]) by pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 367701B0C5F0; Fri, 7 Jul 2017 12:30:30 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <595F561F.4050007@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2017 10:36:31 +0100
From: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Reply-To: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
Organization: University of Aberdeen
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: TSVWG@IETF.ORG
References: <595F4D19.9030502@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <595F4D19.9030502@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <595F4D19.9030502@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/N-moeG8buxgWqzqEjAbHMtlkndc>
Subject: [tsvwg] COMMENT PLEASE: Which DSCP value should we use for LE PHB?
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: Fri, 07 Jul 2017 10:59:39 -0000

This email is intended to start a discussion about the most appropriate
DiffServ codepoint to assign to the LE PHB specified in:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-02

The current list of available codepoints is listed by IANA here:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/dscp-registry/dscp-registry.xhtml

The draft currently suggests using the DSCP value 3, '000010'.

Question 1: Is this codepoint a good choice for the TSVWG group to
assign for the LE PHB?

   Things to consider:
     - Is the codepoint currently being used for other (non-standard
applications) that may get in the way of the deployment of the LE PHB?
     - Is there ant evidence that this DSCP value is less likely to be
forwarded than other unused codepoints?
     - Is this codepoint observed in the wild due to common
DSCP-mangling pathologies (such as ToS-byte bleaching)?

Question 2: Is there an alternate unassigned codepint that could be
chosen that would give better opprotunities for deployment?

     Things to consider:
     - A codepoint less than 7 appears to have less chance of
DSCP-mangling pathologies (such as ToS-byte bleaching)
     - IANA currently allocates from pool 1 (xxxxx0), but we could
consider asking to use pool 3 ('xxxx01'), e.g., '000001'or '000101'.

Measurement experience and thoughts on this topic are welcome on the
mailing list ahead of the TSVWG meeting. At this meeting, I would like
to see some discussion confirming the choice of DSCP codepoint or
suggesting a more appropriate codepoint for the working group to request.

Gorry Fairhurst
(TSVWG Co-Chair)