Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions

[Sebastian Moeller <[e-mail]>]

Hi David,


> On Nov 7, 2019, at 22:00, Black, David <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>>> BTW, just to avoid confusion, I'm reading your "strong +1" to be solely
>> about adding warnings/advice in case the "final SHOULD" is not implemented
>> (and similar, for other SHOULDs in the draft as well).   
> 
> That's correct.

	Regarding my point, what is the purpose of adding SHOULDs that for all means and purposes are impossible to see quantitatively implemented, even if the consequences are well discussed?

Sebastian


> 
> Thanks, --David
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sebastian Moeller <[e-mail]>
>> Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2019 3:53 PM
>> To: Greg White
>> Cc: Black, David; tsvwg IETF list
>> Subject: Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions
>> 
>> 
>> [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Nov 7, 2019, at 21:36, Greg White <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Noted, and I agree that it is important.  I'll write some appropriate warning
>> text.
>>> 
>>> BTW, just to avoid confusion, I'm reading your "strong +1" to be solely
>> about adding warnings/advice in case the "final SHOULD" is not implemented
>> (and similar, for other SHOULDs in the draft as well).   You also quoted some
>> text from Sebastian which was factually incorrect (that an AP complying with
>> the SHOULD is NQB aware).
>> 
>> 	[SM] Are you talking about:
>> 
>> "In order to preserve the incentives principle, WiFi systems SHOULD
>>   configure the EDCA parameters for the Video Access Category to match
>>   those of the Best Effort Access Category."
>> 
>> in the context of non NQB-aware APs? How feasible di you think it will be to
>> expect all deployed APs to have the AC_VI EDCA parameters changed to
>> comply with this recommendations, especially in the light that almost no APs
>> actually offer to configure these parameters at all? Does it really make sense
>> to propose a SHOULD that is known to be almost impossible to actually
>> implement in virtually all existing APs?
>> I guess I must be misunderstanding you here, because the remedy for
>> (arguably) misusing a prioritization system can not really be "disable the
>> priority system", color me confuzed.
>> 
>> Best Regards
>> 	Sebastian
>> 
>> 
>>> I'm assuming you weren't "+1" on his conclusions from that, but correct me
>> if I'm wrong.
>>> 
>>> -Greg
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 11/7/19, 1:02 PM, "Black, David" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>   I wanted to strongly +1 this portion of the discussion:
>>> 
>>>>> The final SHOULD is intended to address your concern about
>> prioritization
>>>> (since it results in segregation without prioritization).
>>>> 
>>>> 	[SM] Ah, in that case the AP needs to be be NQB aware anyway,
>>>> would it then not be better to use an appropriate scheduler/AQM in front
>> of
>>>> the AC_BE queue and keep all traffic in the same priority class? The
>>>> disadvantage of setting AC_VI to the same EDCA values as AC_BE is then
>> that
>>>> applications that expect an airtime access boost from using AC_VI will not
>> get
>>>> it any more (not necessarily a deal-breaker but certainly unexpected
>> enough
>>>> to merit clear communication of that side-effect).
>>>> 
>>>>> Absent this requirement (or the ability to comply with it operationally),
>> the
>>>> operator would need to consider (and perhaps limit) which applications
>> are
>>>> allowed to be marked as NQB.  This aspect isn't discussed in the draft, but
>> I
>>>> will add it based on your input.
>>>> 
>>>> 	[SM] Great! I would guess the safest would be to have the NQB-
>>>> aware scheduler in an AP apply some (proportional) rate-limiting if NQB
>>>> traffic is getting preferential air-time access.
>>> 
>>>   This is an example of a good thing to do with all uses of "SHOULD" - at
>> least warn about the risks and/or consequences of not following the
>> "SHOULD" (or "SHOULD NOT"), and (even better) provide some advice on
>> staying out of serious trouble in that case (as will be done here).
>>> 
>>>   Thanks!, --David
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: tsvwg <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Sebastian Moeller
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2019 3:59 AM
>>>> To: Greg White
>>>> Cc: tsvwg IETF list
>>>> Subject: Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Greg,
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Nov 5, 2019, at 01:28, Greg White <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Sebastian,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Interoperability with existing WiFi equipment is an important aspect,
>> since
>>>> WiFi latency can be considerable. By default, many existing APs only
>> support
>>>> 4 priority queues, and thus it is not possible to meet all of the
>> requirements
>>>> of the NQB PHB (at least in this default configuration).
>>>> 
>>>> 	[SM] I agree the question is how to deal with that "impedance
>>>> mismatch".
>>>> 
>>>>> Nonetheless, it is possible to utilize two of the four queues in order to
>>>> meet some of the requirements, and thus provide some of the benefits
>> of
>>>> the NQB PHB.
>>>> 
>>>> 	[SM] Unless you opt for selecting AC_BK for the NQB traffic, for most
>>>> users the value of NQB will be mostly in the priority boost on wifi and the
>>>> resulting air-time access advantage (which results in both lower latency
>> and
>>>> potentially higher bandwidth).
>>>> 
>>>>> With proper configuration and/or policies, this can be done safely.
>>>> 
>>>> 	[SM] Sure, I am concerned about the status quo wich does not entail
>>>> "proper configuration and/or policies", and hence I believe the NQB
>> special
>>>> treatment on WIFI should be opt-in and not "opt-out" (in quotes as most
>>>> endusers will not be able to opt-out). For thid reaon I believe that the
>>>> proposal to use a code point that by default is mapped to AC_BK is the
>> only
>>>> correct solution (as a bonus it seems that such a code point also has a
>> better
>>>> chance to survive transit over the internet). NQB-aware APs then simply
>>>> treat that NQB-codepoint however they want. If for example a priority
>> boost
>>>> is desired such an AP can easily implement the required rate-limiting so
>> that
>>>> AC_BE traffic does not get starved out. In short, I fully agree that special
>>>> treatment requires "proper configuration and/or policies" and the
>> desirable
>>>> strategy if that can not guaranteed should be "do no harm".
>>>> 
>>>>> The final SHOULD is intended to address your concern about
>> prioritization
>>>> (since it results in segregation without prioritization).
>>>> 
>>>> 	[SM] Ah, in that case the AP needs to be be NQB aware anyway,
>>>> would it then not be better to use an appropriate scheduler/AQM in front
>> of
>>>> the AC_BE queue and keep all traffic in the same priority class? The
>>>> disadvantage of setting AC_VI to the same EDCA values as AC_BE is then
>> that
>>>> applicatons that expect an airtime access boost from using AC_VI will not
>> get
>>>> it any more (not necessarily a deal-breaker but certainly unexpected
>> enough
>>>> to merit clear communication of that side-effect).
>>>> 
>>>>> Absent this requirement (or the ability to comply with it operationally),
>> the
>>>> operator would need to consider (and perhaps limit) which applications
>> are
>>>> allowed to be marked as NQB.  This aspect isn't discussed in the draft, but
>> I
>>>> will add it based on your input.
>>>> 
>>>> 	[SM] Great! I would guess the safest would be to have the NQB-
>>>> aware scheduler in an AP apply some (proportional) rate-limiting if NQB
>>>> traffic is getting preferential air-time access.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Network operators understand the value of segregating NQB traffic on
>> WiFi
>>>> links, and will almost certainly select a DSCP in practice that achieves that
>>>> goal.
>>>> 
>>>> 	[SM] That is exactly part of my concern with the default mapping to
>>>> AC_VI approach, I expect that very quickly a lot of traffic will utilize the
>> AC_VI
>>>> queue potentially starving normal AC_BE traffic in the process.
>>>> 
>>>>> Assigning a different DSCP in this draft would do nothing to prevent
>> them
>>>> from doing so.
>>>> 
>>>> 	[SM] Sure, but is that really a good justification for proposing a DSCP
>>>> with known side-effects? As far as I am concerned an RFC should propose
>>>> sane defaults and hope for the best.
>>>> 
>>>>> Instead, what we need to do is clearly articulate how to make best use
>> of
>>>> the existing WiFi tools, and how to avoid conflicts.
>>>> 
>>>> 	[SM] I believe the last two are mutually exclusive...
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> In existing RFCs, the IETF already recommends that video conferencing
>>>> applications mark their traffic as either AF4x or CS4, all of which get
>> mapped
>>>> to AC_VI.  The remaining language in the NQB draft describes sparser
>> flows
>>>> than these.
>>>> 
>>>> 	[SM] as an implementer I read "relatively low data rates", without
>>>> further guidance I have very little intuition what to use as reference.
>> Could
>>>> this be made more explicit? This is orthogonal to the question whether
>> such
>>>> a limit should be enforced in any way, here the question really is about
>>>> getting a feel what is considered acceptable for NQB treatment.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Based on your comments, I attempted to remove all text that could be
>>>> interpreted as recommending that high-data-rate traffic be marked NQB.
>>>> 
>>>> 	[SM] Thanks, as long as the aggregate NQB traffic is relative sparse
>>>> compared to the available WiFi bandwidth (or the number of tx_ops)
>> most of
>>>> my WiFi concerns get less and less relevant. To be explicit, I do not object
>> on
>>>> principle to using AC_VI or even AC_VO as long as this does not eat
>>>> significantly into the tx_ops for AC_BE, the current draft improves  in that
>>>> direction. Would it be possible to make this point even stronger?
>>>> 
>>>>> It appears that I missed one instance (in the Introduction it gives
>>>> "interactive voice and video" as an example). Aside from this (which I can
>>>> correct), I think the draft currently recommends that NQB only be used
>> for
>>>> sparse traffic.  That said, the section where this guidance is intended to be
>>>> given is still lacking in specificity, and poses some open questions that may
>>>> need to be addressed in a subsequent revision.
>>>> 
>>>> 	[SM] Sounds great. Now this then cycles back to one of the other
>>>> open topics, "enforcement". Ideally NQB-aware APs should monitor both
>>>> queues and re-assign flows between them based on flow-behavior in
>>>> relation to time-variant bandwidth experienced by that flow.
>>>> 
>>>> Best Regards
>>>> 	Sebastian
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>> Greg
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 11/4/19, 3:25 PM, "tsvwg on behalf of Sebastian Moeller" <tsvwg-
>>>> [e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>  Regarding https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-
>>>> nqb/?include_text=1
>>>>> 
>>>>>  7.3.  WiFi Networks
>>>>> 
>>>>>     WiFi networking equipment compliant with 802.11e generally
>> supports
>>>>>     either four or eight transmit queues and four sets of associated EDCA
>>>>>     parameters (corresponding to the four WiFi Multimedia Access
>>>>>     Categories) that are used to enable differentiated media access
>>>>>     characteristics.  Implementations typically utilize the IP DSCP field
>>>>>     to select a transmit queue, but should be considered as Non-
>>>>>     Differentiated Services-Compliant Nodes as described in Section 4 of
>>>>>     [RFC2475].  As a result this document discusses interoperability with
>>>>>     WiFi networks, as opposed to PHB compliance.
>>>>> 
>>>>>     As discussed in [RFC8325], most existing implementations use a
>>>>>     default DSCP to User Priority mapping that utilizes the most
>>>>>     significant three bits of the DiffServ Field to select "User
>>>>>     Priority" which is then mapped to the four WMM Access Categories.
>> In
>>>>>     order to increase the likelihood that NQB traffic is provided a
>>>>>     separate queue from QB traffic in existing WiFi equipment, the 0x2A
>>>>>     codepoint is preferred for NQB.  This would map NQB to UP_5 which is
>>>>>     in the "Video" Access Category.
>>>>> 
>>>>>     Systems that utilize [RFC8325], SHOULD map the NQB codepoint to
>>>> UP_5
>>>>>     in the "Video" Access Category.
>>>>> 
>>>>>     In order to preserve the incentives principle, WiFi systems SHOULD
>>>>>     configure the EDCA parameters for the Video Access Category to
>> match
>>>>>     those of the Best Effort Access Category.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>  [SM] This last section is puzzling: if the wifi system configures AC_VI
>> with
>>>> EDCA parameters that match the AC_BE parameters, AC_VI ceases to be
>>>> different from AC_BE, in that case picking a codepoint that automatically
>>>> maps to CS0 and hence to AC_BE  seems much safer, simpler and straight
>>>> forward to me.
>>>>>  Especially since essentially none of the millions deployed WiFi APs out
>>>> there will a) have this configured like proposed already and b) none of the
>>>> consumer APs I know actually allow to easily adjust EDCA parameters at
>> all. I
>>>> guess I must be missing something and would be delighted to be shown
>> why
>>>> the proposed text is the right thing.
>>>>>  My take on this still is, if NQB traffic is sufficiently sparse using AC_VI
>> can
>>>> be justified, but without any rate limits this has the potential of being
>> quite
>>>> unfair to concurrent APs on the same channel (as well as the neighboring
>>>> channels that overlap with the selected).
>>>>>  I do not want to sound alarmist, but given the number of cable-ISP
>> WiFi-
>>>> APs (as indicated by a SSID containing the ISPs name) in my city, I believe
>>>> making sure that those APs will not basically start hogging most airtime
>>>> seems the prudent thing to do. If there are sufficient backstops in place
>> (like
>>>> rate limiting or automatic down-marking if the traffic is not sparse
>> enough) to
>>>> avoid the described situation, I am all for it.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  The text probably should also openly discuss that in WiFi/WMM the
>> four
>>>> available queues by design have different priorities, and by moving NQB
>> out
>>>> of the default AC_BE while leaving QB flows in there, this effectively runs
>>>> against  the following text in the draft: "The NQB queue SHOULD be given
>>>> equal priority compared to queue-building traffic of equivalent
>> importance."
>>>> (leaving alone the question how an AP or a station is supposed to
>> measure
>>>> importance)
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>  Sebastian
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>