Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions
Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> Thu, 07 November 2019 21:04 UTC
Return-Path: <moeller0@gmx.de>
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 CDB7E1209AD
for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 13:04:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.348
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.348 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001,
URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
header.d=gmx.net
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 3hoZfWlUDlkh for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Thu, 7 Nov 2019 13:04:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B072112096F
for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 13:04:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net;
s=badeba3b8450; t=1573160647;
bh=O55X91UAi0OjL+C7gv8ey8BGYpZUgByU+cgqUgYY1fE=;
h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To;
b=PB7SqEOYN0/LDD2f9/PNombJAhogp9gsUg6Pug6bPkjKyCJ7aUZw21AY4kXy4ggxU
/E/z1m8Gv7jPR95naVtA6JPzmpJiXzbUbX0CNdKRLJNfXPcLJI3w7j3tJSFjS0Imch
yCGNsZ4ZKmdvjY10rCXuJRq1CRO9SBetkAd9EP3s=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from hms-beagle2.lan ([77.6.79.205]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx105
[212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MLQxX-1iC78v3YzD-00IT7q; Thu, 07
Nov 2019 22:04:07 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR19MB4045169789DF1C145D4EE57983780@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 22:04:02 +0100
Cc: Greg White <g.white@CableLabs.com>,
tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <37226E5A-B892-4988-9C2A-4719377C1E6A@gmx.de>
References: <90ED003C-CC25-4ED4-90D8-BA572E39D852@gmx.de>
<AC0FF00A-9AA7-4582-8F96-1E4E27AEB8D8@cablelabs.com>
<20DE8A61-AD71-4C60-A90E-1CCB22E3C6BE@gmx.de>
<MN2PR19MB4045003442DB1E7643C96DD083780@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
<B5BE8F47-9B0D-456E-8804-1D159875AA53@cablelabs.com>
<4E3EC8B5-6A0B-46A8-A273-943FAB389E7D@gmx.de>
<MN2PR19MB4045169789DF1C145D4EE57983780@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
To: "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:TVDsmOsnrbs4gw6kJsMbuFp4hXbqQZYNKE9kM5SSaHxWRp+oPLF
Hk4IEFVSAutfWI02YQZCZ6u2On2vjb/Ya53TKjaNkPqDXhPV4cJTY7LBrreGnCji2FUb3HP
ERv3ZzgBo1SzQn/iWxcT/SrQ/fehSlzkv9PMRpG5s/LKxU77fnJQpuSH9fkevsbi3BJ4MN+
xvdnGHBh4gAXE5bUb8Ebw==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:cM6k/ugfDhE=:IenQMReWtoTwmW8AcJY/n5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=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/NlXu1pls5efIcihm443fXYAobKA>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions
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: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 21:04:22 -0000
Hi David, > On Nov 7, 2019, at 22:00, Black, David <David.Black@dell.com> 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 <moeller0@gmx.de> >> 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 <g.white@CableLabs.com> 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" <David.Black@dell.com> 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 <tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org> 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 <g.white@CableLabs.com> 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- >>>> bounces@ietf.org on behalf of moeller0@gmx.de> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >
- [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions Greg White
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions Black, David
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions Greg White
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions Black, David
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions Greg White
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions Greg White
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions Dave Taht
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions Greg White
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions Greg White
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions Greg White
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions Greg White
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions Greg White
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions Black, David
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions Black, David
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions Black, David
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions Greg White
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions Black, David
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions Black, David
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions Greg White
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions Black, David
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions Greg White
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions Black, David
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions Greg White
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions Ruediger.Geib