IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk> Tue, 01 August 2017 07:33 UTC

Return-Path: <tim.chown@jisc.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 830E3132A17 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Aug 2017 00:33:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.321
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.321 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=jisc.ac.uk
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 vwP5mAnm4xVV for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Aug 2017 00:33:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eu-smtp-delivery-189.mimecast.com (eu-smtp-delivery-189.mimecast.com [207.82.80.189]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0E81132A1A for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Aug 2017 00:33:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jisc.ac.uk; s=mimecast20170213; t=1501572824; h=from:subject:date:message-id:to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:references; bh=1qDTyH9wYLuo7faI2ICs9UpAGiegCzxf81/zOgzkws0=; b=Vn/wUM6GpDXiLtrdGP4OnhpCByPuvuGLMGLjvNEVi4UW5XwIKEJ1e5zAmGNMkzIURcbkY03XkzuCtqf4R9kQ70x3XaU0ckgxZfPDlN8NwxqtYIa1DVnjFOIFJe6JAInAxk0SEsP9ZxHN6rNMXC8k69HmbE1qDOUkhy/RgPEryUo=
Received: from EUR02-AM5-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-am5eur02lp0152.outbound.protection.outlook.com [213.199.180.152]) (Using TLS) by eu-smtp-1.mimecast.com with ESMTP id uk-mta-24-RGhAfRf9OEGM0XFN7NlpQQ-1; Tue, 01 Aug 2017 08:33:40 +0100
Received: from AM3PR07MB1140.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.163.188.14) by AM3PR07MB260.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.242.17.156) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.1.1304.10; Tue, 1 Aug 2017 07:33:39 +0000
Received: from AM3PR07MB1140.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::b8a2:fb24:484f:ba3]) by AM3PR07MB1140.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::b8a2:fb24:484f:ba3%13]) with mapi id 15.01.1320.010; Tue, 1 Aug 2017 07:33:38 +0000
From: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
CC: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>, "Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de" <Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de>, "gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk" <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, "roland.bless@kit.edu" <roland.bless@kit.edu>
Thread-Topic: [tsvwg] COMMENT PLEASE: Which DSCP value should we use for LE PHB?
Thread-Index: AQHS92Kl1ri+DvfXuU2Ope9bkqrAk6JIEb4AgAAFrYCAAJ4pgIACg0cAgACbsYCAAAkhgIAADh6AgAAYQgCAAJFhAIAA00EAgAjBVYCAAK90gIAXOLgQgAA8IACAADlBgIAAuqQA
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2017 07:33:38 +0000
Message-ID: <DBFC7FA5-2735-4D8C-BE9D-3E152040CDE9@jisc.ac.uk>
References: <595F4D19.9030502@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <011e5fb5-6c83-bb38-e2cb-7fced2cb774a@kit.edu> <595F6F4F.20005@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <a97e114c-ca99-f0a3-76e6-784377a5fbe3@gmail.com> <C02205CB-7324-4C06-82CE-C8DA7D686F48@jisc.ac.uk> <74717821-30ae-203b-197b-2455cbf9d4a3@gmail.com> <66425AFB-A929-4A91-90F8-432F4FAE0520@jisc.ac.uk> <daf2d2c4-8a64-7cb3-ac80-3a46903f58f0@kit.edu> <b242faea-a3ca-6d5f-2eb3-85a9a08a6ea9@gmail.com> <59633402.9020907@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <d193232f-f28f-02a2-1171-53d6f0d4bf7b@gmail.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362FB76819@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <50f4b157-425e-a2cc-a924-5dd02345adef@gmail.com> <505f03a57bd4481b832bc22340c37316@HE105654.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <BCF1D707-549C-4F6A-B493-BB5CA24A3E1F@gmail.com> <7af582df-6c55-a835-8156-50c9f322e4e9@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7af582df-6c55-a835-8156-50c9f322e4e9@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
x-originating-ip: [2001:a88:d510:1101:3d25:de87:64aa:5fc9]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; AM3PR07MB260; 20:apYtCT7QTXjblNGeYoup4epXuQZ3/yU2RHN5EszCsZhf8S6T3hB2mK01wI3rRzZuBLxlZPznFHmuRmfANyx7GTqZ7vCj3sS6cXrCj1mp4IeNdI0qZ2Vm7IB+4UgbNZeno0p9Vvf6Mfjhb13v6orxsiJtVXke7ycA6mzC1jo7IVA=
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 7813c08e-e791-4bb5-d0c4-08d4d8afa07d
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(300000500095)(300135000095)(300000501095)(300135300095)(22001)(300000502095)(300135100095)(2017030254152)(300000503095)(300135400095)(2017052603031)(201703131423075)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(300000504095)(300135200095)(300000505095)(300135600095)(300000506095)(300135500095); SRVR:AM3PR07MB260;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: AM3PR07MB260:
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(120809045254105);
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <AM3PR07MB260B28F5117EA055BA6A6FDD6B30@AM3PR07MB260.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000700101)(100105000095)(100000701101)(100105300095)(100000702101)(100105100095)(6040450)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(93006095)(93001095)(3002001)(100000703101)(100105400095)(6041248)(20161123558100)(20161123564025)(20161123562025)(201703131423075)(201702281529075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123555025)(20161123560025)(6072148)(100000704101)(100105200095)(100000705101)(100105500095); SRVR:AM3PR07MB260; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000800101)(100110000095)(100000801101)(100110300095)(100000802101)(100110100095)(100000803101)(100110400095)(100000804101)(100110200095)(100000805101)(100110500095); SRVR:AM3PR07MB260;
x-forefront-prvs: 0386B406AA
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(39410400002)(39450400003)(39400400002)(39840400002)(377454003)(24454002)(199003)(189002)(81166006)(3660700001)(81156014)(8676002)(36756003)(8936002)(50226002)(6306002)(54906002)(5250100002)(99286003)(33656002)(6512007)(53936002)(305945005)(7736002)(6436002)(6916009)(42882006)(2950100002)(53546010)(6486002)(6116002)(102836003)(2900100001)(229853002)(86362001)(105586002)(106356001)(6246003)(6506006)(74482002)(14454004)(82746002)(5660300001)(57306001)(72206003)(25786009)(3280700002)(93886004)(2906002)(97736004)(189998001)(68736007)(39060400002)(50986999)(110136004)(76176999)(38730400002)(478600001)(4326008)(83716003)(101416001)(966005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:AM3PR07MB260; H:AM3PR07MB1140.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-ID: <A98DB09234C2BD46834599BCEC3C4FFE@eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: jisc.ac.uk
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 01 Aug 2017 07:33:38.9090 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 48f9394d-8a14-4d27-82a6-f35f12361205
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM3PR07MB260
X-MC-Unique: RGhAfRf9OEGM0XFN7NlpQQ-1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/Qsi503wWjYq3xDMa6UUX5Wn2xWI>
Subject: Re: [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: Tue, 01 Aug 2017 07:33:51 -0000

> On 31 Jul 2017, at 21:25, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 01/08/2017 05:00, Fred Baker wrote:
>> 
>>> On Jul 31, 2017, at 6:34 AM, Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de wrote:
>>> 
>>> DSCP 000001 might be an option. No other IETF recommended DSCP is re-marked to this one. It is to some extent RFC4594 compatible and RFC8100 could cope with it if default transport is applied. 
>> 
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2474#section-6 indicates that 000001 is experimental/local use, available for standards allocation only as necessary. 
> 
> "We RECOMMEND that the DSCP value(s) of the
> unsupported service class be changed to 000xx1 on ingress and
> changed back to original value(s) on egress..."
> 
> That is a local use within a domain, completely compatible with both
> pools 2 and 3 which are both defined as for local use. So 000001
> is really not suitable for standards track recommendation, until
> pool 1 is full.
> 
>> Pool 1 is 32 code points, of which I believe 20 are in use (figure 3 of RFC 4594). I'd rather not dip into pool 3 unnecessarily. Is there another option?
> 
> 000010 is just fine. Why are we still discussing this?

The concern expressed in Prague was that a number of assigned code points may get bleached to 2. And that such bleaching is common enough that it would never be eradicated.

See slide 4 of https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/materials/slides-99-tsvwg-sessb-31measurements-concerning-the-dscp-for-a-le-phb

Not saying I agree with that, but that’s why we are still discussing it.

Tim

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email