IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] sce vs l4s comparison plots?

Steven Blake <slblake@petri-meat.com> Tue, 12 November 2019 15:33 UTC

Return-Path: <slblake@petri-meat.com>
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 460DC12006E; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 07:33:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 OyBx5ap_FHoM; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 07:33:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bumble.birch.relay.mailchannels.net (bumble.birch.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.209.25]) (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 3109412006F; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 07:33:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender-Id: totalchoicehosting|x-authuser|slblake+petri-meat.com@pawpaw.tchmachines.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5447A5005A2; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 15:33:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pawpaw.tchmachines.com (100-96-14-250.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.14.250]) (Authenticated sender: totalchoicehosting) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 703C8500D95; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 15:33:40 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: totalchoicehosting|x-authuser|slblake+petri-meat.com@pawpaw.tchmachines.com
Received: from pawpaw.tchmachines.com ([TEMPUNAVAIL]. [208.76.80.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:2500 (trex/5.18.5); Tue, 12 Nov 2019 15:33:41 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: totalchoicehosting|x-authuser|slblake+petri-meat.com@pawpaw.tchmachines.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: totalchoicehosting
X-Tangy-White: 127c6221527a4c19_1573572820916_3194989712
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1573572820916:2045109460
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1573572820915
Received: from [98.122.169.11] (port=47858 helo=tachyon.home.arpa) by pawpaw.tchmachines.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <slblake@petri-meat.com>) id 1iUYAe-0006Iq-BY; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 10:33:32 -0500
Message-ID: <1573572813.20182.3.camel@petri-meat.com>
From: Steven Blake <slblake@petri-meat.com>
To: Dave Taht <dave@taht.net>
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 10:33:33 -0500
In-Reply-To: <87k186z2wr.fsf@taht.net>
References: <742142FB-6233-4048-931B-EE2DD9024454@gmx.de> <87mud4ejl9.fsf@taht.net> <4b67d594-e4fc-92d8-fcdc-8384fcb7286b@tomh.org> <87a7931d1k.fsf@taht.net> <1369738724.1583995.1573472465758@mail.yahoo.com> <87k186z2wr.fsf@taht.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.18.5.2 (3.18.5.2-1.fc23)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-AuthUser: slblake+petri-meat.com@pawpaw.tchmachines.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/Yp-0-q276QqcH6WPVIIyRwo4o34>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] sce vs l4s comparison plots?
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: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 15:33:44 -0000

On Mon, 2019-11-11 at 10:25 -0800, Dave Taht wrote:

> Given that a lot of stuff has moved to a purer software solution,
> slicing, sdn, etc, including switching, I can imagine this would
> move more into software, also - if folk were still producing new
> dsl gear.
> 
> One thing that has always been unclear to me is where
> dsl subscriber software rate limits are enforced. 

In the BRAS. Historically these have been built with quite
sophisticated hierarchical QoS schedulers implemented in custom
silicon. The downstream aggregation switches had tiny buffers and no
meaningful QoS features.


Regards,

// Steve

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email