IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] residential broadband BCP PHB and CP treatment Re: CC/bleaching thoughts for draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-04

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Mon, 23 April 2018 11:44 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 332DB127871 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 04:44:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 5mfKK5cK8jnu for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 04:44:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (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 AFD80126CC4 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 04:44:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 3795AB0; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 13:44:24 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1524483864; bh=2r1All+CayDHkbzhzvMPlhrt/iGU54RedoOoMzstuqk=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=c6BOj4MfyM8UoCzp5MSOmTD2Uhq4WRrv4M3w04lW0/pOHlxmbOk6kK2WXO7/Jei/U /Z5R0LHIGgKlzzMRJEL49rMzdp0istH8Igtq+wMpML7uEhU9RumKtdNWFCp28bCVdw pfpyc7Fsz8sKbBk5q5obbtlXKvaGvwsCbU4qx9C0=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35933AF; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 13:44:24 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 13:44:24 +0200
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de
cc: tsvwg@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <LEJPR01MB10337F46B7A06BB9805D5CDA9C890@LEJPR01MB1033.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1804231333360.18650@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <20180406160344.xwfqgzhzfto56jhq@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <LEJPR01MB10334C794BDA7E125917576E9CBC0@LEJPR01MB1033.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1804190826550.18650@uplift.swm.pp.se> <adf6493b-45fd-9d0c-70f5-5d343cad22dd@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1804200635060.18650@uplift.swm.pp.se> <LEJPR01MB103305081F93A808ED0AF7159CB40@LEJPR01MB1033.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1804200849320.18650@uplift.swm.pp.se> <LEJPR01MB10338267E78F2107698C70BF9CB40@LEJPR01MB1033.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1804201458270.18650@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D24327794936300EBB0F@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1804210739060.18650@uplift.swm.pp.se> <LEJPR01MB1033F2AB7F4E80F1777636F29C890@LEJPR01MB1033.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1804231138440.18650@uplift.swm.pp.se> <LEJPR01MB10337F46B7A06BB9805D5CDA9C890@LEJPR01MB1033.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/a3OaeSoEqSN7o0WJ_2z2qOtLyO0>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] residential broadband BCP PHB and CP treatment Re: CC/bleaching thoughts for draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-04
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: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 11:44:30 -0000

On Mon, 23 Apr 2018, Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de wrote:

> Mikael,
>
> and it's not easier for me to understand your discussion.

Let me try some schematics for a simplified network that's pertinent to 
what I want to achieve:

INTERNET<-1->PEERING ROUTER<-2->CORE ROUTER<-3->BNG<-4->HGW<-5->COMPUTER

1. This link connects the ISP to the Internet (peers, IXes, transit)
2. This link connects core/peering routers to each other.
3. This link connects core to BNG.
4. This link connects the residential access to HGW (DSL/PON/P2P eth/DOCSIS)
5. This link connects devices within the home (wifi/ethernet)

I want to document recommendations regarding PHB and CP (re-)mapping that 
can be done egress/ingress on 1 (peering router ingress/egress), 4 (BNG 
ingress/egress), 4(HGW ingress/egress) and 5 (HGW/hosts egress/egress, 
RFC8325) most likely based on IP level information such as DSCP.

In my experience it's very common that todays behaviour is to set CP=0 
ingress on 1 (peering router ingress) and 4 (BNG ingress) and PHB is all 
BE. This is what I want to change.

It can involve setting MPLS EXP/802.1p information based on DHCP CP (link 
2 and 3, potentially 4), but that's up to the individual ISP what they 
want to do (I am not interested in recommending values for that).

Does this help?

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email