Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps)
Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Wed, 24 March 2021 15:33 UTC
Return-Path: <gorry@erg.abdn.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 612323A2EB7 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 08:33:27 -0700 (PDT)
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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 guCVXFkDO9tl for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 08:33:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk [137.50.19.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDFA23A11C4 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 08:33:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from GF-MBP-2.lan (fgrpf.plus.com [212.159.18.54]) by pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BFF861B000FF; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 15:33:19 +0000 (GMT)
To: Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de
Cc: tsvwg@ietf.org
References: <HE1PR0701MB2299CB5A933F0C4BCB121F70C2639@HE1PR0701MB2299.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <8C9A54B1-8ACF-461E-B8F1-A6ED240870B5@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <145B3C2A-86CC-40ED-9F3B-7DE80D64D150@gmail.com> <f1ad733bde4cbc8da6bccac7a7535b805fff86e9.camel@heistp.net> <6cfad69b-dba8-609a-7f65-b24afcf17df1@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <MN2PR19MB404550070C30B6B314B5A2C083639@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <5832d95c-454d-3bb3-3b25-adf47747ef45@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <FRYP281MB01127FA1395F5CD82E3B76E79C639@FRYP281MB0112.DEUP281.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
From: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <c350d7e2-3fce-81c6-6e01-1f90eaf22e56@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 15:33:19 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <FRYP281MB01127FA1395F5CD82E3B76E79C639@FRYP281MB0112.DEUP281.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-GB
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/bQr-cLHrajLPFa9uNx4F5kSwLcc>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps)
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: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 15:33:27 -0000
On 24/03/2021 15:04, Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de wrote: > Hi Gorry, Hi > My take was that a CDN or content owner might be interested in L4S and start experiments without asking operators for co-operation. Sure. So in this case, bottlenecks in that operator network could then receive ECT(1) traffic and not expect this. > Then innocent bystanders may get hit and a specified DSCP might allow for protection. The bystanders are those impacted by a "CE-marking from a non-L4S router" that is congested, but where the other traffic responds using L4S. Is this any different to the first operator not forwarding the ECT(1) codepoint? I do wonder if this proves a real problem whether the community might deprecate CE-marking of ECT(0) in non-L4S devices, I wonder in future how much hardship this would cause, especially if L4S were to be widely deployed. > An operator testing L4S is likely able to find an environment where L4S doesn't create harm. A DSCP isn't required for such an experiment and if the operator desires to use one, standardization isn't a requirement, I guess. True, if an operator really wanted to use a DSCP, they could use a private one. I think that operator would be better likely to decide to differentiate on the ECN codepoint. > > Regards, > > Ruediger Thanks, Gorry > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: tsvwg <tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org> Im Auftrag von Gorry Fairhurst > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. März 2021 14:57 > An: Black, David <David.Black@dell.com>; Pete Heist <pete@heistp.net>; tsvwg@ietf.org > Betreff: Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) > > On 24/03/2021 13:53, Black, David wrote: >>> The interaction with DSCPs was revisited in 2018 >>> (draft-briscoe-tsvwg-l4s-diffserv-00), after RFC8311 enabled such a >>> deployment experiment using ECT(1). That which explains how the two >>> approaches interact, how they can be arranged to complement each >>> other and in which cases one can stand alone without needing the other. >> My recollection is that this draft was not taken forward due to lack of interest at the time. >> >> Thanks, --David > True, the discussion of Diffserv goes has to date gone in cycles - with few (if any) operators stepping-up and saying that they would like to deploy L4S with a DSCP. > > Gorry > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: tsvwg <tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Gorry Fairhurst >> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2021 8:47 AM >> To: Pete Heist; tsvwg@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) >> >> >> [EXTERNAL EMAIL] >> >> So injecting a little more history here. >> >> Some previous discussions are: >> >> The earliest discussion of L4S in the IETF that I recall was in 2015. >> When discussing, it was known that RFC4774 would allow experimentation >> with a diffserv domain (e.g., as in RFC 6660), but the practicalities >> of deploying an end-to-end Internet transport required an RFC to use a >> method that was not protected by a DSCP. The discussion on whether the >> ECN Plus a Diffserv Codepoint (DSCP) was also noted in the appendix of >> draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id-00 in 2015. R >> >> Tradeoffs that lead to using ECT(1) were described in the proposal to >> the AQM working group in draft-briscoe-aqm-dualq-coupled-00 in 2015. >> >> The interaction with DSCPs was revisited in 2018 >> (draft-briscoe-tsvwg-l4s-diffserv-00), after RFC8311 enabled such a >> deployment experiment using ECT(1). That which explains how the two >> approaches interact, how they can be arranged to complement each other >> and in which cases one can stand alone without needing the other. >> >> Gorry >> >> On 24/03/2021 11:01, Pete Heist wrote: >>> I'll just add to the sentiment that I think the use of DSCP is still >>> worthy of consideration. Beyond the use of a single DSCP on all >>> traffic, there may be other alternatives that address at least some >>> of the concerns in B.4. >>> >>> Pete >
- [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Black, David
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Holland, Jake
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Steven Blake
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Ingemar Johansson S
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Jonathan Morton
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Jonathan Morton
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Pete Heist
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Kyle Rose
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Black, David
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Ruediger.Geib
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Pete Heist
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Ruediger.Geib
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Jonathan Morton
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Ruediger.Geib
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Pete Heist
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Jonathan Morton
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Jonathan Morton
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Steven Blake
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Kyle Rose
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Jonathan Morton
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Martin Duke
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) C. M. Heard
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Pete Heist
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Ingemar Johansson S
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Jonathan Morton
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Ingemar Johansson S
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Jonathan Morton
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Ingemar Johansson S
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Jonathan Morton
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Steven Blake
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Jonathan Morton
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Ingemar Johansson S
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Ingemar Johansson S
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) alex.burr@ealdwulf.org.uk
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Jonathan Morton
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Pete Heist
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Rodney W. Grimes
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Jonathan Morton
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Jonathan Morton
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Wesley Eddy
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Jonathan Morton
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Steven Blake
- Re: [tsvwg] [on-list again] [offlist] L4S DSCP (w… Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] [on list again] [offlist] L4S DSCP (w… Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] [on list again] [offlist] L4S DSCP (w… Ingemar Johansson S
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Wesley Eddy
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Wesley Eddy
- Re: [tsvwg] [on list again] [offlist] L4S DSCP (w… Black, David
- Re: [tsvwg] [on-list again] [offlist] L4S DSCP (w… Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tsvwg] [on list again] [offlist] L4S DSCP (w… Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) alex.burr@ealdwulf.org.uk
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Jonathan Morton
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) Martin Duke
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps) C. M. Heard