IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] draft diffserv-intercon: Handling of a scavenger class / CS1

<Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de> Fri, 26 June 2015 07:22 UTC

Return-Path: <Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6B3B1B34AD for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 00:22:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.46
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.46 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 pXmiqP2hbGtP for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 00:22:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tcmail23.telekom.de (tcmail23.telekom.de [80.149.113.243]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C2B31B2FDD for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 00:22:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from q4de8psa169.blf.telekom.de ([10.151.13.200]) by tcmail21.telekom.de with ESMTP; 26 Jun 2015 09:22:34 +0200
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,683,1427752800"; d="scan'208";a="857697602"
Received: from he113656.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.99.16]) by q4de8psazkj.blf.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 26 Jun 2015 09:22:32 +0200
Received: from HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM ([10.134.93.12]) by HE113656.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.99.16]) with mapi; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 09:22:32 +0200
From: Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de
To: swmike@swm.pp.se
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 09:22:31 +0200
Thread-Topic: [tsvwg] draft diffserv-intercon: Handling of a scavenger class / CS1
Thread-Index: AdCv2pMMpF6TNAe0QlmDDy7p3AkmrwAAZ/Eg
Message-ID: <CA7A7C64CC4ADB458B74477EA99DF6F505290F292B@HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM>
References: <CA7A7C64CC4ADB458B74477EA99DF6F50513613DD9@HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1505291422130.9487@uplift.swm.pp.se> <5568CF68.9020406@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1505292256170.9487@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CA7A7C64CC4ADB458B74477EA99DF6F505136148FE@HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949360B3798B8@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com> <5580C588.9070008@gmail.com> <538a059f43eb8a2c2bd42453de21d6f2.squirrel@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1506260829330.9487@uplift.swm.pp.se>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1506260829330.9487@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/bRpyFrXm89-s3ZJXqrSI75-NRKM>
Cc: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk, tsvwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] draft diffserv-intercon: Handling of a scavenger class / CS1
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 07:22:51 -0000

Hi Mikael,

I've asked my colleagues visiting RIPE and NANOG meetings for Diffserv Interconnection related contacts, but feedback was limited. I guess there's some truth in what you say - developers and more so operational staff hardly participates in IETF work.

If you are aware of DiffServ Interconnection related agreements of NANOG please let me know. I think there's nothing discussed by RIPE.

You wrote:

   It would also be interesting to hear from equipment vendors, especially 
   ones that make BNGs, which kind of bleaching functionality is available 
   in existing equipment. Is it possible to just bleach precedence bits 
   on most platforms? I'd imagine it is, but it would be interesting to know.

Bleaching of "Ip precedence bits" is not within scope of Diffserv Intercon and it will stay out of scope (it is an informational draft and it cannot and is not supposed to change standards).

Carrier representatives interested in a standard allowing to remark, say, ranges of DSCPs (bleaching by precedence is bad wording) should collectively draft a suitable document. I guess, if at all, this is only picked up by standardization if a significant number of provider representatives express interest. If you know some more provider representatives willing to co-author such a draft, please let me know. 

I've had some text related to the issue in very early versions of the draft. 

Regards,

Ruediger

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email