IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 31 July 2017 20:25 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 A069F132611 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 13:25:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 VzwaKXNzwcIm for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 13:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg0-x22b.google.com (mail-pg0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5639132543 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 13:25:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id v189so13194565pgd.2 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 13:25:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=GVC4kTSf17cGPsk0ffpVwaaUteGSxLYuq0EylAp93eE=; b=FCPZJdh088+A1hT+wMfK9CjhnLYr/7PJnqVtf92RtaMgTZIT+NCCpFu/DYYYICWRDU rokEkr7qlfUesdeZWG1vQlLIWUwwHVpOIz04r1qhbyIY1FK23xgzuSR1zOFsHUa86KKo nxpuQG2jhxDvXLv/c0m6zQIimTh6aNtTK88avF9MgtCno0UOeKsVhJ15oUEAwrpq0QxI DyJMHQbjLfM3jU5DrYiymP6H04+lYlG1vUrjaVaCa2mirOZ55ajVzmeAOvKL4MNSbVjX N0+NfxkLPBQOtNyvuBcMiriS1Q6bKjCpJDQZAjNshSi+KeVyDdKKTSdDbDrBujgVxXIH BT7A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=GVC4kTSf17cGPsk0ffpVwaaUteGSxLYuq0EylAp93eE=; b=borfP4nbYsgon4Tbt43VXEiBmUImlmqUj4/eZoSRIXA0n4fukIXspt1HU/W7o1VU0e hYyzD05+yKF8tNx4eoeFBuP93WCdum05A7BkZJioE4lOMAo1fSJd6oxVpUCyWuUQZ3Q0 DeiqteF1yJ/H6nLhqqoA6EzpBbHcIH5jQlGZX6Tn2+Sdo42B5UPKYat4BthVEEAAXR/z PHd7h066TviEbiSL3jfRFjmeUfSAWSHyV1b15WOSoMMjrg1zQH9hhmZGYfSr7ipPJZ6R 6jZ11yO5sICZNxywDaaybmAma2JXIw/wnqb+SGTSniQXocWpk1DWMmupRb9iiyQGqHmT 3oww==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw1114wu1F9dRhIaNjFDaff4rZYROzaullwt4XGClriUbanTe20jYD ZRNkGZ8heydoe5/O
X-Received: by 10.99.60.83 with SMTP id i19mr16531835pgn.51.1501532742284; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 13:25:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:521f:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:521f:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y12sm49241720pgs.91.2017.07.31.13.25.38 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 31 Jul 2017 13:25:41 -0700 (PDT)
To: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>, Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de
Cc: David.Black@dell.com, gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk, roland.bless@kit.edu, tsvwg@ietf.org
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>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <7af582df-6c55-a835-8156-50c9f322e4e9@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2017 08:25:37 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BCF1D707-549C-4F6A-B493-BB5CA24A3E1F@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/kH7boN6l_GhAqsFF0DrwO0jTJiQ>
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: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 20:25:44 -0000

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?

   Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email