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

"Bless, Roland (TM)" <roland.bless@kit.edu> Fri, 07 July 2017 11:03 UTC

Return-Path: <roland.bless@kit.edu>
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 0452D1294A2 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Jul 2017 04:03:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 XeVLW_uj063G for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Jul 2017 04:03:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de [141.3.10.81]) (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 9D769126BF6 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Jul 2017 04:03:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from i72vorta.tm.uni-karlsruhe.de ([141.3.71.26] helo=i72vorta.tm.kit.edu) by iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtp port 25 iface 141.3.10.81 id 1dTR2y-0002XE-U7; Fri, 07 Jul 2017 13:03:40 +0200
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (ip6-localhost [IPv6:::1]) by i72vorta.tm.kit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2156B001D5; Fri, 7 Jul 2017 13:03:40 +0200 (CEST)
To: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk, tsvwg@ietf.org
References: <595F4D19.9030502@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
From: "Bless, Roland (TM)" <roland.bless@kit.edu>
Organization: Institute of Telematics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
Message-ID: <011e5fb5-6c83-bb38-e2cb-7fced2cb774a@kit.edu>
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2017 13:03:40 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <595F4D19.9030502@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-ATIS-AV: ClamAV (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de)
X-ATIS-Timestamp: iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de 1499425420.989210247
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/oxcMNfhPQG2az12qOao0Y-gxKr4>
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: Fri, 07 Jul 2017 11:03:45 -0000

Hi Gorry,

Am 07.07.2017 um 10:58 schrieb Gorry Fairhurst:
> This email is intended to start a discussion about the most appropriate
> DiffServ codepoint to assign to the LE PHB specified in:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-02
> 
> The current list of available codepoints is listed by IANA here:
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/dscp-registry/dscp-registry.xhtml
> 
> The draft currently suggests using the DSCP value 3, '000010'.

I think it is DSCP value 2.

> Question 1: Is this codepoint a good choice for the TSVWG group to
> assign for the LE PHB?
> 
>   Things to consider:
>     - Is the codepoint currently being used for other (non-standard
> applications) that may get in the way of the deployment of the LE PHB?

Currently, nothing should be using a non-assigned Standard DSCP.
I really don't like these discussion along the lines of: oh, probably
there are some standard-ignoring boxes/apps out there, so lets try to
work around their broken design. So, yes, it's probably good to know,
but IMHO it's better to get this other stuff fixed rather than to always
create workaround.

>     - Is there ant evidence that this DSCP value is less likely to be
> forwarded than other unused codepoints?
>     - Is this codepoint observed in the wild due to common DSCP-mangling
> pathologies (such as ToS-byte bleaching)?
> 
> Question 2: Is there an alternate unassigned codepint that could be
> chosen that would give better opprotunities for deployment?

>     Things to consider:
>     - A codepoint less than 7 appears to have less chance of
> DSCP-mangling pathologies (such as ToS-byte bleaching)
>     - IANA currently allocates from pool 1 (xxxxx0), but we could
> consider asking to use pool 3 ('xxxx01'), e.g., '000001'or '000101'.

I don't see any compelling reason to start using another pool right now.

> Measurement experience and thoughts on this topic are welcome on the
> mailing list ahead of the TSVWG meeting. At this meeting, I would like
> to see some discussion confirming the choice of DSCP codepoint or
> suggesting a more appropriate codepoint for the working group to request.

Thanks for triggering the discussion.

Regards,
 Roland