Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps)
Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Fri, 26 March 2021 17:15 UTC
Return-Path: <martin.h.duke@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 CAECE3A2369 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 10:15:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 ryWYM82J7ajp for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 10:15:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x12d.google.com (mail-il1-x12d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12d]) (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 677703A21FB for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 10:15:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x12d.google.com with SMTP id c17so5628717ilj.7 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 10:15:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=KpSKABx02gNmK2OSAqNlx0Z2HqGacyxzgSViAF+x/qI=; b=PmpMGJNYUIVS/z7ANs3X9ScitotmRL2oHgpPGbH1y5YItWJqGGQAnib6MoMfvXHVOy NVRA3EKLWQyCUmlURhkDJFneuncCSxph/5Cbq69amKig71lOZm9aXImHYgKL+VMOjSHw 613W5QWpPOwh3tA8ou6gyICsXTl7j9GnFI4gOYcLfXUz5IWPCGdAt+Po6oAglXbZGObL /U51pc1A+mLPIV4mRXlULdrDrD0tODdG4Sa2aMvxlEKZUEog7mKhQPEgvqvfvD4WAYjV P/dodcb5n6WR6h+WzoI++bi3gWwaNg7XQask8m+oc5HWbWMhMUKWupxLJ0YXJQezn0x5 /E8A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=KpSKABx02gNmK2OSAqNlx0Z2HqGacyxzgSViAF+x/qI=; b=cZ/A/vk+xptTzddPgBhauQwKsDxEDwGGzXRBlvYy80/THJN8c4SrugRLONuegELu7/ evMxV2bllAZ6a1qeLuW9UJUzTVvxxTQToUbv2LHOfqhGBouc4EZpXK2ITKRlS9GrFpyR 2Ju3QSBz2oy7M1wRL9mI4aBxJLYSM2XxCuFosX24RCHM+tIpWVzG732YFlmZ0XU/l0dU 3kgbsprQHcbk78fkxrImiFvuzVVaVSZB11YQraNjb9hTIrSXK5X8ljiEEG8Zm9S8V+KU DyVBgNgYIZ1Ss3KpDDN/jOMqRkedlIa18TD/hkOD1rNgIwg3R3OdwrolBA4ojDJUi5kz Eg+A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532Nw6hA3edEijxTQM4oCy9V/7AaHKd+6wPC31ykGlOiiE2TxFAv Dz8JdaytmIdVybXpUXWrdtlyT6v6ABNiEsQ+tpQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyU5Bx/M+do7kIfuFcPr3ChC0ZWtca1RIrIrPeVOMZHVOdp+LDVkNSW+EJ50E1fFfmeJH6vsTyGy8mXfkTO80g=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:db50:: with SMTP id w16mr2933526ilq.287.1616778917834; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 10:15:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <MN2PR19MB404527384A1B1DD9CFC2A3D983659@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <6f0ac4bf-bd1a-65cd-1d40-a97d4aa71aab@bobbriscoe.net> <7B4426F9-E1C5-4F88-A264-0D54C809D523@gmail.com> <AM8PR07MB74761AFC8F5BE0F9573DFF32B9629@AM8PR07MB7476.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <6481E606-2458-49D7-B580-8DF7B93494FD@gmx.de> <AM8PR07MB747675E421F0B7A6246C67BEB9619@AM8PR07MB7476.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <9A9D4AC3-43F0-4778-839B-E1E247A3C5FA@gmx.de> <AM8PR07MB7476026EA3AA7AD49622B296B9619@AM8PR07MB7476.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <76BB09A0-E385-48C2-810A-A1E48811188C@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <76BB09A0-E385-48C2-810A-A1E48811188C@gmail.com>
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 10:15:06 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM4esxTSZW6DzVFxkB37A7yg8MqKXRjMDUF79UEK8=2pcy3W8w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
Cc: "De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <koen.de_schepper@nokia-bell-labs.com>, Bob Briscoe <in@bobbriscoe.net>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000013f4aa05be73ad52"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/qosIqFlvjo9ZPKYoTzF1V8ZmI6g>
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: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 17:15:24 -0000
Speaking as an individual, Bob has identified all of the problems with using DSCP for L4S. Among them is running L4S through a tunnel. Another axis of discussion was changing the L4S signal to be ECT(1)->ECT(0) and preserving the CE signal (thread: [1]), which comprehensively solves the coexistence issues. But this fell down, partially because of the (needless) RFC6040 tunnel decap behavior, which will revert any outer-header changes. There are some other problems, of course, they don't affect bystanders and I don't see them as likely to be fatal. Honestly, if we're going to break L4S in tunnels anyway, I would just as soon break it with the semantic change and not take all the other DSCP baggage that Bob describes. We could even bis the mistake in 6040 so that "eventually" the needless behavior goes away. This is not a statement in favor of 1->0 marking. It is a statement that if the WG is going to insist on a DSCP to ship this design, I would prefer 1->0 over that. Sorry to complicate the discussion. Martin [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/TDMKRyH9E6zho6VkiXDYes7FZK0/ On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 7:00 AM Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 26 Mar, 2021, at 2:30 pm, De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) < > koen.de_schepper@nokia-bell-labs.com> wrote: > > > > I understood the goal of your proposal. But before diving into the > details of a DiffServ-based proposals, I'm taking a step back asking: Is > using DiffServ an option at all. I don't believe so (see other reply to > Steve's mail related to the reason for deployment). > > > > As a second step after this, "IF" using DiffServ is an option, then L4S > and SCE can get married and we can benefit from both. > > In recent days I have put forward two distinct ways to use Diffserv in > this context, both of which I believe are workable. The one I prefer is of > course the one involving SCE-type signalling rather than L4S-type > signalling; it consumes fewer DSCPs and has fewer failure modes. > > In the SCE context, Diffserv is useful for three things: > > 1: Protection of early experimental deployments. This is temporary. > > 2: Enabling dual-queue AQMs to perform SCE classification and signalling. > > 3: Allowing SCE AQMs to distinguish SCE and non-SCE traffic embedded in > the same tunnel. > > SCE itself is compatible with existing dumb FIFOs, policers, dropping > AQMs, and RFC-3168 AQMs both single and multi-queued, without the > assistance or need for any Diffserv mechanism. Most SCE AQMs will probably > have AF or FQ functionality to ensure good compatibility with conventional > traffic. > > Diffserv is strictly an enhancement to SCE, which can be deployed in those > contexts which benefit from it. The CDN -> ISP -> subscriber path is an > ideal context for deploying a coherent Diffserv system. I think that > dovetails very nicely with the technical needs of DOCSIS Low Latency. > > - Jonathan Morton >
- [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