Re: [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosmarking-01.txt
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 11 November 2014 03:41 UTC
Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 0F3621AD525 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 19:41:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 I2PXj4h1oYmw for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 19:41:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22a.google.com (mail-wg0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DB2E1AD523 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 19:41:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f42.google.com with SMTP id k14so10475241wgh.15 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 19:41:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=4uBh5+fXnMfzSRL8MstV1el8adke8Zkv1hAvoANvVic=; b=gHBT4b6A+CLrBryWrHXh8Y/WY3lGD6AMCypRly47de1PE5W5orvsEBHNgChkjqAuIy zMtLrfis//0ZMWGNkVZa+ou1Mp1Gwo3GDeUma8gKK7YXA3rVGMnWVbFx5nfWdKAinpP3 M47hSgpRrUYGHEJV8urDjdqdF43jx4r+4vjHLP6KXiQuhjv7Yzd/mHq3FaEYfJea0Otx 3S75CjXZGvlEGp61yKQYvtVGvXnWCrg+yJKzxG3XOAI9ZJidqpPXTNeTenf/DS29TmTW pz/Wec7kCRr3KqoVfjt0a4vrq0bZY0NdesxnhvE+Z9KXmn4Vf5UbJD0vR/B9VX1xJl1t iVMg==
X-Received: by 10.194.52.68 with SMTP id r4mr50252760wjo.82.1415677264655; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 19:41:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [31.133.163.84] (dhcp-a354.meeting.ietf.org. [31.133.163.84]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id f9sm25510799wjw.31.2014.11.10.19.41.02 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 10 Nov 2014 19:41:04 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <5461854F.3020305@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 16:41:03 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosmarking@tools.ietf.org
References: <20141110200919.27869.2915.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20141110200919.27869.2915.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/sQ7M3c8-WwEg25sIfnYxx0TjZ2E
Cc: tsvwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosmarking-01.txt
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 03:41:08 -0000
[resend with corrected address, sorry]
Hi,
> The first three bits (bits 5-7) are precedence bits. They are
> assigned according to [RFC0791]. Precedence values '110' and '111'
> are selected for routing traffic.
>
> The last three bits (bits 8-10) are class selector bits. Thet are
> assigned as follows:
>
> 001 - BK or background traffic
...
> As can be seen the markings are the same as in IEEE 802.1p...
This is not in any way compatible with RFC 2474, which also made the
relevant part of RFC 791 obsolete.
If you want to be compatible with RFC 2474 you should not specify the
bits at all - just say that they are exactly as defined in RFC 2474
and the various PHB definitions that have been published. If you
want to be compatible with IEEE 802.1p that is a different matter,
but you cannot mix the two up in this way.
Brian
- Re: [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosm… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosm… Black, David
- Re: [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-xia-nvo3-vxlan-qosm… Brian E Carpenter