IETF Logo Mail Archive

[tsvwg] Deterministic Forwarding PHB

"Shitanshu Shah (svshah)" <svshah@cisco.com> Mon, 03 March 2014 11:09 UTC

Return-Path: <svshah@cisco.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 1E9861A0C5A for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 03:09:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.047
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.047 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 1l2VMhrbcdnk for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 03:09:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44FBF1A0C0B for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 03:09:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3660; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1393844947; x=1395054547; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=yYIjiwKqC32ubKiakBbj9ef3G7D4lHTIaqgL65Y2BDg=; b=A7qg/xTjQxWqPNBYDni9Qsi3U2bhFUD8Ut5Vx625kx3vn87llddtTRME phEaGRlnZxiNjUtJt/dQfTd81G3W4r4CdVORVCBVH6zyUYBLagWp9o4EG IRWsY7kfBJvFuX9SJlC/p+gb9eKkEDNK3oCTwx509YT0ZWzGaumfKWM/Y k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ak8HAB1iFFOtJXHA/2dsb2JhbABagkREOFWzYYhTgSIWAXSEBHkSAQx0JwQOiAkNw3wXjxKEPQSYFoEwkGSDK4Iq
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.97,863,1389744000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="304592310"
Received: from rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com ([173.37.113.192]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Mar 2014 11:09:06 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com [173.37.183.77]) by rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s23B95rT026534 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 11:09:05 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.5.248]) by xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com ([173.37.183.77]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 05:09:05 -0600
From: "Shitanshu Shah (svshah)" <svshah@cisco.com>
To: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Deterministic Forwarding PHB
Thread-Index: AQHPNtD92siTPo9re0Seveqh94PAMA==
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 11:09:04 +0000
Message-ID: <CF3A134F.629BA%svshah@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030
x-originating-ip: [10.21.72.207]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CF3A134F629BAsvshahciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/uW3dCPyxDH7RjEMaQ9GEZ8WO10E
Cc: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
Subject: [tsvwg] Deterministic Forwarding PHB
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: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 11:09:11 -0000

In the past discussion on LLN Diffserv recommendation (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-svshah-tsvwg-lln-diffserv-recommendations-02), we've shown most of the traffic categories, from different types of LL Networks, sharing similar characteristics of traditional IP networks, except traffic class (certain control signals) requiring deterministic forwarding service.

Though it was thought, at the time, that such deterministic service may be overloaded with the use of EF PHB (as currently described in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-svshah-tsvwg-lln-diffserv-recommendations-02 - not yet revised to make use of DF PHB), since then different L2 technologies are working on enhancing their capabilities for deterministic scheduled forwarding service. We think it is not appropriate to overload EF PHB definition. Forwarding service requirement for deterministic service clearly differs from that of EF PHB. More and more use–cases for end to end deterministic service means a need for us to define appropriate PHB to be used.

Thus we propose DF PHB.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-svshah-tsvwg-deterministic-forwarding-01

Thoughts from the wg? Comments/feed-back/suggestions?

Regards,
Shitanshu

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email