Re: [tsvwg] Some comments on NQB (part 2)

["Livingood, Jason" <[e-mail]>]

>        - However, I also would like clarity for the case where there is no
        specific negoiation SLA, then I think the traffic SHOULD use DSCP 45,
        and ought to then pass this codepoint unmodified through this diffserv
        domain. My rationale is that we ought to avoid adding a remarking
        behaviour for routers that could transparently forward the traffic.

[JL] +1 to "we ought to avoid adding a remarking behaviour for routers that could transparently forward the traffic." It seems best (most efficient, least administrative work/cost, fastest) to be able to use DSCP 45 across network boundaries as a default behaviour. If some other network does not want to permit marking or wants to use DSCP 5, then I guess we can talk about it ("negotiate"); hopefully these cases are small in number. But IMO to achieve the greatest level minimize the need to more tightly couple different networks' respective policies & operation.

    [GW]  For a transit network, the value 5 could be used to transparently forward traffic without re-marking.

[JL] Why would a transit network use 5 instead of 45? In any case, I would not use transit networks as the primary use case - because by traffic volume the majority of traffic to access networks likely flows over direct interconnect links rather that via transit routes.