[Cerowrt-devel] tracking some diffserv related internet drafts better

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi Dave(s),

On Nov 13, 2014, at 19:45 , Black, David <david.black at emc.com> wrote:

> Dave (T),
> 
>> This appears to be close to finalization, or finalized:
>> 
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp-10
>> 
>> And this is complementary:
>> 
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-03
> 
> The dart-dscp-rtp draft is now done and in the RFC Editor's Queue.
> 
> The tsvwg-rtcweb-qos draft is still a work in progress, and its
> aggressive use of almost every PHB and DSCP is a concern.  Here's
> another related draft that is likely to be adopted by the tsvwg WG soon:
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-geib-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon/

	I could be completely off my rocker, but that scheme would work perfectly if the edge and the core would use 3 bits each max then the core can just move the edge bits 0-2 to the so far empty bits 3-5 on ingress and back to 0-2 on egress and each can do their own thing. On the other hand, if the core does not actually use the edge markings then it could also jus ts quash them nd the edge would not be any wiser.

Best Regards
	Sebastian


> 
> 
>> -1) They still think the old style tos imm bit is obsolete. Sigh. Am I
>> the last person that uses ssh or plays games?
> 
> See RFC 2474, published in 1998 ...
> 
>> 0) Key to this draft is expecting that the AF code points on a single
>> 5-tuple not be re-ordered, which means dumping AF41 into a priority
>> queue and AF42 into the BE queue is incorrect.
> 
> Yes.  That's supposed to be the case for any AF PHB group that's
> supported., e.g., AF3x [AF31, AF32 and AF33].
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-geib-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon/
> 
>> 1c) And given that the standards are settling, it might be time to
>> start baking them into a new tc or iptables filter. This would be a
>> small, interesting project for someone who wants to get their feet wet
>> writing this sort of thing, and examples abound of how to do it.
> 
> I'm happy to help w/insight, advice etc. - please ask.  In turn,
> experience w/what's more vs. less likely to work where and why would
> be quite useful, e.g., for the tsvwg-rtcweb-qos draft.
> 
>> 2) A lot of these diffserv specs - notably all the AFxx codepoints -
>> are all about variable drop probability. (Not that this concept has
>> been proven to work in the real world) We don't do variable drop
>> probability... and I haven't the slightest clue as to how to do it in
>> fq_codel. But keeping variable diffserv codepoints in order on the
>> same 5 tuple seems to be the way things are going.
> 
> That's UDP-only at the moment if that helps.  Variable drop probability
> doesn't do anything useful for TCP, and there's no good experience
> with other congestion controlled transports - see the dart-dscp-rtp
> draft.
> 
>> 3) Squashing inbound dscp should still be the default option...
> 
> Yes, very common out there.  See the tsvwg-diffserv-intercon draft
> which is trying to specify a few small holes to punch into that
> "squash to zero" default ingress DSCP behavior.  Yes, I'm an
> optimist ...
> 
>> 6) I really wish there were more codepoints for background traffic than cs1.
> 
> It's worse than that - CS1 may or may not be a background codepoint,
> see the dart-dscp-rtp draft.
> 
> Thanks,
> --David
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dave Taht [mailto:dave.taht at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 12:27 PM
>> To: cerowrt-devel at lists.bufferbloat.net; Black, David
>> Subject: SQM: tracking some diffserv related internet drafts better
>> 
>> This appears to be close to finalization, or finalized:
>> 
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp-10
>> 
>> And this is complementary:
>> 
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-03
>> 
>> While wading through all this is tedious, and much of the advice
>> contradictory,
>> there are a few things that could be done more right in the sqm system
>> that I'd like to discuss. (feel free to pour a cup of coffee and read
>> the drafts)
>> 
>> -1) They still think the old style tos imm bit is obsolete. Sigh. Am I
>> the last person that uses ssh or plays games?
>> 
>> 0) Key to this draft is expecting that the AF code points on a single
>> 5-tuple not be re-ordered, which means dumping AF41 into a priority
>> queue and AF42 into the BE queue is incorrect.
>> 
>> 1) SQM only prioritizes a few diffserv codepoints (just the ones for
>> which I had tools doing classification, like ssh). Doing so with tc
>> rules is very inefficient presently. I had basically planned on
>> rolling a new tc and/or iptables filter to "do the right thing" to map
>> into all 64 codepoints via a simple lookup table (as what is in the
>> wifi code already), rather than use the existing mechanism... and
>> hesitated
>> as nobody had nailed down the definitions of each one.
>> 
>> That said, I have not measured recently the impact of the extra tc
>> filters and iptables rules required.
>> 
>> 1a) Certainly only doing AF42 in sqm is pretty wrong (that was left
>> over from my test patches against mosh - mosh ran with AF42 for a
>> while until they crashed a couple routers with it)
>> 
>> The relevant lines are here:
>> 
>> https://github.com/dtaht/ceropackages-3.10/blob/master/net/sqm-
>> scripts/files/usr/lib/sqm/functions.sh#L411
>> 
>> 1b) The cake code presently does it pretty wrong, which is eminately fixable.
>> 
>> 1c) And given that the standards are settling, it might be time to
>> start baking them into a new tc or iptables filter. This would be a
>> small, interesting project for someone who wants to get their feet wet
>> writing this sort of thing, and examples abound of how to do it.
>> 
>> 2) A lot of these diffserv specs - notably all the AFxx codepoints -
>> are all about variable drop probability. (Not that this concept has
>> been proven to work in the real world) We don't do variable drop
>> probability... and I haven't the slightest clue as to how to do it in
>> fq_codel. But keeping variable diffserv codepoints in order on the
>> same 5 tuple seems to be the way things are going. Still I have
>> trouble folding these ideas into the 3 basic queue system fq_codel
>> uses, it looks to me as most of the AF codepoints end up in the
>> current best effort queue, as the priority queue is limited to 30% of
>> the bandwidth by default.
>> 
>> 
>> 3) Squashing inbound dscp should still be the default option...
>> 
>> 4) My patch set to the wifi code for diffserv support disables the VO
>> queue almost entirely in favor of punting things to the VI queue
>> (which can aggregate), but I'm not sure if I handled AFxx
>> appropriately.
>> 
>> 5) So far as I know, no browser implements any of this stuff yet. So
>> far as I know nobody actually deployed a router that tries to do smart
>> things with this stuff yet.
>> 
>> 6) I really wish there were more codepoints for background traffic than cs1.
>> 
>> --
>> Dave Täht
>> 
>> thttp://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/bloat/wiki/Upcoming_Talks
> _______________________________________________
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> Cerowrt-devel at lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel