> On May 12, 2015, at 9:06 PM, Simon Barber <[email protected]> wrote: > > Where would be the best place to see if it would be possible to get agreement > on a global low priority DSCP?
I’d suggest https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4594 4594 Configuration Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes. J. Babiarz, K. Chan, F. Baker. August 2006. (Format: TXT=144044 bytes) (Updated by RFC5865) (Status: INFORMATIONAL) It refers to [QBSS] "QBone Scavenger Service (QBSS) Definition", Internet2 Technical Report Proposed Service Definition, March 2001. (http://mgoutell.free.fr/gridftp/QBSS/qbss-definition.txt) and states that > Within QBone, traffic marked with DSCP 001000 (binary) shall be > considered in the QBSS class and should be given the service described > in this document. Notice that while DSCP values generally have only > local significance we are assigning global significance to this > particular codepoint within QBone. We refer to packets marked > with DSCP 001000 as being marked with the "QBSS code point”. That’s where we came up with recommending CS1 (001000) for the traffic class. I’m pretty sure the latter ultimately resulted in an RFC, but for some reason I’m not finding it. The closest thing I see is https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6297 6297 A Survey of Lower-than-Best-Effort Transport Protocols. M. Welzl, D. Ros. June 2011. (Format: TXT=46532 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
