On Sun, 24 May 2015, Simon Barber wrote:
Hi Mikael,
I can't find reference to DSCP 000010 or 000110, where are they defined?
What do you mean? I mapped the drop probability bits to BE and suggested
this might be used.
I know the title 'assured forwarding' seems to imply better than best
effort, but I think this is a mistake for AF1 - which seems to be
recommended for bulk traffic that is not latency sensitive. You can't
make everything high priority! I believe AF1 according to the list of
recommended applications, would be better served at less than best
effort priority - so the 4 queue 1a mapping based on the top 3 bits of
the TOS byte would be OK. AF2 -> lower than best effort would be wrong
however.
This is already impossible to do in real life, see my notes that AF1 and
AF2 being lower priority in a default configured 4-queue TOS->.1p L2
environment.
My suggestions is from what might be incrementally deployable in todays
real life networks. I don't care about history or existing documents, I
care about what might actually get used Internet-wide.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
aqm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
