I do like the idea of introducting a new 'low priority' code point, were
the top 3 bits are 0, so that legacy equipment that makes the wrong
interpretation (higher priority) treats the traffic as BE. There is a
mess of different interpretations out there, and the downside would be
legacy equipment that does interpret CS1 correctly would now treat the
traffic as BE. I don't know enough about the prevalence of legacy
equipment to know which might be better.
Simon
On 5/24/2015 11:30 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
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.
_______________________________________________
aqm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
