On 12/07/2012 15:43, Truman Boyes wrote: > Brian, I agree that diffserv alone would not address the condition if more > granular QoS/CoS is required. If we think of NVE as PE a device then I > believe we have the necessary components. > > Ingress classification on the VAP as well as the potential to classify on the > VNIF will handle mapping from header details to appropriate queue. > > Marking of outer tunnel header as we do today with exp bits or gre ip header > will ensure end to end PHB. > > The missing link is how to handle the condition you describe; two streams, > same traffic class, different tunnels. Maybe the provider should provide > distinction of queue/class if there is an expectation of behavior > differences. Or we will need to use the second VNID (briefly described in the > framework doc) as a means to provide greater differentiation. > > Building a form of call admission control for tenant streams to the network > is looking for a world of hurt. IntServ can be our testament to this truth. ;)
To be clear, in the diffserv context, admission control does not imply state per stream; it really implies a token bucket per diffserv class and per tunnel. If you limit things to a handful of diffserv classes, that ought to scale. Alternatively, provide too much bandwidth. That may well be cheaper. Brian > Kind regards, > Truman Boyes > > > On Jul 12, 2012, at 3:04 AM, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Truman, >> >> On 12/07/2012 05:01, Truman Boyes wrote: >>> Hi Selvam, >>> >>> >>> Yes I agree this does need to be discussed. There could be a couple methods >>> in achieving this: >>> >>> >>> - The virtual bridge on the hypervisor of the NVE can handle the >>> rate-limiting ingress or egress from the TES on the VAP. >>> - If the encapsulation is IP between the NVE, we could ensure that >>> appropriate DSCP/ToS markings are copied into the IP header based on >>> configured mappings of tenant QoS priority. This way standard physical >>> network devices can also appropriately provide the intended per hop >>> behavior. >>> - The IP ToS or DSCP values from packets generated from TES could be >>> simply copied into encapsulation IP header; if a corresponding VAP or >>> policy existed on the VNI. >> Diffserv alone cannot ensure sharing between two competing streams >> of the same class of traffic that happen to occur in two different tunnels. >> You would definitely need admission control of some kind at *all* tunnel >> ingresses, as far as I can see. Whether that scales is another question. >> >> FYI, diffserv handling in tunnels is documented in RFC 2983. >> >> Brian Carpenter >> >>> Just some quick thoughts on this at midnight ... >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Truman >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Selvam Ramanathan < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Truman, **** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> Lets Take a case where Tenant A and Tenant B are configured. **** >>>> >>>> Since Tenant A and Tenant B are using the same physical network over the >>>> multiple overlay network , **** >>>> >>>> How do we make Sure Tenant A gets the bandwidth he needs & Tenant B is not >>>> overwhelming the **** >>>> >>>> Network . **** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> Let’s take a case where Tenant A might be running Video Streaming Servers >>>> on his VM/Endpoint & **** >>>> >>>> From Tenant A’s perspective its required for the Virtual DC to guarantee >>>> his bandwidth requirements. **** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> Regards, **** >>>> >>>> Selvam **** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> *From:* Truman Boyes [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 10, 2012 7:02 PM >>>> *To:* Selvam Ramanathan >>>> *Cc:* [email protected] >>>> *Subject:* Re: [nvo3] bandwidth requirements of the tenants in >>>> draft-narten-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement-02.txt**** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> What are these issues relating to bandwidth that you are referring to that >>>> are specific to overlays or to the lack of overlays? **** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> Regards,**** >>>> >>>> Truman**** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Selvam Ramanathan < >>>> [email protected]> wrote:**** >>>> >>>> Hi , **** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> Should the overlay-problem-statement-02 also talk about the **** >>>> >>>> issues arising out of the bandwidth requirements of the tenants ? **** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> Regards, **** >>>> >>>> Selvam **** > _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
