FYI -
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-aqm-fq-codel-05
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 08:07:06 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
To: Elwyn Davies <elw...@dial.pipex.com>,
draft-ietf-aqm-fq-codel....@ietf.org
CC: General area reviewing team <gen-...@ietf.org>
On 10/03/2016 06:12, Elwyn Davies wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft.
And I am another Gen-ART reviewer who saw this go by:
...
Minor issues: Treatment of packets that don't fit into the hashing
classification scheme: The default FQ-CoDel hashing
mechanism uses the protocol/addresses/ports 5-tuple, but there will be packets
that don't fit this scheme (especially ICMP).
There is no mention of what the classification would do with these packets. I
guess that one extra queue would probably
suffice to hold any such outliers, but it would be wise to say something about
how the packets from this/these queue(s) would
be treated by the scheduler. It might also be useful to say something about
treatment of outliers in other classification
schemes, if only to say that the scheme used needs to think about any such
outliers.
For IPv6 there is another issue here: the well-known difficulty in finding
the protocol and port numbers at line speed when extension headers are present.
Which is of course why IPv6 senders are supposed to set the flow label, which
should in turn provide a handy 3-tuple (addresses/flow label) that would be
ideal for CoDel. The operational facts today are that most hosts don't set
the flow label and many paths through the Internet drop packets with extension
headers, but the fact that the 5-tuple is problematic in this way might be
worth mentioning.
Brian
_______________________________________________
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
