On Fri, 15 Mar 2019, David P. Reed wrote:
So if the responsible network engineers in the carriers cannot agree on anything, IETF is wasting its time.
The IETF has already said that anything diffserv is domain-internal only. I have joined the effort of the LE PHB and see if we can get some kind of agreement and transparancy for a PHB that is aimed at customer access only and "drop most of me and my pals at any sign of customer access line congestion", and see if that can be agreed on.
Having a "lower-than-best-effort" diffserve codepoint might work, because it means worse treatment, not preferential treatment.
The problem with having DSCP CPs that indicate preferential treatment is typically a ddos magnet. See my emails on this topic on (this? other?) mailing lists where I try to create a three class buffering system saying "LE gets 5%, BE and 'everything-else' gets to split the difference".
I even got pushback on this here, and then we're not even close to people running large ISP networks who see ddos attacks happen hourly.
Saying L4S should "just use diffserv" is as constructive to say "go away and pound a rock" or "we want that bit pattern so.. screw you".
L4S has a much better possibility of actually getting deployment into the wider Internet packet-moving equipment than anything being talked about here. Same with PIE as opposed to FQ_CODEL. I know it's might not be as good, but it fits better into actual silicon and it's being proposed by people who actually have better channels into the people setting hard requirements.
I suggest you consider joining them instead of opposing them. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swm...@swm.pp.se _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
