A Lower Effort Per-Hop-Behavior draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-00 Roland Bless, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) bless@kit.edu 2016-11-15 IETF 97 R. Bless, KIT draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb

R. Bless, KIT draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb Motivation First idea around since 1999 (lower than best-effort PHB draft-bless-diffserv-lbe-phb) Main objective: protect best-effort traffic from Lower Effort (LE) traffic LE for low priority background traffic, e.g., backups, web crawler, game downloads, software updates and OS upgrades Easy to deploy: no parameters, no traffic conditioning necessary, no trust issues Internet-2 came up with QBone Scavenger Service 2001 After some discussion in DiffServ WG: RFC 3662 „A Lower Effort Per-Domain Behavior for Differentiated Services“ (2003) 2016-11-15 IETF 97 R. Bless, KIT draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb

R. Bless, KIT draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb Addressed issues Wrong choice of DiffServ Codepoint (DSCP) RFC 3662 suggested to re-use AF PHB or CS-1 (Class Selector 1) – normally (by RFC 2474) means better than Best-Effort (BE) RFC 4594 recommended to use CS-1 Unclear whether CS-1 is actually treated better or worse than Best Effort (BE) in a DS domain Issues came up with RTCweb QoS Draft: draft-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos DiffServ Intercon Draft: draft-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon 2016-11-15 IETF 97 R. Bless, KIT draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb

R. Bless, KIT draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb Discussion (1) I-D suggests a dedicated DSCP for LE, e.g., 000010 Removes ambiguity Is allocated from the DSCP Standards Action pool xxxxx0 Standards Track vs. Experimental not sure that an experimental RFC can allocate a standard DSCP  that is a main motivation for this I-D Brian Carpenter suggested the following changes obsolete RFC 3662 (Lower Effort PDB) update RFC 4594 (Configuration Guidelines for DiffServ Service classes), explicitly describe changes in LE spec Need ipr="pre5378Trust200902" waiver 2016-11-15 IETF 97 R. Bless, KIT draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb

R. Bless, KIT draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb Discussion (2) Remarking recommendation if LE is unsupported: remap DSCP to default PHB (best-effort) handling Option 1 (suggested): leave DSCP intact as 000010  later traversed domains can treat flow as LE, but service elevation cannot be detected by endpoints Option 2: remark DSCP to 000000 (default PHB)  later traversed domains will treat flow as BE, but different handling can be detect by endpoints 2016-11-15 IETF 97 R. Bless, KIT draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb