Subject: Re: [iccrg] Packet Relevance Drop Marking[TM]

From: Kilkki Matti <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 06:46:03 +0000

This question was a part of the DiffServ effort to develop flexible (and simple?) traffic control mechanisms based on packet level marking.  

As a brief comment, the need of differentiated treatment of video packets is understandable but still it is quite a minor issue in general. Whenever DiffServ is used it shall be designed as a generic framework that serves the needs of the service provider and customers in a balanced way. 

As a much longer answer you may read Differentiated Services for the Internet available at http://www.kilkki.net/book.

Best wishes

Kalevi Kilkki

________________________________________
From: iccrg [[email-masked]] on behalf of Hagen Paul Pfeifer [[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 11:04 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [iccrg] Packet Relevance Drop Marking[TM]

Probably a controversial question, anyway: knows someone a mechanism where
packets are marked by their data relevance so middleboxes can "optimize" their
drop selection?

It's a trustworthy separated network, lion share of traffic is UDP (~50%
mcast), marking via IPv6 extension header thinkable, middlebox can parse
extension header, ...

Idea is to classify packets based on data relevance into n classes (encode
this in an IPv6 ext header):

- important
- less important
- ...

For example: MPEG keyframe loss is more critical compared to delta frame loss.
Similar, routing management information can also be marked alternating cause
not every routing packet is required. In the case of congestion it is better
to drop every other packet as in an uncontrolled fashion.

Any references or mechanisms known?

Hagen

_______________________________________________
iccrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/iccrg