Subject: RE: Media Packet Marking, was RE: [Speermint] RE: Background Reading on NGNInterconnect-transitvs peering

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 13:43:31 -0400

I changed the subject line, at least this part of the thread may be
fruitful>

>>This doesn't say you can't have VPN tunnels, or MPLS tunnels, or any other
>>kind of links down in the router.
>
>The process of getting signaled RTP data onto these tunnels, and not the
>best efforts packets from the same IP address pairs, is essential and in
>scope.

....

>>This doesn't say you can't mark media packets in some way that sends them
>>down some specific tunnels.

>The process of doing this -- routing by packet markings -- and how this 
>will
>be setup on a call-by-call basis from the same IP address pairs used for
>best efforts should be in scope.

Now we may be getting somewhere.  This seems like it creates requirements I
might be able to deal with.

What I'm hearing is that you think, fundamentally, that signaling packets
must be able to be marked differently from media packets.  Seems hard to
argue with that.

But I believe you want a requirement that we cover PER FLOW marking.  I
think that might be something worth discussing.  

There are two ways we know how to do this.  The right way (get the origin to
mark them right in the first place) and the expeditious way (put an
intermediary in the path and remark them).  That intermediary could be an
L5/L7 entity, or it could be down in router-land using normal flow
identifier techniques.

Are you looking for requirements like that?

>>This doesn't say you can't create any kind of static routing mechanisms
you
>>like for any set of flows you can identify.

>Once again....how to use these static routes (which is often why SBC's are
>used--essentially creating the head of a static route) needs to be studied
>by this group.
Well, is this any different from the marking issue above?  What do you want
the BCP to say beyond marking of packets?  What is the requirement?

Marking of packets is a subject worthy of discussion I think.

In the best of all worlds, we would agree on the proper marking of packets,
all networks would mark in a uniform way, and routers would route in an
optimal manner for the packets marked appropriately no matter how many
domains the packets crossed.  

Dream on you say.  

I agree, but we should, probably, at least mention the ideal (which implies
we actually specify what the marking should be).  I'd expect to see
signaling packets marked differently than media packets.  There could
reasonably be different marking for different kinds of media (text vs audio
vs video, for example).

Then we have to deal with the reality that marking within a domain may be
consistent, but in peering, the O marking won't be the same as the T
marking, and we need to remark at the peering edge.

Then we could consider per-flow marking.  I'm not so sure I want to go
there, but I'm willing to listen.

But is there more than that?  What, exactly?

Brian

_______________________________________________
Speermint mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint