Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [8023-CMSG] Questions



Title:
All,
 
A few thoughts.
 
In the local (backplane or computer room) environment, the latency is small enough
that congested traffic doesn't have to be dropped--feedback to the sources can stiffle
the traffic to supportable rates. As such, I'm not very interested in using priorities
to determine the drop rate: if one cares, this should be zero in the local interconnect.
 
However, rate restrictions _do_ depend on what type of traffic is being sent.
I tend to like the simplistic p802.17 model for classes of service:
  A (TDM like, telephony),
  B (longer latencies, but BW still guaranteed)
  C (best effort)
 
For the classA, there should be no restrictions on bandwidth, as devices should
only use what was prenegotiated.
 
For the classB and classC, things get more interesting.
 
From the perspective of a PAUSE, the generalization to support a level-based
PAUSE is more important than a send-this-amount-of-bandwidth parameter.
Instead, a pause-everything-less-than-this-priority feature would seem to be more
valuable.
 
DVJ 
 
 
David V. James
3180 South Ct
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Home: +1.650.494.0926
      +1.650.856.9801
Cell: +1.650.954.6906
Fax:  +1.360.242.5508
Base: dvj@alum.mit.edu 
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-cm@listserv.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-cm@listserv.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Hugh Barrass
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 11:41 AM
To: STDS-802-3-CM@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [8023-CMSG] Questions

Brad,

If you step back & think about it - what PAUSE does is reduced the net bandwidth used on a link. If the devices at both ends of the link were smart, they would somehow negotiate what that net rate should be (so that the output of one drains at a rate that doesn't mess up the input of the other). Making  this work using an XOFF/XON mechanism operating across an (potentially very long) link is far from optimal. Perhaps there is scope to change the PAUSE definition to say "send me no more than X % of bandwidth on this link."

From the perspective of a higher layer, setting the effective width of a pipe should be perfectly acceptable; other changes that increase the "intelligence" of the MAC layer would require much more scrutiny.

Hugh.

Booth, Bradley wrote:
JT,

I got the answer I needed, which is that there is a base assumption that
an 802.1 layer needs to exist above the 802.3 MAC if there is going to
be any use of priorities.  It was the interaction between the MAC's
queues and 802.1 queues that I didn't understand as I spend most of my
time at the physical layer.

I'm still mulling over the statement by Matt that PAUSE makes a bigger
pipe into a smaller pipe.  Over a long period of time and if it was
implemented correctly, I could understand that analogy.  The trouble I'm
having with that statement is that it seems to me that PAUSE is
performed because of back pressure from upper layers (memory has passed
a watermark).  If upper layers can handle QoS/CoS, then surely they'd be
able to handle making a big pipe run like a small pipe.  If they cannot,
then it seems that PAUSE would want some finer granularity rather than
XON/XOFF.

Thanks,
Brad

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-cm@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-cm@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan
Thatcher
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 8:49 AM
To: STDS-802-3-CM@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [8023-CMSG] Questions


Brad,

The way you choose to ask the question sends the response in a
particular
direction that you may, or may not be intending.

If I were to ask you if 10GBASE-T knows how to forward packets from the
MAC-Client interface one could respond in two different ways where both,
depending on perspective, are technically correct:

1. 10GBASE-T does not know anything about the MAC-Client interface as
that
is exposed only in layers above 10GBASE-T.
2. Of course it does. By definition, 10GBASE-T references the upper
layers.
These are, therefore, explicitly included in the 10GBASE-T
specification.

Now someone might argue with each of these. For instance, the argument
to
the second might be, "you don't understand, the MAC is common across
multiple port types." This argument is true, but misses the point. The
fact
is, that is the beauty of the layered architecture.

Ethernet is not just the PMD. Ethernet is the PMD and all layers above
the
PMD that provide a complete solution, whether those layers are shared or
not.

Just because 802.1 is shared with other 802 "dots" does not mean that
when
it is integrated with Ethernet that it isn't part of Ethernet.

Some in 802.1 would argue that all of 802.1 is part of the MAC. 802.1 is
part of Layer 2. 802.1 is part of an Ethernet solution.

There are any number of ways that you could modify your question to get
opposite responses.

Example: Is it understood or implied that 802.3 knows how to direct to
and
from multiple queues? Answer: Absolutely. See EPON. But, even without
EPON,
MAC-Control knows how to deal with packets to/from control and data
queues.

Etc.

My response to 1) would therefore be: 802.1 knows. Therefore, by
definition
Ethernet knows.**

jonathan

** Exception: if there is no 802.1, then there are no queues and
Ethernet
doesn't know because there is nothing to know. In this case, the
question is
moot. :-)

  
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-cm@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-cm@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG]On Behalf Of Booth,
Bradley
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2004 6:50 PM
To: STDS-802-3-CM@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [8023-CMSG] Questions


Norm,

Thanks for the response.  Two follow-up questions:
1) Is it understood or implied that Ethernet knows how to
direct frames
to and from these 8 queues?
2) What if the device does not use a bridge as in an adapter?

Thanks,
Brad

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-cm@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-cm@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of
Norman Finn
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2004 11:11 AM
To: STDS-802-3-CM@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [8023-CMSG] Questions


Brad,

I think you did miss the mark, particularly with:

  "Considering that Ethernet doesn't know in advance about the
provisioning
   of the network and does not care about which packets it delays or
drops,
   then it is likely that 802.1 and the upper layers can do all the
   priorities or differentiated services that they want but will see
   diminishing returns as the load on the network increases."

I would agree with, "Ethernet doesn't know in advance about the
provisioning
of the network", but 802.1D bridges certainly do care about
which frames
are
delayed or dropped.  Bridges define the use of 8 queues per
output port,
and
frames are marked with 8 levels of priority.  Although strict priority
scheduling is the only queue draining algorithm specified in the
standard,
others are explicitly allowed, and most vendors implement
varieties that
provide very good latency and bandwidth guarantees.  Furthermore, a
great
many bridges are able to assign priorities to 802.3 frames based on
criteria
such as IP DSCP code points.

In short, ethernet is *far* from "best effort".

-- Norm

Booth, Bradley wrote:
    
My apologies in advanced if the answers are obvious, but
      
I've been so
    
focused on cabling and physical layer the last couple of
      
weeks, so I'm
a
    
bit brain dead to upper layer stuff.

There has been some talk about differentiated services and
      
priorities
    
associated with 802.1 and the upper layers.  Here are my questions:
1) If the network is overprovisioned (available bandwidth >= maximum
      
instantaneous throughput), then am I correct in assuming that
    
these differentiated services and priorities operate just
      
fine because
    
the upper layer protocols within the switches have sufficient
bandwidth?  Should I also assume that the available
      
bandwidth is based
    
upon what the end stations (adapters, servers, etc.) can handle?
2) If the network is not overprovisioned (either in the switches or
adapters), then is it fair to assume that these differentiated
      
services
    
and priorities will provide diminishing returns as throughput
      
increases
    
over the available bandwidth?

I keep coming back to the statement others have made that
      
802.1 or the
    
upper layers can handle this, but I cannot help think that
      
would only
be
    
true for an overprovisioned network.  Considering that Ethernet
      
doesn't
    
know in advance about the provisioning of the network and does not
      
care
    
about which packets it delays or drops, then it is likely that 802.1
      
and
    
the upper layers can do all the priorities or
      
differentiated services
    
that they want but will see diminishing returns as the load on the
network increases.

This would seem to me like going out and buying a Formula 1 race car
      
to
    
use to drive to work in Silicon Valley.  A lot of money in fuel and
equipment only to sit on 101 during rush hour(s).

Am I off the mark here?

Thanks,
Brad