Subject: [ippm] TWAMP Type-P Descriptor

From: "Walt Steverson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:07:33 -0500

Is there room to put the Sender Type-P Descriptor in the reflected
TWAMP-Test packets?  I see that in the latest draft the Sender TTL has
been added to the test packet's payload and it might be useful if
something similar was done with the DSCP value as seen by the
reflector was put into the TWAMP-Test payload as well.  This way the
sender can determine if the DSCP is being modified between the sender
and reflector in either direction.

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

---

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:53:01 -0400

>and reflector in either direction.

Interesting idea, Walt. Perhaps this could be an option.
There may be one or more places where we could tighten-up
the handling of DSCP (or Type-P) in the text.

Any other thoughts on this?

Al

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:58:49 +0200

> Any other thoughts on this?

What would be the technical consequences of this?  If it is a matter of
adding a byte somewhere then please provide text.  If it is more than
just that, then I'm a bit reluctant to add this at such a late stage
of the proceedings.  We really need to get this (and a few other)
draft done.

Henk

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# Lawyer: "Now sir, I'm sure you are an intelligent and honest man--"
# Witness: "Thank you. If I weren't under oath, I'd return the compliment."

---

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 08:31:48 -0400

At 03:58 AM 6/13/2007, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
>adding a byte somewhere then please provide text.

Yes, I think this will be much like adding the Send TTL,
a byte and a paragraph that covers how it works, and
how it doesn't work when not supported.

>If it is more than

Agreed.  While I think this is a good suggestion, I was looking to
see if others on the list thought it would be useful...

Al

---

From: "Walt Steverson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:50:11 -0500

I've attached a diff for the TWAMP draft that adds text about how this
might work.  It is essentially the same thing as what was added for
the Sender TTL but for the Sender DSCP.