A Non-Queue-Building Per-Hop Behavior (NQB PHB) for Differentiated Services
draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb-17
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Active".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Greg White , Thomas Fossati | ||
| Last updated | 2023-03-25 | ||
| Replaces | draft-white-tsvwg-nqb | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Associated WG milestone |
|
||
| Document shepherd | Gorry Fairhurst | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | David Black <david.black@dell.com>, gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk |
draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb-17
Transport Area Working Group G. White
Internet-Draft CableLabs
Updates: rfc8325 (if approved) T. Fossati
Intended status: Standards Track ARM
Expires: 26 September 2023 25 March 2023
A Non-Queue-Building Per-Hop Behavior (NQB PHB) for Differentiated
Services
draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb-17
Abstract
This document specifies properties and characteristics of a Non-
Queue-Building Per-Hop Behavior (NQB PHB). The NQB PHB provides a
shallow-buffered, best-effort service as a complement to a Default
deep-buffered best-effort service for Internet services. The purpose
of this NQB PHB is to provide a separate queue that enables smooth,
low-data-rate, application-limited traffic flows, which would
ordinarily share a queue with bursty and capacity-seeking traffic, to
avoid the latency, latency variation and loss caused by such traffic.
This PHB is implemented without prioritization and can be implemented
without rate policing, making it suitable for environments where the
use of these features is restricted. The NQB PHB has been developed
primarily for use by access network segments, where queuing delays
and queuing loss caused by Queue-Building protocols are manifested,
but its use is not limited to such segments. In particular,
applications to cable broadband links, Wi-Fi links, and mobile
network radio and core segments are discussed. This document
recommends a specific Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) to
identify Non-Queue-Building flows.
[NOTE (to be removed by RFC-Editor): This document references an ISE
submission draft (I-D.briscoe-docsis-q-protection) that is approved
for publication as an RFC. This draft should be held for publication
until the queue protection RFC can be referenced.]
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
White & Fossati Expires 26 September 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Non-Queue-Building PHB March 2023
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 26 September 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Non-Queue-Building Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Relationship to the Diffserv Architecture . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Relationship to L4S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. DSCP Marking of NQB Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Non-Queue-Building Sender Requirements . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Aggregation of the NQB DSCP with other Diffserv PHBs . . 8
4.3. Aggregation of other DSCPs in the NQB PHB . . . . . . . . 9
4.4. End-to-end usage and DSCP Re-marking . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4.1. Interoperability with Non-DS-Capable Domains . . . . 10
4.5. The NQB DSCP and Tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Non-Queue-Building PHB Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. Primary Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2. Traffic Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.3. Guidance for Very Low-Rate Links . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Impact on Higher Layer Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. Configuration and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Example Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.1. DOCSIS Access Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.2. Mobile Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.3. WiFi Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.3.1. Interoperability with Existing WiFi Networks . . . . 17
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
White & Fossati Expires 26 September 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Non-Queue-Building PHB March 2023
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Appendix A. DSCP Re-marking Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1. Introduction
This document defines a Differentiated Services per-hop behavior
(PHB) called "Non-Queue-Building Per-Hop Behavior" (NQB PHB), which
isolates traffic flows that are relatively low data rate and that do
not themselves materially contribute to queueing delay and loss,
allowing them to avoid the queuing delays and losses caused by other
traffic. Such Non-Queue-Building flows (for example: interactive
voice, game sync packets, machine-to-machine applications, DNS
lookups, and real-time IoT analytics data) are application-limited
flows that are distinguished from the high-data-rate traffic flows
that are typically managed by an end-to-end congestion control
algorithm.
Most packets carried by broadband access networks are managed by an
end-to-end congestion control algorithm, such as Reno, Cubic or BBR.
These congestion control algorithms attempt to seek the available
capacity of the end-to-end path (which can frequently be the access
network link capacity), and in doing so generally overshoot the
available capacity, causing a queue to build-up at the bottleneck
link. This queue build-up results in queuing delay (variable
latency) and possibly packet loss that can affect all the
applications that are sharing the bottleneck link. Moreover, many
bottleneck links implement a relatively deep buffer (100 ms or more)
in order to enable traditional congestion-controlled applications to
effectively use the link, which exacerbates the latency and latency
variation experienced.
In contrast to traditional congestion-controlled applications, there
are a variety of relatively low data rate applications that do not
materially contribute to queueing delay and loss but are nonetheless
subjected to it by sharing the same bottleneck link in the access
network. Many of these applications can be sensitive to latency or
latency variation, as well as packet loss, and thus produce a poor
quality of experience in such conditions.
Active Queue Management (AQM) mechanisms (such as PIE [RFC8033],
DOCSIS-PIE [RFC8034], or CoDel [RFC8289]) can improve the quality of
experience for latency sensitive applications, but there are
White & Fossati Expires 26 September 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Non-Queue-Building PHB March 2023
practical limits to the amount of improvement that can be achieved
without impacting the throughput of capacity-seeking applications.
For example, AQMs generally allow a significant amount of queue depth
variation to accommodate the behaviors of congestion control
algorithms such as Reno and Cubic. If the AQM attempted to control
the queue much more tightly, applications using those algorithms
would not perform well. Alternatively, flow queueing systems, such
as fq_codel [RFC8290] can be employed to isolate flows from one
another, but these are not appropriate for all bottleneck links, due
to complexity or other reasons.
The NQB PHB supports differentiating between these two classes of
traffic in bottleneck links and queuing them separately so that both
classes can deliver satisfactory quality of experience for their
applications. In particular, the NQB PHB provides a shallow-
buffered, best-effort service as a complement to a Default deep-
buffered best-effort service. This PHB is primarily applicable for
high-speed broadband access network links, where there is minimal
aggregation of traffic, and deep buffers are common. The
applicability of this PHB to lower-speed links is discussed in
Section 5.
To be clear, a network implementing the NQB PHB solely provides
isolation for traffic classified as behaving in conformance with the
NQB DSCP (and optionally enforces that behavior). It is the NQB
senders' behavior itself which results in low latency and low loss.
2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Context
3.1. Non-Queue-Building Behavior
There are many applications that send traffic at relatively low data
rates and/or in a fairly smooth and consistent manner such that they
are highly unlikely to exceed the available capacity of the network
path between source and sink. Some of these applications are
transactional in nature, and might only send one packet (or a few
packets) per RTT. These applications might themselves only cause
very small, transient queues to form in network buffers, but
nonetheless they can be subjected to packet delay and delay variation
as a result of sharing a network buffer with applications that tend
White & Fossati Expires 26 September 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Non-Queue-Building PHB March 2023
to cause large and/or standing queues to form. Many of these
applications are negatively affected by excessive packet delay and
delay variation. Such applications are ideal candidates to be queued
separately from the applications that are the cause of queue build-
up, latency and loss.
In contrast, Queue-Building (QB) flows include those that use TCP or
QUIC, with Cubic, Reno or other TCP congestion control algorithms
that probe for the link capacity and induce latency and loss as a
result. Other types of QB flows include those that send at a high
burst rate even if the long-term average data rate is much lower.
3.2. Relationship to the Diffserv Architecture
The IETF has defined the Differentiated Services architecture
[RFC2475] with the intention that it allows traffic to be marked in a
manner that conveys the performance requirements of that traffic
either quantitatively or in a relative sense (i.e. priority). The
architecture defines the use of the Diffserv field [RFC2474] for this
purpose, and numerous RFCs have been written that describe
recommended interpretations of the values (Diffserv Code Points) of
the field, and standardized treatments (traffic conditioning and per-
hop-behaviors) that can be implemented to satisfy the performance
requirements of traffic so marked.
While this architecture is powerful and flexible enough to be
configured to meet the performance requirements of a variety of
applications and traffic categories, or to achieve differentiated
service offerings, it has not been used for these purposes end-to-end
across the Internet.
This difficulty is in part due to the fact that meeting the
performance requirements of an application in an end-to-end context
involves all the networks in the path agreeing on what those
requirements are and sharing an interest in meeting them. In many
cases this is made more difficult since the performance
"requirements" are not strict ones (e.g., applications will degrade
in some manner as loss/latency/jitter increase), so the importance of
meeting them for any particular application in some cases involves a
judgment as to the value of avoiding some amount of degradation in
quality for that application in exchange for an increase in the
degradation of another application.
Further, in many cases the implementation of Diffserv PHBs has
historically involved prioritization of service classes with respect
to one another, which sets up the zero-sum game alluded to in the
previous paragraph, and results in the need to limit access to higher
priority classes via mechanisms such as access control, admission
White & Fossati Expires 26 September 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Non-Queue-Building PHB March 2023
control, traffic conditioning and rate policing, and/or to meter and
bill for carriage of such traffic. These mechanisms can be difficult
or impossible to implement in an end-to-end context.
Finally, some jurisdictions impose regulations that limit the ability
of networks to provide differentiation of services, in large part
based on the belief that doing so necessarily involves prioritization
or privileged access to bandwidth, and thus a benefit to one class of
traffic always comes at the expense of another.
In contrast, the NQB PHB has been designed with the goal that it
avoids many of these issues, and thus could conceivably be deployed
end-to-end across the Internet. The intent of the NQB DSCP is that
it signals verifiable behavior that permits the sender to request
differentiated treatment. Also, the NQB traffic is to be given a
separate queue with priority equal to Default traffic and given no
reserved bandwidth other than the bandwidth that it shares with
Default traffic. As a result, the NQB PHB does not aim to meet
specific application performance requirements. Instead, the goal of
the NQB PHB is to provide statistically better loss, latency, and
jitter performance for traffic that is itself only an insignificant
contributor to those degradations. The PHB is also designed to
minimize any incentives for a sender to mismark its traffic, since
neither higher priority nor reserved bandwidth are being offered.
These attributes eliminate many of the trade-offs that underlie the
handling of differentiated service classes in the Diffserv
architecture as it has traditionally been defined. These attributes
also significantly simplify access control and admission control
functions, reducing them to simple verification of behavior.
3.3. Relationship to L4S
The NQB DSCP and PHB described in this draft have been defined to
operate independently of the experimental L4S Architecture
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch]. Nonetheless, traffic marked with the NQB
DSCP is intended to be compatible with [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch],
with the result being that NQB traffic and L4S traffic can share the
low-latency queue in an L4S DualQ node
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-aqm-dualq-coupled]. Compliance with the DualQ
Coupled AQM requirements (Section 2.5 of
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-aqm-dualq-coupled]) is considered sufficient to
support the NQB PHB requirement of fair allocation of bandwidth
between the QB and NQB queues (Section 5). Note that these
requirements in turn require compliance with all the requirements in
Section 5 of [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id].
White & Fossati Expires 26 September 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Non-Queue-Building PHB March 2023
Applications that comply with both the NQB sender requirements in
Section 4.1 and the L4S "Prague" requirements in Section 4 of
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id] could mark their packets both with the
NQB DSCP and with the ECT(1) value. Packets marked with both the NQB
DSCP and the ECT(1) codepoint SHOULD be treated the same as packets
marked with either codepoint alone by the traffic protection function
(defined in Section 5.2) and by any re-marking/traffic policing
function designed to protect unmanaged networks (as described in
Section 4.4.1).
4. DSCP Marking of NQB Traffic
4.1. Non-Queue-Building Sender Requirements
Flows that are eligible to be marked with the NQP DSCP are typically
UDP flows that send traffic at a low data rate relative to typical
network path capacities. Here the data rate is limited by the
application itself rather than by network capacity - these
applications send at a data rate of no more than about 1 percent of
the "typical" network path capacity. In today's network, where
access network data rates are typically on the order of 100 Mbps,
this implies 1 Mbps as an upper limit. In addition, these
applications send their traffic in a smooth (i.e. paced) manner,
where the number of bytes sent in any time interval "T" is less than
or equal to R * T + 1500 bytes, where "R" is the maximum rate
described above.
When such a flow is generated by a sender that does not implement a
traditional congestion control mechanism, it nonetheless is expected
to comply with existing guidance for safe deployment on the Internet,
for example the requirements in [RFC8085] and Section 2 of [RFC3551]
(also see the circuit breaker limits in Section 4.3 of [RFC8083] and
the description of inelastic pseudowires in Section 4 of [RFC7893]).
To be clear, the description of NQB-marked flows in this document is
not to be interpreted as suggesting that such flows are in any way
exempt from this responsibility.
Applications that align with the description of behavior in the
preceding paragraphs in this section SHOULD identify themselves to
the network using a Diffserv Code Point (DSCP) of 45 (decimal) so
that their packets can be queued separately from QB flows. The
choice of the DSCP value 45 (decimal) is motivated in part by the
desire to achieve separate queuing in existing WiFi networks (see
Section 8.3) and by the desire to make implementation of the PHB
simpler in network gear that has the ability to classify traffic
based on ranges of DSCP value (see Section 4.2 for further
discussion).
White & Fossati Expires 26 September 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Non-Queue-Building PHB March 2023
In networks where another (e.g., a local-use) DSCP is designated for
NQB traffic, or where specialized PHBs are available that can meet
specific application requirements (e.g., a guaranteed-latency path
for voice traffic), it could be preferred to use another DSCP. In
end systems where the choice of using DSCP 45 (decimal) is not
available to the application, the CS5 DSCP (40 decimal) could be used
as a fallback. See Section 4.2 for rationale as to why this choice
could be fruitful.
If the application's traffic exceeds the rate equation provided in
the first paragraph of this section, the application SHOULD NOT mark
its traffic with the NQB DSCP. In such a case, the application could
instead consider implementing a low latency congestion control
mechanism as described in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id]. At the time
of writing, it is believed that 1 Mbps is a reasonable upper bound on
instantaneous traffic rate for an application marking its traffic
with the NQB DSCP, but this value is of course subject to the context
in which the application is expected to be deployed.
An application that marks its traffic as NQB runs the risk of being
subjected to a traffic protection algorithm (see Section 5.2) if it
contributes to the formation of a queue in a node that supports the
PHB. This could result in the excess traffic being discarded or
queued separately as default traffic (and thus potentially delivered
out of order). As a result, applications that aren't clearly beneath
the threshold described above would need to weigh the risk of
additional loss or out-of-order delivery against the expected latency
benefits of NQB treatment in determining whether to mark their
packets as NQB.
The sender requirements outlined in this section are all related to
observable attributes of the packet stream, which makes it possible
for network elements (including nodes implementing the PHB) to
monitor for inappropriate usage of the DSCP, and re-mark traffic that
does not comply. This functionality, when implemented as part of the
PHB is described in Section 5.2.
4.2. Aggregation of the NQB DSCP with other Diffserv PHBs
It is RECOMMENDED that networks and nodes that do not support the NQB
PHB be configured to treat traffic marked with the NQB DSCP the same
as traffic with the "Default" DSCP. It is additionally RECOMMENDED
that such networks and nodes simply classify packets with the NQB
DSCP value into the same treatment aggregate as Default traffic, or
encapsulate such packets, rather than re-marking them with the
Default DSCP. This preservation of the NQB DSCP value enables hops
further along the path to provide the NQB PHB successfully.
White & Fossati Expires 26 September 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Non-Queue-Building PHB March 2023
In backbone and core network switches (particularly if shallow-
buffered), as well as in nodes that do not typically experience
congestion, forwarding packets with the NQB DSCP using the Default
treatment might be sufficient to preserve loss/latency/jitter
performance for NQB traffic. In other nodes, forwarding packets with
the NQB DSCP using the Default treatment could result in degradation
of loss/latency/jitter performance but nonetheless preserves the
incentives described in Section 5. An alternative, in controlled
environments where there is no risk of mismarking of traffic, would
be to aggregate traffic marked with the NQB DSCP with real-time,
latency sensitive traffic. Similarly, networks and nodes that
aggregate service classes as discussed in [RFC5127] and [RFC8100]
might not be able to provide a PDB/PHB that meets the requirements of
this document. In these cases it is RECOMMENDED that traffic marked
with the NQB DSCP be aggregated into the Elastic Treatment Aggregate
(for [RFC5127] networks) or the Default / Elastic Treatment Aggregate
(for [RFC8100] networks), although in some cases a network operator
might instead choose to aggregate NQB traffic into the (Bulk) Real-
Time Treatment Aggregate. Either approach comes with trade-offs:
when the aggregated traffic encounters a bottleneck, aggregating with
Default/Elastic traffic could result in a degradation of
loss/latency/jitter performance for NQB traffic, while aggregating
with Real-Time (assuming such traffic is provided a prioritized PHB)
risks creating an incentive for mismarking of non-compliant traffic
as NQB (except in controlled environments). In either case, the NQB
DSCP SHOULD be preserved (possibly via encapsulation) in order to
limit the negative impact that such networks would have on end-to-end
performance for NQB traffic. This aligns with recommendations in
[RFC5127].
4.3. Aggregation of other DSCPs in the NQB PHB
Operators of nodes that support the NQB PHB may choose to aggregate
other service classes into the NQB queue. This is particularly
useful in cases where specialized PHBs for these other service
classes are not provided. Candidate service classes for this
aggregation would include those that carry low-data-rate inelastic
traffic that has low to very-low tolerance for loss, latency and/or
jitter. An operator would need to use their own judgement based on
the actual traffic characteristics in their network in deciding
whether or not to aggregate other service classes / DSCPs with NQB.
For networks that use the [RFC4594] service class definitions, this
could include Telephony (EF/VA), Signaling (CS5), and possibly Real-
Time Interactive (CS4) (depending on data rate). In some networks,
equipment limitations may necessitate aggregating a range of DSCPs
(e.g. traffic marked with DSCPs 40-47 (decimal), i.e., those whose
three MSBs are 0b101). As noted in Section 4.1, the choice of the
DSCP value 45 (decimal) is motivated in part by the desire to make
White & Fossati Expires 26 September 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Non-Queue-Building PHB March 2023
this aggregation simpler in network equipment that can classify
packets via comparing the DSCP value to a range of configured values.
4.4. End-to-end usage and DSCP Re-marking
In contrast to some existing standard PHBs, many of which are
typically only used within a Diffserv Domain (e.g., an AS or an
enterprise network), this PHB is expected to be used end-to-end
across the Internet, wherever suitable operator agreements apply.
Under the [RFC2474] model, this requires that the corresponding DSCP
is recognized and mapped across network boundaries accordingly.
If NQB support is extended across a DiffServ domain boundary, the
interconnected networks agreeing to support NQB SHOULD use the DSCP
value 45 (decimal) for NQB at network interconnection, unless a
different DSCP is explicitly documented in the TCA (Traffic
Conditioning Agreement, see [RFC2475]) for that interconnection.
Similar to the handling of DSCPs for other PHBs (and as discussed in
[RFC2475]), networks can re-mark NQB traffic to a DSCP other than 45
(decimal) for internal usage. To ensure reliable end-to-end NQB PHB
treatment, the appropriate NQB DSCP should be restored when
forwarding to another network.
4.4.1. Interoperability with Non-DS-Capable Domains
As discussed in Section 4 of [RFC2475], there may be cases where a
network operator that supports Diffserv is delivering traffic to
another network domain (e.g. a network outside of their
administrative control), where there is an understanding that the
downstream domain does not support Diffserv or there is no knowledge
of the traffic management capabilities of the downstream domain, and
no agreement in place. In such cases, Section 4 of [RFC2475]
suggests that the upstream domain opportunistically re-mark traffic
with a Class Selector codepoint or DSCP 0 (Default) under the
assumption that traffic so marked would be handled in a predictable
way by the downstream domain.
In the case of a network that supports the NQB PHB (and carries
traffic marked with the recommended NQB DSCP value) the same concerns
apply. In particular, since the recommended NQB DSCP value could be
given high priority in some non-DS-compliant network gear (e.g.,
legacy WiFi APs as described in Section 8.3.1), it is RECOMMENDED
that the operator of the upstream domain re-mark NQB traffic to DSCP
0 (Default) before delivering traffic into a non-DS-capable domain.
Network equipment that is intended to deliver traffic into networks
that are expected to be non-DS-compliant (e.g., an access network
gateway for a residential ISP) SHOULD by default ensure that NQB
White & Fossati Expires 26 September 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Non-Queue-Building PHB March 2023
traffic is re-marked with a DSCP that is unlikely to result in
prioritized treatment in the downstream domain, such as DSCP 0
(Default). It is RECOMMENDED that this equipment supports the
ability to configure the re-marking, so that (when it is appropriate)
traffic can be delivered as NQB-marked.
As an alternative to re-marking, such an operator could deploy a
traffic protection (see Section 5.2) or a shaping/policing function
on traffic marked with the NQB DSCP that minimizes the potential for
negative impacts on Default traffic, should the downstream domain
treat traffic with the NQB DSCP as high priority. It should be noted
that a traffic protection function as defined in this document might
only provide protection from issues occuring in subsequent network
hops if the device implementing the traffic protection function is
the bottleneck link on the path, so it might not be a solution for
all situations. In the case that a traffic policing function or a
rate shaping function is applied to the aggregate of NQB traffic
destined to such a downstream domain, the policer/shaper rate SHOULD
be set to either 5% of the interconnection data rate, or 5% of the
typical rate for such interconnections, whichever is greater, with
excess traffic being either re-marked and classified for Default
forwarding or dropped. A traffic policing function SHOULD allow
approximately 100 ms of burst tolerance (e.g. a token bucket depth
equal to 100 ms multiplied by the policer rate). A traffic shaping
function SHOULD allow approximately 10 ms of burst tolerance, and no
more than 50 ms of buffering. The burst tolerance values recommended
here are intended to reduce the degradation that could be introduced
to latency and loss sensitive traffic marked NQB without
significantly degrading Default traffic.
The recommendation to limit NQB traffic to 5% SHOULD be adjusted
based on knowledge of the local network environment.
4.5. The NQB DSCP and Tunnels
[RFC2983] discusses tunnel models that support Diffserv. It
describes a "uniform model" in which the inner DSCP is copied to the
outer header at encapsulation, and the outer DSCP is copied to the
inner header at decapsulation. It also describes a "pipe model" in
which the outer DSCP is not copied to the inner header at
decapsulation. Both models can be used in conjunction with the NQB
PHB. In the case of the pipe model, any DSCP manipulation (re-
marking) of the outer header by intermediate nodes would be discarded
at tunnel egress, potentially improving the possibility of achieving
NQB treatment in subsequent nodes.
White & Fossati Expires 26 September 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Non-Queue-Building PHB March 2023
As is discussed in [RFC2983], tunnel protocols that are sensitive to
reordering can result in undesirable interactions if multiple DSCP
PHBs are signaled for traffic within a tunnel instance. This is true
for traffic marked with the NQB DSCP as well. If a tunnel contains a
mix of QB and NQB traffic, and this is reflected in the outer DSCP in
a network that supports the NQB PHB, it would be necessary to avoid a
reordering-sensitive tunnel protocol.
5. Non-Queue-Building PHB Requirements
It is important that incentives are aligned correctly, i.e., that
there is a benefit to the application in marking its packets
correctly, and a disadvantage (or at least no benefit) to an
application in intentionally mismarking its traffic. Thus, a useful
property of nodes (i.e. network switches and routers) that support
separate queues for NQB and QB flows is that for flows consistent
with the NQB sender requirements in Section 4.1, the NQB queue would
likely be a better choice than the QB queue; and for flows
inconsistent with those requirements, the QB queue would likely be a
better choice than the NQB queue (this is discussed further in this
section and Section 12). By adhering to these principles, there is
no incentive for senders to mismark their traffic as NQB. As
mentioned previously, the NQB designation and marking is intended to
convey verifiable traffic behavior, as opposed to simply a desire for
differentiated treatment. As a result, any mismarking can be
identified by the network.
5.1. Primary Requirements
A node supporting the NQB PHB makes no guarantees on latency or data
rate for NQB-marked flows, but instead aims to provide an upper-bound
to queuing delay for as many such marked flows as it can and shed
load when needed.
A node supporting the NQB PHB MUST provide a queue for Non-Queue-
Building traffic separate from the queue used for Default traffic.
A node supporting the NQB PHB SHOULD NOT rate limit or rate police
the aggregate of NQB traffic separately from Default traffic. An
exception to this recommendation is discussed in Section 4.4.1.
The NQB queue SHOULD be given equivalent forwarding preference
compared to Default. The node SHOULD provide a scheduler that allows
NQB and Default traffic to share the link in a fair manner, e.g., a
deficit round-robin scheduler with equal weights. Compliance with
these recommendations helps to ensure that there are no incentives
for QB traffic to be mismarked as NQB.
White & Fossati Expires 26 September 2023 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Non-Queue-Building PHB March 2023
A node supporting the NQB PHB SHOULD by default classify packets
marked with the NQB DSCP 45 (decimal) into the queue for Non-Queue-
Building traffic. A node supporting the NQB PHB MUST support the
ability to configure the DSCP that is used to classify packets into
the queue for Non-Queue-Building traffic. A node supporting the NQB
PHB SHOULD support the ability to configure multiple DSCPs that are
used classify packets into the queue for Non-Queue-Building traffic.
The NQB queue SHOULD have a buffer size that is significantly smaller
than the buffer provided for Default traffic. It is expected that
most Default traffic is engineered to work well when the network
provides a relatively deep buffer (e.g., on the order of tens or
hundreds of ms) in nodes where support for the NQB PHB is
advantageous (i.e., bottleneck nodes). Providing a similarly deep
buffer for the NQB queue would be at cross purposes to providing very
low queueing delay and would erode the incentives for QB traffic to
be marked correctly. An NQB buffer size less than or equal to 10 ms
is RECOMMENDED.
While not fully described in this document, it may be possible for
network equipment to implement a separate QB/NQB pair of queues for
additional service classes beyond the Default PHB / NQB PHB pair.
In some cases, existing network gear has been deployed that cannot
readily be upgraded or configured to support the PHB requirements.
This equipment might however be capable of loosely supporting an NQB
service – see Section 8.3.1 for details and an example where this is
particularly important. A similar approach might prove necessary in
other network environments.
5.2. Traffic Protection
It is possible that due to an implementation error or
misconfiguration, a QB flow would end up getting mismarked as NQB, or
vice versa. In the case of a low data rate flow that isn't marked as
NQB and therefore ends up in the QB queue, it would only impact its
own quality of service, and so it seems to be of lesser concern.
However, a QB flow that is mismarked as NQB would cause queuing
delays and/or loss for all the other flows that are sharing the NQB
queue.
To prevent this situation from harming the performance of the flows
that are in compliance with the requirements in Section 4.1, network
elements that support the NQB PHB SHOULD support a "traffic
protection" function that can identify flows that are inconsistent
with the sender requirements in Section 4.1, and either re-mark those
flows/packets as Default and reclassify them to the QB queue or
discard the offending traffic. Such a function SHOULD be implemented
White & Fossati Expires 26 September 2023 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Non-Queue-Building PHB March 2023
in an objective and verifiable manner, basing its decisions upon the
behavior of the flow rather than on application-layer constructs.
While it is possible to utilize a per-flow rate policer to perform
this function, it is RECOMMENDED that traffic protection algorithms
base their decisions on the detection of actual queuing, as opposed
to simply packet arrival rate or data rate. It could be advantageous
for a traffic protection function to employ hysteresis to prevent
borderline flows from being reclassified capriciously.
The traffic protection function described here requires that the
network element maintain some sort of flow state. The traffic
protection function MUST be designed such that the node implementing
the NQB PHB does not fail (e.g. crash) in the case that the flow
state is exhausted.
One example traffic protection algorithm can be found in
[I-D.briscoe-docsis-q-protection]. This algorithm maintains per-flow
state for up to 32 simultaneous "queue-building" flows, and shared
state for any additional flows in excess of that number.
There are some situations where such a function is potentially not
necessary. For example, a network element designed for use in
controlled environments (e.g., enterprise LAN). Additionally, some
networks might prefer to police the application of the NQB DSCP at
the ingress edge, so that per-hop traffic protection is not needed.
5.3. Guidance for Very Low-Rate Links
The NQB sender requirements in Section 4.1 place responsibility in
the hands of the application developer to determine the likelihood
that the application's sending behavior could result in a queue
forming along the path. These requirements rely on application
developers having a reasonable sense for the network context in which
their application is to be deployed. Even so, there will undoubtedly
be networks that contain links having a data rate that is below the
lower end of what is considered "typical", and some of these links
could even be below the instantaneous sending rate of some NQB-marked
applications.
To limit the consequences of this scenario, operators of such
networks SHOULD utilize a traffic protection function that is more
tolerant of burstiness (i.e., a temporary queue). Alternatively,
operators of such networks MAY choose to disable NQB support (and
thus aggregate traffic marked with the NQB DSCP with Default traffic)
on these low-speed links. For links that are less than ten percent
of "typical" path rates, it is RECOMMENDED that the NQB PHB be
disabled and for traffic marked with the NQB DSCP to thus be carried
using the Default PHB.
White & Fossati Expires 26 September 2023 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Non-Queue-Building PHB March 2023
6. Impact on Higher Layer Protocols
Network elements that support the NQB PHB and that support traffic
protection as discussed in the previous section introduce the
possibility that flows classified into the NQB queue could experience
out of order delivery or packet loss if their behavior is not
consistent with the NQB sender requirements. Out-of-order delivery
could be particularly likely if the traffic protection algorithm
makes decisions on a packet-by-packet basis. In this scenario, a
flow that is (mis)marked as NQB and that causes a queue to form in
this bottleneck link could see some of its packets forwarded by the
NQB queue, and some of them either discarded or redirected to the QB
queue. In the case of redirection, depending on the queueing latency
and scheduling within the network element, this could result in
packets being delivered out of order. As a result, the use of the
NQB DSCP by a higher layer protocol carries some risk that an
increased amount of out of order delivery or packet loss will be
experienced. This characteristic provides one disincentive for
incorrectly setting the NQB DSCP on traffic that doesn't comply with
the NQB sender requirements.
7. Configuration and Management
As required above, nodes supporting the NQB PHB provide for the
configuration of classifiers that can be used to differentiate
between QB and NQB traffic of equivalent importance. The default for
such classifiers is recommended to be the assigned NQB DSCP (to
identify NQB traffic) and the Default (0) DSCP (to identify QB
traffic).
8. Example Use Cases
8.1. DOCSIS Access Networks
Residential cable broadband Internet services are commonly configured
with a single bottleneck link (the access network link) upon which
the service definition is applied. The service definition, typically
an upstream/downstream data rate tuple, is implemented as a
configured pair of rate shapers that are applied to the user's
traffic. In such networks, the quality of service that each
application receives, and as a result, the quality of experience that
it generates for the user is influenced by the characteristics of the
access network link.
To support the NQB PHB, cable broadband services MUST be configured
to provide a separate queue for traffic marked with the NQB DSCP.
The NQB queue MUST be configured to share the service's rate shaped
bandwidth with the queue for QB traffic.
White & Fossati Expires 26 September 2023 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Non-Queue-Building PHB March 2023
8.2. Mobile Networks
Historically, 3GPP mobile networks have utilised "bearers" to
encapsulate each user's user plane traffic through the radio and core
networks. A "dedicated bearer" can be allocated a Quality of Service
(QoS) to apply any prioritisation to its flows at queues and radio
schedulers. Typically, an LTE operator provides a dedicated bearer
for IMS VoLTE (Voice over LTE) traffic, which is prioritised in order
to meet regulatory obligations for call completion rates; and a "best
effort" default bearer, for Internet traffic. The "best effort"
bearer provides no guarantees, and hence its buffering
characteristics are not compatible with low-latency traffic. The 5G
radio and core systems offer more flexibility over bearer allocation,
meaning bearers can be allocated per traffic type (e.g., loss-
tolerant, low-latency etc.) and hence support more suitable treatment
of Internet real-time flows.
To support the NQB PHB, the mobile network SHOULD be configured to
give User Equipment a dedicated, low-latency, non-GBR, EPS bearer,
e.g., one with QCI 7, in addition to the default EPS bearer; or a
Data Radio Bearer with 5QI 7 in a 5G system (see Table 5.7.4-1:
Standardized 5QI to QoS characteristics mapping in [SA-5G]).
A packet carrying the NQB DSCP SHOULD be routed through the dedicated
low-latency EPS bearer. A packet that has no associated NQB marking
SHOULD NOT be routed through the dedicated low-latency EPS bearer.
8.3. WiFi Networks
WiFi networking equipment compliant with 802.11e/n/ac/ax [IEEE802-11]
generally supports either four or eight transmit queues and four sets
of associated Enhanced Multimedia Distributed Control Access (EDCA)
parameters (corresponding to the four WiFi Multimedia (WMM) Access
Categories) that are used to enable differentiated media access
characteristics. As discussed in [RFC8325], it has been a common
practice for WiFi implementations to use a default DSCP to User
Priority mapping that utilizes the most significant three bits of the
Diffserv Field to select "User Priority" which is then mapped to the
four WMM Access Categories. [RFC8325] also provides an alternative
mapping that more closely aligns with the DSCP recommendations
provided by the IETF. In the case of some managed WiFi gear, this
mapping can be controlled by the network operator, e.g., via TR-369
[TR-369].
White & Fossati Expires 26 September 2023 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Non-Queue-Building PHB March 2023
In addition to the requirements provided in other sections of this
document, to support the NQB PHB, WiFi equipment (including equipment
compliant with [RFC8325]) SHOULD map the NQB DSCP 45 (decimal) into a
separate queue in the same Access Category as the queue that carries
Default traffic (i.e. the Best Effort Access Category).
8.3.1. Interoperability with Existing WiFi Networks
While some existing WiFi equipment might be capable (in some cases
via firmware update) of supporting the NQB PHB requirements, many
currently deployed devices cannot be configured in this way. As a
result, the remainder of this section discusses interoperability with
these existing WiFi networks, as opposed to PHB compliance.
Since this equipment is widely deployed, and the WiFi link is
commonly a bottleneck link, the performance of traffic marked with
the NQB DSCP across such links could have a significant impact on the
viability and adoption of the NQB DSCP and PHB. Depending on the
DSCP used to mark NQB traffic, existing WiFi equipment that uses the
default mapping of DSCPs to Access Categories and the default EDCA
parameters will support either the NQB PHB requirement for separate
queuing of NQB traffic, or the recommendation to treat NQB traffic
with priority equal to Default traffic, but not both.
The DSCP value 45 (decimal) is recommended for NQB. This maps NQB to
UP_5 using the default mapping, which is in the "Video" Access
Category. While this choice of DSCP enables these WiFi systems to
support the NQB PHB requirement for separate queuing, existing WiFi
devices generally utilize EDCA parameters that result in statistical
prioritization of the "Video" Access Category above the "Best Effort"
Access Category. In addition this equipment does not support the
remaining NQB PHB recommendations in Section 5. The rationale for
the choice of DSCP 45 (decimal) as well as its ramifications, and
remedies for its limitations are discussed further below.
The choice of separated queuing rather than equal priority in
existing WiFi networks was motivated by the following:
* Separate queuing is necessary in order to provide a benefit for
traffic marked with the NQB DSCP.
* WiFi gear typically has hardware support (albeit generally not
exposed for user control) for adjusting the EDCA parameters in
order to meet the equal priority recommendation. This is
discussed further below.
White & Fossati Expires 26 September 2023 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Non-Queue-Building PHB March 2023
* Traffic that is compliant with the NQB sender requirements
Section 4.1 is unlikely to cause more degradation to lower
priority Access Categories than the existing recommended Video
Access Category traffic types: Broadcast Video, Multimedia
Streaming, Multimedia Conferencing from [RFC8325], and AudioVideo,
ExcellentEffort from [QOS_TRAFFIC_TYPE].
* Application instances on WiFi client devices are already free to
choose any Access Category that they wish, regardless of their
sending behavior, without any policing of usage. So, the choice
of using DSCP 45 (decimal) for NQB creates no new avenues for non-
NQB-compliant client applications to exploit the prioritization
function in WiFi.
* Several existing client applications that are compatible with the
NQB sender requirements already select the Video Access Category,
and thus would not see a degradation in performance by
transitioning to the NQB DSCP, regardless of whether the network
supported the PHB.
* For application traffic that originates outside of the WiFi
network, and thus is transmitted by the Access Point,
opportunities exist in the network components upstream of the WiFi
Access Point to police the usage of the NQB DSCP and potentially
re-mark traffic that is considered non-compliant, as is
recommended in Section 4.4.1. A residential ISP that re-marks the
Diffserv field to zero, bleaches all DSCPs and hence would not be
impacted by the introduction of traffic marked as NQB.
Furthermore, any change to this practice ought to be done
alongside the implementation of those recommendations in the
current document.
The choice of Video Access Category rather than the Voice Access
Category was motivated by the desire to minimize the potential for
degradation of Best Effort Access Category traffic. The choice of
Video Access Category rather than the Background Access Category was
motivated by the much greater potential of degradation to NQB traffic
that would be caused by the vast majority of traffic in most WiFi
networks, which utilizes the Best Effort Access Category.
If left unchanged, the prioritization of traffic marked with the NQB
DSCP via the Video Access Category (particularly in the case of
traffic originating outside of the WiFi network as mentioned above)
could erode the principle of alignment of incentives discussed in
Section 5. In order to preserve the incentives principle for NQB,
WiFi systems SHOULD be configured such that the EDCA parameters for
the Video Access Category match those of the Best Effort Access
Category. These changes can be deployed in managed WiFi systems or
White & Fossati Expires 26 September 2023 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Non-Queue-Building PHB March 2023
those deployed by an ISP and are intended for situations when the
vast majority of traffic that would use AC_VI is NQB. In other
situations (e.g., consumer-grade WiFi gear deployed by an ISP's
customer) this configuration might not be possible, and the
requirements and recommendations in Section 4.4.1 would apply.
Similarly, systems that utilize [RFC8325] but that are unable to
fully support the PHB requirements, SHOULD map the recommended NQB
DSCP 45 (decimal) (or the locally determined alternative) to UP_5 in
the "Video" Access Category.
9. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Diego Lopez, Stuart Cheshire, Brian Carpenter, Bob Briscoe,
Greg Skinner, Toke Hoeiland-Joergensen, Luca Muscariello, David
Black, Sebastian Moeller, Ruediger Geib, Jerome Henry, Steven Blake,
Jonathan Morton, Roland Bless, Kevin Smith, Martin Dolly, and Kyle
Rose for their review comments. Thanks also to Gorry Fairhurst, Ana
Custura, and Ruediger Geib for their input on selection of
appropriate DSCPs.
10. IANA Considerations
This document requests that IANA assign the Differentiated Services
Field Codepoint (DSCP) 45 ('0b101101', 0x2D) from the "Differentiated
Services Field Codepoints (DSCP)" registry
(https://www.iana.org/assignments/dscp-registry/) ("DSCP Pool 3
Codepoints", Codepoint Space xxxx01, Standards Action) as the
RECOMMENDED codepoint for Non-Queue-Building behavior.
IANA should update this registry as follows:
* Name: NQB
* Value (Binary): 101101
* Value (Decimal): 45
* Reference: this document
11. Implementation Status
Note to RFC Editor: This section should be removed prior to
publication
White & Fossati Expires 26 September 2023 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Non-Queue-Building PHB March 2023
The NQB PHB is implemented in equipment compliant with the current
DOCSIS 3.1 specification, published by CableLabs at: CableLabs
Specifications Search (https://www.cablelabs.com/specifications/searc
h?query=&category=DOCSIS&subcat=DOCSIS%203.1&doctype=Specifications&c
ontent=false&archives=false¤tPage=1).
CableLabs maintains a list of production cable modem devices that are
Certified as being compliant to the DOCSIS Specifications, this list
is available at https://www.cablelabs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/
cert_qual.xlsx. DOCSIS 3.1 modems certified in CW 134 or greater
implement the NQB PHB. This includes products from Arcadyan
Technology Corporation, Arris, AVM, Castlenet, Commscope, Hitron,
Motorola, Netgear, Sagemcom and Vantiva. There are additional
production implementations that have not been Certified as compliant
to the specification, but which have been tested in non-public
Interoperability Events. These implementations are all proprietary,
not available as open source.
12. Security Considerations
When the NQB PHB is fully supported in bottleneck links, there is no
incentive for a Queue-Building application to mismark its packets as
NQB (or vice versa). If a Queue-Building flow were to mismark its
packets as NQB, it would be unlikely to receive a benefit by doing
so, and it would usually experience a degradation. The nature of the
degradation would depend on the specifics of the PHB implementation
(and on the presence or absence of a traffic protection function),
but could include excessive packet loss, excessive latency variation
and/or excessive out-of-order delivery. If a Non-Queue-Building flow
were to fail to mark its packets as NQB, it could suffer the latency
and loss typical of sharing a queue with capacity seeking traffic.
In order to preserve low latency performance for NQB traffic,
networks that support the NQB PHB will need to ensure that mechanisms
are in place to prevent malicious traffic marked with the NQB DSCP
from causing excessive queue delays. Section 5.2 recommends the
implementation of a traffic protection mechanism to achieve this goal
but recognizes that other options might be more desirable in certain
situations. The recommendations on traffic protection mechanisms in
this document presume that some type of "flow" state be maintained in
order to differentiate between flows that are causing queuing delay
and those that aren't. Since this flow state is likely finite, this
opens up the possibility of flow-state exhaustion attacks. While
this document requires that traffic protection mechanisms be designed
with this possibility in mind, the outcomes of flow-state exhaustion
would depend on the implementation.
White & Fossati Expires 26 September 2023 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Non-Queue-Building PHB March 2023
Notwithstanding the above, the choice of DSCP for NQB does allow
existing WiFi networks to readily (and by default) support some of
the PHB requirements, but without a traffic protection function, and
(when left in the default state) by giving NQB traffic higher
priority than QB traffic. This is not considered to be a compliant
implementation of the PHB. These existing WiFi networks currently
provide priority to half of the DSCP space, including the NQB DSCP.
While the NQB DSCP value could be abused in order to gain priority on
such links, the potential presence of traffic protection functions
along the path (which apply to the NQB DSCP value alone) would seem
to make it less attractive for such abuse than any of the other 31
DSCP values that are provided high priority.
NQB uses the Diffserv code point (DSCP). The design of Diffserv does
not include integrity protection for the DSCP, and thus it is
possible for the DSCP to be changed by an on-path attacker. The NQB
PHB and associated DSCP don't change this. While re-marking DSCPs is
permitted for various reasons (some are discussed in this document,
others can be found in [RFC2474] and [RFC2475]), if done maliciously,
this might negatively affect the QoS of the tampered flow.
13. References
13.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.
[RFC2983] Black, D., "Differentiated Services and Tunnels",
RFC 2983, DOI 10.17487/RFC2983, October 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2983>.
[RFC8085] Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage
Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085,
March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8085>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
White & Fossati Expires 26 September 2023 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Non-Queue-Building PHB March 2023
[RFC8325] Szigeti, T., Henry, J., and F. Baker, "Mapping Diffserv to
IEEE 802.11", RFC 8325, DOI 10.17487/RFC8325, February
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8325>.
13.2. Informative References
[Barik] Barik, R., Welzl, M., Elmokashfi, A., Dreibholz, T., and
S. Gjessing, "Can WebRTC QoS Work? A DSCP Measurement
Study", ITC 30, September 2018.
[Custura] Custura, A., Venne, A., and G. Fairhurst, "Exploring DSCP
modification pathologies in mobile edge networks", TMA ,
2017.
[I-D.briscoe-docsis-q-protection]
Briscoe, B. and G. White, "The DOCSIS(r) Queue Protection
Algorithm to Preserve Low Latency", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-briscoe-docsis-q-protection-06, 13
May 2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
briscoe-docsis-q-protection-06>.
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-aqm-dualq-coupled]
De Schepper, K., Briscoe, B., and G. White, "Dual-Queue
Coupled Active Queue Management (AQM) for Low Latency, Low
Loss, and Scalable Throughput (L4S)", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-tsvwg-aqm-dualq-coupled-25, 29
August 2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
ietf-tsvwg-aqm-dualq-coupled-25>.
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations]
Custura, A., Fairhurst, G., and R. Secchi, "Considerations
for Assigning a new Recommended DiffServ Codepoint
(DSCP)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
tsvwg-dscp-considerations-13, 3 March 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-
dscp-considerations-13>.
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id]
De Schepper, K. and B. Briscoe, "The Explicit Congestion
Notification (ECN) Protocol for Low Latency, Low Loss, and
Scalable Throughput (L4S)", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id-29, 29 August 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-
ecn-l4s-id-29>.
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch]
Briscoe, B., De Schepper, K., Bagnulo, M., and G. White,
"Low Latency, Low Loss, and Scalable Throughput (L4S)
White & Fossati Expires 26 September 2023 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Non-Queue-Building PHB March 2023
Internet Service: Architecture", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch-20, 29 August
2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
tsvwg-l4s-arch-20>.
[IEEE802-11]
IEEE-SA, "IEEE 802.11-2020", IEEE 802, December 2020,
<https://standards.ieee.org/standard/802_11-2020.html>.
[QOS_TRAFFIC_TYPE]
Microsoft, Corporation, "QOS_TRAFFIC_TYPE enumeration",
2022, <https://learn.microsoft.com/en-
us/windows/win32/api/qos2/ne-qos2-qos_traffic_type>.
[RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
Services", RFC 2475, DOI 10.17487/RFC2475, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2475>.
[RFC3551] Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and
Video Conferences with Minimal Control", STD 65, RFC 3551,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3551, July 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3551>.
[RFC4594] Babiarz, J., Chan, K., and F. Baker, "Configuration
Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes", RFC 4594,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4594, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4594>.
[RFC5127] Chan, K., Babiarz, J., and F. Baker, "Aggregation of
Diffserv Service Classes", RFC 5127, DOI 10.17487/RFC5127,
February 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5127>.
[RFC7893] Stein, Y., Black, D., and B. Briscoe, "Pseudowire
Congestion Considerations", RFC 7893,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7893, June 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7893>.
[RFC8033] Pan, R., Natarajan, P., Baker, F., and G. White,
"Proportional Integral Controller Enhanced (PIE): A
Lightweight Control Scheme to Address the Bufferbloat
Problem", RFC 8033, DOI 10.17487/RFC8033, February 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8033>.
White & Fossati Expires 26 September 2023 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Non-Queue-Building PHB March 2023
[RFC8034] White, G. and R. Pan, "Active Queue Management (AQM) Based
on Proportional Integral Controller Enhanced (PIE) for
Data-Over-Cable Service Interface Specifications (DOCSIS)
Cable Modems", RFC 8034, DOI 10.17487/RFC8034, February
2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8034>.
[RFC8083] Perkins, C. and V. Singh, "Multimedia Congestion Control:
Circuit Breakers for Unicast RTP Sessions", RFC 8083,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8083, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8083>.
[RFC8100] Geib, R., Ed. and D. Black, "Diffserv-Interconnection
Classes and Practice", RFC 8100, DOI 10.17487/RFC8100,
March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8100>.
[RFC8289] Nichols, K., Jacobson, V., McGregor, A., Ed., and J.
Iyengar, Ed., "Controlled Delay Active Queue Management",
RFC 8289, DOI 10.17487/RFC8289, January 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8289>.
[RFC8290] Hoeiland-Joergensen, T., McKenney, P., Taht, D., Gettys,
J., and E. Dumazet, "The Flow Queue CoDel Packet Scheduler
and Active Queue Management Algorithm", RFC 8290,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8290, January 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8290>.
[SA-5G] 3GPP, "System Architecture for 5G", TS 23.501, 2019.
[TR-369] Broadband Forum, "The User Services Platform", January
2022, <https://usp.technology/specification/index.html>.
Appendix A. DSCP Re-marking Policies
Some network operators typically bleach (zero out) the Diffserv field
on ingress into their network
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations][Custura][Barik], and in some
cases apply their own DSCP for internal usage. Bleaching the NQB
DSCP is not expected to cause harm to Default traffic, but it will
severely limit the ability to provide NQB treatment end-to-end.
Reports on existing deployments of DSCP manipulation [Custura][Barik]
categorize the re-marking behaviors into the following six policies:
bleach all traffic (set DSCP to zero), set the top three bits (the
former Precedence bits) on all traffic to 0b000, 0b001, or 0b010, set
the low three bits on all traffic to 0b000, or re-mark all traffic to
a particular (non-zero) DSCP value.
White & Fossati Expires 26 September 2023 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Non-Queue-Building PHB March 2023
Regarding the DSCP value 45 (decimal), there were no observations of
DSCP manipulation reported in which traffic was marked 45 (decimal)
by any of these policies. Thus it appears that these re-marking
policies would be unlikely to result in QB traffic being marked as
NQB (45). In terms of the fate of traffic marked with the NQB DSCP
that is subjected to one of these policies, the result would be that
traffic marked with the NQB DSCP would be indistinguishable from some
subset (possibly all) of other traffic. In the policies where all
traffic is re-marked using the same (zero or non-zero) DSCP, the
ability for a subsequent network hop to differentiate NQB traffic via
DSCP would clearly be lost entirely.
In the policies where the top three bits are overwritten (see
Section 4.2 of [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations]), the NQB DSCP
(45) would receive the same marking as would the currently unassigned
Pool 3 DSCPs 5,13,21,29,37,53,61, with all of these DSCPs getting re-
marked to DSCP = 5, 13 or 21 (depending on the overwrite value used).
Since none of the DSCPs in the preceding lists are currently assigned
by IANA, and they all are reserved for Standards Action, it is
believed that they are not widely used currently, but this could vary
based on local-usage, and could change in the future. If networks in
which this sort of re-marking occurs (or networks downstream)
classify the resulting DSCP (i.e. 5, 13, or 21) to the NQB PHB, or
re-mark such traffic as 45 (decimal), they risk treating as NQB other
traffic, which was not originally marked as NQB. In addition, as
described in Section 6 of [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations] future
assignments of these 0bxxx101 DSCPs would need to be made with
consideration of the potential that they all are treated as NQB in
some networks.
For the policy in which the low three bits are set to 0b000, the NQB
(45) value would be re-marked to CS5 and would be indistinguishable
from CS5, VA, EF (and the unassigned DSCPs 41, 42, 43). Traffic
marked using the existing standardized DSCPs in this list are likely
to share the same general properties as NQB traffic (non capacity-
seeking, very low data rate or relatively low and consistent data
rate). Similarly, any future recommended usage for DSCPs 41, 42, 43
would likely be somewhat compatible with NQB treatment, assuming that
IP Precedence compatibility (see Section 1.5.4 of [RFC4594]) is
maintained in the future. Here there might be an opportunity for a
node to provide the NQB PHB or the CS5 PHB to CS5-marked traffic and
retain some of the benefits of NQB marking. This could be another
motivation to (as discussed in Section 4.2) classify CS5-marked
traffic into NQB queue.
Authors' Addresses
White & Fossati Expires 26 September 2023 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Non-Queue-Building PHB March 2023
Greg White
CableLabs
Email: g.white@cablelabs.com
Thomas Fossati
ARM
Email: Thomas.Fossati@arm.com
White & Fossati Expires 26 September 2023 [Page 26]