Network Working Group S. Dhesikan
Internet-Draft Cisco
Intended status: Standards Track D. Druta, Ed.
Expires: January 15, 2014 ATT
P. Jones
J. Polk
Cisco
July 14, 2013
DSCP and other packet markings for RTCWeb QoS
draft-dhesikan-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-02
Abstract
Many networks, such as service provider and enterprise networks, can
provide per packet treatments based on Differentiated Services Code
Points (DSCP) on a per hop basis. This document provides the
recommended DSCP values for browsers to use for various classes of
traffic.
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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 January 15, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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
(http://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
Dhesikan, et al. Expires January 15, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb QoS July 2013
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Relation to Other Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. DSCP Mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. QCI Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. WiFI Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. W3C API Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
11. Downward References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
13. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
Differentiated Services Code Points (DSCP)[RFC2474] style packet
marking can help provide QoS in some environments. There are many
use cases where such marking does not help, but it seldom makes
things worse if packets are marked appropriately. In other words,
when attempting to avoid congestion by marking certain traffic flows,
say all audio or all audio and video, causes the marking of too many
audio and/or video flows for a given network's capacity, then it can
prevent desirable results. Either too much other traffic will be
starved, or there is not enough capacity for the preferentially
marked packets (i.e., audio and/or video).
This draft proposes how a browser and other VoIP applications can
mark packets. This draft does not contradict or redefine any advice
from previous IETF RFCs but simply provides a simple set of
recommendations for implementors based on the previous RFCs.
There are some environments where priority markings frequently help.
These include:
1. Private networks (Wide Area).
Dhesikan, et al. Expires January 15, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb QoS July 2013
2. If the congested link is the broadband uplink in a Cable or DSL
scenario, often residential routers/NAT support preferential
treatment based on DSCP.
3. If the congested link is a local WiFi network, marking may help.
4. In some cellular style deployments, markings may help in cases
where the network does not remove them.
Traditionally DSCP values have been thought of as being site
specific, with each site selecting its own code points for each QoS
level. However in the RTCWeb use cases, the browsers need to set
them to something when there is no site specific information. This
document describes a reasonable default set of DSCP code point values
drawn from existing RFCs and common usage. These code points are
solely defaults. Future drafts may define mechanisms for site
specific mappings to override the values provided in this draft.
This draft defines some inputs that the browser can look at to
determine how to set the various packet markings and defines the
mapping from abstract QoS policies (media type, priority level) to
those packet markings.
2. Relation to Other Standards
This specification does not change or override the advice in any
other standards about setting packet markings. It simply provides a
non-normative summary of them and provides the context of how they
relate into the RTCWeb context. This document also specifies the
requirements for the W3C WebRTC API to understand what it needs to
control, and how the control splits between things the JavaScript
application running in the browser can control and things the browser
needs to control. In some cases, such as DSCP where the normative
RFC leaves open multiple options to choose from, this clarifies which
choice should be used in the RTCWeb context.
3. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", and "MAY"
in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
4. Inputs
The following are the inputs that the browser provides to the media
engine:
o Type of flow: The browser provides this input as it knows if the
flow is audio, video, or data. In this specification, both
Dhesikan, et al. Expires January 15, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb QoS July 2013
interactive and streaming media are included. They are treated in
different categories as their QoS requirements are slightly
different. If the type of flow is multiplexed content, then the
input is a list of the type of flows that are multiplexed within
the single stream.
o Session Context: This input provides the session context for the
type of flow. For example, the type of flow may be audio. The
flow may be part of a VoIP session or an audio/video session.
Such session context information helps the media engine and the
underlying network to make decisions on how to treat the audio
flow which may differ based on the entire session to which the
flow belongs. The browser should know this information.
o Relative priority: Another input is the relative treatment of the
stream within that session. Many applications have multiple video
flows and often some are more important than others. JavaScript
applications can tell the browser whether a particular media flow
is high, medium, or low importance to the application.
5. DSCP Mappings
Below is a table of DSCP markings for each media type RTCWeb is
interested in. These DSCPs for each media type listed are a
reasonable default set of code point values taken from [RFC4594]. A
web browser SHOULD use these values to mark the appropriate media
packets. More information on EF can be found in [RFC3246]. More
information on AF can be found in [RFC2597].
+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Media Type | Low | Medium | High |
+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Audio | 46 (EF) | 46 (EF) | 46 (EF) |
| Interactive Video | 38 (AF43) | 36 (AF42) | 34 (AF41) |
| Non-Interactive Video | 26 (AF33) | 28 (AF32) | 30 (AF31) |
| Data | 8 (CS1) | 0 (BE) | 10 (AF11) |
+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
Table 1
6. QCI Mapping
+-----------------------+-----+--------+------+
| Media Type | Low | Medium | High |
+-----------------------+-----+--------+------+
| Audio | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Interactive Video | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Non-Interactive Video | 8 | 6 | 4 |
| Data | 9 | 9 | 3 |
+-----------------------+-----+--------+------+
Dhesikan, et al. Expires January 15, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb QoS July 2013
Table 2
This corresponds to the mapping provided in TODO REF which are: QCI
values (LTE)
+---------+----------+-----+----------------------------------------+
| Value | | | Use |
+---------+----------+-----+----------------------------------------+
| 1 | GBR | 2 | Interactive Voice |
| 2 | GBR | 4 | Interactive Video |
| 3 | GBR | 5 | Non-Interactive Video |
| 4 | GBR | 3 | Real Time Gaming |
| 5 | Non-BG | R 1 | IMS Signaling |
| 6 | Non-BG | R 7 | interactive Voice, video, games |
| 7-9 | Non-BG | R 6 | non interactive video / TCP web, |
| | | | email, / Platinum vs gold user |
+---------+----------+-----+----------------------------------------+
Table 3
7. WiFI Mapping
+-----------------------+-----+--------+------+
| Media Type | Low | Medium | High |
+-----------------------+-----+--------+------+
| Audio | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| Interactive Video | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Non-Interactive Video | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Data | 1 | 0 | 3 |
+-----------------------+-----+--------+------+
Table 4
This corresponds to the mappings from TODO REF of
+---------+----+------------------+----------------+----------------+
| Value | | Traffic Type | Access | Designation |
| | | | Category (AC) | |
+---------+----+------------------+----------------+----------------+
| 1 | BK | Background | AC_BK | Background |
| 2 | - | (spare) | AC_BK | Background |
| 0 | BE | Best Effort | AC_BE | Best Effort |
| 3 | EE | Excellent Effort | AC_BE | Best Effort |
| 4 | CL | Controlled Load | AC_VI | Video |
| 5 | VI | Video | AC_VI | Video |
| 6 | VO | Voice | AC_VO | Voice |
| 7 | NC | Network Control | AC_VO | Voice |
+---------+----+------------------+----------------+----------------+
Dhesikan, et al. Expires January 15, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb QoS July 2013
Table 5
8. W3C API Implications
To work with this proposal, the W3C specification SHOULD provide a
way to specify the importance of media and data streams.
The W3C API SHOULD also provide a way for the application to find out
the source and destination IP and ports of any flow as well as the
DSCP value or other markings in use for that flow. The JavaScript
application can then communicate this to a web service that may
install a particular policy for that flow.
The W3C API SHOULD NOT provide a way for the JavaScript to
arbitrarily set the marking to any value of the JavaScript choosing
as this reduces the security provided by the browser knowing the
media type.
9. Security Considerations
This draft does not add any additional security implication other
than the normal application use of DSCP. For security implications
on use of DSCP, please refer to Section 6 of RFC 4594 . Please also
see work-in-progress draft draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-04 as an
additional reference.
10. IANA Considerations
This specification does not require any actions from IANA.
11. Downward References
This specification contains a downwards reference to [RFC4594]
however the parts of that RFC used by this specificaiton are
sufficiently stable for this donward reference.
12. Acknowledgements
Cullen Jennings was one of the authors of this text in the original
individual submission but was unceremoniously kicked off by the
chairs when it became a WG version. Thanks for hints on code to do
this from Paolo Severini, Jim Hasselbrook, Joe Marcus, and Erik
Nordmark.
13. Document History
Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section.
Dhesikan, et al. Expires January 15, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb QoS July 2013
This document was originally an individual submission in RTCWeb WG.
The RTCWeb working group selected it to be become a WG document.
Later the transport ADs requested that this be moved to the TSVWG WG
as that seemed to be a better match. This document is now being
submitted as individual submission to the TSVWG with the hope that WG
will select it as a WG draft and move it forward to an RFC.
14. References
14.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4594] Babiarz, J., Chan, K., and F. Baker, "Configuration
Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes", RFC 4594, August
2006.
14.2. Informative References
[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, December
1998.
[RFC2597] Heinanen, J., Baker, F., Weiss, W., and J. Wroclawski,
"Assured Forwarding PHB Group", RFC 2597, June 1999.
[RFC3246] Davie, B., Charny, A., Bennet, J., Benson, K., Le Boudec,
J., Courtney, W., Davari, S., Firoiu, V., and D.
Stiliadis, "An Expedited Forwarding PHB (Per-Hop
Behavior)", RFC 3246, March 2002.
Authors' Addresses
Subha Dhesikan
Cisco
Email: sdhesika@cisco.com
Dan Druta (editor)
ATT
Email: dd5826@att.com
Dhesikan, et al. Expires January 15, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb QoS July 2013
Paul Jones
Cisco
Email: paulej@packetizer.com
James Polk
Cisco
Email: jmpolk@cisco.com
Dhesikan, et al. Expires January 15, 2014 [Page 8]