Network Working Group S. Dhesikan
Internet-Draft C. Jennings
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco
Expires: December 24, 2014 D. Druta, Ed.
ATT
P. Jones
J. Polk
Cisco
June 22, 2014
DSCP and other packet markings for RTCWeb QoS
draft-dhesikan-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-07
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 December 24, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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
Dhesikan, et al. Expires December 24, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb QoS June 2014
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
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. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Downward References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
10. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
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, if
too many packets, say all audio or all audio and video, are marked
for a given network condition 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 WebRTC 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
implementers based on the previous RFCs.
There are some environments where priority markings frequently help.
These include:
1. Private networks (Wide Area).
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.
Dhesikan, et al. Expires December 24, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb QoS June 2014
3. If the congested link is a local WiFi network, marking may help.
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 in an WebRTC
application can look at to determine how to set the various packet
markings and defines the mapping from abstract QoS policies (data
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
summary of them and provides the context of how they relate into the
RTCWeb context. 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. This document also
specifies the inputs that are needed by the browser to provide to the
media engine.
The DSCP value set by the endpoint is not always trusted by the
network. Therefore, the DSCP value may be remarked to any other
DSCP, even to best effort at the network edge through policy. The
mitigation for such action is through an authorization mechanism.
Such authorization mechanism is outside the scope of this document.
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
Dhesikan, et al. Expires December 24, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb QoS June 2014
The below uses the concept of a media flow, however these are
commonly not equivalent to a transport flow, i.e. as defined by a
5-tuple (source address, destination address, source port,
destination port, and protocol). Instead each media flow contains
all the packets associated with an independent media entity within
one 5-tuple. There may be multiple media flows within the same 5-
tuple. These media flows might be consisting of different media
types and have different priorities. The following are the inputs
that the browser provides to the media engine:
o Data Type: The browser provides this input as it knows if the flow
is audio, interactive video with or without audio, non-interactive
video with or without audio, or data.
o Priority: Another input is the relative treatment of the flow
within that data type. Many applications have multiple media
flows of the same data type and often some are more important than
others. Likewise, in a video conference where the flows in the
conference is of the same data type but contains different media
types, the flow for audio may be more important than the video
flow. JavaScript applications can tell the browser whether a
particular media flow is high, medium, low or very low importance
to the application.
When it comes to data transmission, a media (data) flow is the SCTP
stream under a common congestion control (currently within the same
SCTP association).
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-transports] defines in more detail what an
individual media flow is within the WebRTC context.
5. DSCP Mappings
Below is a table of DSCP markings for each data type of interest to
RTCWeb. These DSCPs for each data 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].
+---------------------------+-------+------+------------+-----------+
| Data Type | Very | Low | Medium | High |
| | Low | | | |
+---------------------------+-------+------+------------+-----------+
| Audio | CS1 | BE | EF (46) | EF (46) |
| | (8) | (0) | | |
| | | | | |
| Interactive Video with or | CS1 | BE | AF42, AF43 | AF41, |
| without audio | (8) | (0) | (36, 38) | AF42 (34, |
Dhesikan, et al. Expires December 24, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb QoS June 2014
| | | | | 36) |
| | | | | |
| Non-Interactive Video | CS1 | BE | AF32, AF33 | AF31, |
| with or without audio | (8) | (0) | (28, 30) | AF32 (26, |
| | | | | 28) |
| | | | | |
| Data | CS1 | BE | AF1x (10, | AF2x (18, |
| | (8) | (0) | 12, 14) | 20, 22) |
+---------------------------+-------+------+------------+-----------+
Table 1
The columns "very low", "low", "Medium" and "high" are the priority
levels. The browser app SHOULD first select the data type of the
media flow. Within the data type, the priority of the media flow
SHOULD be selected. All packets within a media flow SHOULD have the
same priority. In some cases, the selected cell may have multiple
DSCP values, such as AF41 and AF42. These offer different drop
precedences. One may select difference drop precedences for the
different packets in the media flow. Therefore, all packets in the
stream SHOULD be marked with the same priority but can have
difference drop precedences.
The combination of data type and priority provides specificity and
helps in selecting the right DSCP value for the media flow. In some
cases, the different drop precedence values provides additional
granularity in classifying packets within a media flow. For example:
In a video conference, the video media flow may be medium priority.
If so, either AF42 or AF43 may be selected. If the I frames in the
stream are more important than the P frames then the I frames can be
marked with AF42 and the P frames marked with AF43.
The above table assumes that packets marked with CS1 is treated as
"less than best effort". However, the treatment of CS1 is
implementation dependent. If an implementation treats CS1 as other
than "less than best effort", then the priority of the packets may be
changed from what is intended.
If a packet enters a QoS domain that has no support for the above
defined Data Types/Application classes, then the network node at the
edge will remark the DSCP value based on policies. Subsequently, if
the packet enters a QoS domain that supports a larger number of Data
types/Application (service) classes, there may not be sufficient
information in the packet to restore the original markings.
Mechanisms for restoring such original DSCP is outside the scope of
this document.
Dhesikan, et al. Expires December 24, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb QoS June 2014
6. 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.
7. IANA Considerations
This specification does not require any actions from IANA.
8. Downward References
This specification contains a downwards reference to [RFC4594]
however the parts of that RFC used by this specification are
sufficiently stable for this downward reference.
9. Acknowledgements
Thanks To David Black, Magnus Westerland, Paolo Severini, Jim
Hasselbrook, Joe Marcus, and Erik Nordmark for their help.
10. Document History
Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section.
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.
11. References
11.1. 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.
11.2. Informative References
Dhesikan, et al. Expires December 24, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RTCWeb QoS June 2014
[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
Cullen Jennings
Cisco
Email: fluffy@cisco.com
Dan Druta (editor)
ATT
Email: dd5826@att.com
Paul Jones
Cisco
Email: paulej@packetizer.com
James Polk
Cisco
Email: jmpolk@cisco.com
Dhesikan, et al. Expires December 24, 2014 [Page 7]