[Search] [txt|pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00                                                            
Internet Engineering Task Force                 Don Hoffman
INTERNET-DRAFT                                  Sun Microsystems, Inc.

                                                Raj Yavatkar
                                                Intel Corporation

                                                December, 1996
                                                Expires: June 30, 1997


   Integrated-Services/RSVP Requirements for Layer 2 Traffic Control


                          Status of this Memo

This document is an Internet-Draft.  Internet-Drafts are working documents of
the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working
groups.  Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts.

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."

To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the
"1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow
Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe), munnari.oz.au
(Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or ftp.isi.edu (US West
Coast).

Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

                                Abstract

This documents discusses some of the requirements placed on L2 traffic control
in IEEE 802-style networks by IP Integrated Services (IntServ) and RSVP
signaling.  It outlines some of the features of IntServ/RSVP which are of
particular relevance to this style of network, and defines the of the
requirements that a L2 network must meet to fully support these features.
Finally, it discusses certain L2 mechanism which may aid in meeting these
requirements.















draft-hoffman-issll-l2tcreq-00.txt                              [Page 1]


INTERNET-DRAFT  Requirements for Layer 2 Traffic Control  December, 1996


0) What's Changed Since Last Version

        1) First version of document.

1) Introduction

This documents discusses some of the requirements placed on L2 traffic control
in IEEE 802-style networks by IP Integrated Services (IntServ) and RSVP
signaling. It is intended to be used as a condensed set of guidelines for L2
systems architects wishing to provide complete support for an IntServ/RSVP
infrastructure.

For the purposes of discussion, this document hypothesizes various L2
mechanisms (especially Section 5).  These L2 mechanisms are NOT part of the
specification of requirements, and should be taken as suggestions only.  This
document reflects only the opinions of the authors, and is intended to be
used as a starting point for further discussion within the IETF and IEEE 802
communities.


2) Reference environment

For the purposes of the discussion that follows, we make certain assumptions
about the reference environment.  No claim is made that these are the only
valid set of assumptions, and they may be modified after further discussion.

First, we assume an IP-based environment that makes use of the
following protocols/specifications in their referenced versions:

        IP multicast and unicast datagram service [Ref needed]
        RSVP signaling [6]
        Integrated Controlled Load Service and Guaranteed Service [1, 2, 3, 4,
         5]

We further assume that each IP subnet corresponds to a single L2 "domain".  A
domain is arbitrarily defined to be the set of nodes and links interconnected
without passing through some sort of IP (L3) forwarding function.  If new
802-proposed mechanisms such as Virtual LANS (VLANs) are employed, then
multiple IP subnets (and multiple L2 domains) could reside on a single
physical L2 topology.  An "edge-device" (ED) is defined to be an IP network
element that is a source of or sink for IP traffic for the subnet.  An ED can
be either a host or a router.  Each ED's interface to the L2 network has a
unique IP address.  Multiple physical interfaces with the same address (as
might be used for L2 load balancing) are considered to be a single interface
for the purposes of this discussion.  Multiple "virtual interfaces" on the
same physical interface are considered to be distinct if they have distinct
IP addresses.

For the purposes of this specification, we will model the L2 domain as a
black box, defined as a single logical link with multiple input and output
ports.  The behavior of this link is assumed to be more complex than strictly
FIFO.





draft-hoffman-issll-l2tcreq-00.txt                              [Page 2]


INTERNET-DRAFT  Requirements for Layer 2 Traffic Control  December, 1996


The following assumptions are defined in order to clarify the intended scope
of this document:

        A L2 domain will be built from an arbitrarily large set of L2 elements
         such as hubs, switches and shared LAN segments.  The number
         of elements that make up a subnet is allowed to be quite
         large, and the number of EDs also quite large (say an entire
         class B address).

        On certain elements, the maximum possible aggregate input bandwidth
          may exceed the capacity of any single output port.  Similarly,
          certain L2 links may be shared, and the total possible output
          bandwidth of all attached devices on to the link may exceed the
          capacity of the link and any of the input ports of the attached
          devices.

        Some of the L2 elements (e.g, switches and bridges) may buffer data
          on an output port when the offered load exceeds the rate of that
          port.  The amount of buffering on switches is considered to be
          finite and usually small.

        A bridge or switch may have varying amounts of intelligence in
          terms of policing and outgoing queue management.  This is,
          for the most part, considered to be less than the average
          ED and may be none for certain legacy or very low cost devices.

        Although all links that make up the L2 topology are considered
          to be very high speed, their speeds can range over several orders
          of magnitude.  EDs are also considered to support interfaces and
          transfer rates ranging over several orders of magnitude.



3) Integrated Services and RSVP Background

Certain key feature of RSVP and the IP Integrated Services architecture are
described here as they are believed to be important for a full understanding
of L3 requirements.

The relevant IETF RFCs and Internet Drafts [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] provide a full
description of IP Integrated Services and RSVP and this section is derived
from these specifications.

Readers already familiar with the above documents may wish to skip to the
next section.


3.1) RSVP

3.1.1) Definition of a flow:  The RSVP specification defines a flow as a
tuple consisting of the IP destination and source address, an IP protocol ID,
and if the protocol is TCP or UDP, the destination and source port number.
All but the destination IP address may be defined as a wild-card according to
specific rules.  Note that a particular IP source and destination address



draft-hoffman-issll-l2tcreq-00.txt                              [Page 3]


INTERNET-DRAFT  Requirements for Layer 2 Traffic Control  December, 1996


pair may have several flows (each with different flow specifications
distinguished by port number) running between them.  Also, there may be best
effort traffic between these two nodes not associated with any flow.

A flow is described by a Tspec and an Rspec.  The Tspec describes the nature
of the flow coming from the sender, and takes the form of a token bucket
specification (r, b) plus a peak rate (p), a minimum policed unit (m) and a
maximum packet size (M).  It is common to all service types.  The Rspec
described the required QoS from the receiver, and is specific to the service
type (e.g., Controlled Load or Guaranteed Service).  A reservation request
from a receiver will contain both a TSpec component and an RSpec component.

3.1.2) Heterogeneous reservations:  Each receiver determines its own flow
requirements, and the reservation request from each receiver is free to
define a different set of requirements.  There are a few restrictions
preventing receivers from using different >styles< of reservations, but in
general each receiver is free to set any of the parameters of the TSpec or
RSpec to receiver-specific values.

Note - reservations can differ not only in the TSpec information, but also in
the RSpec information (e.g., max delay in the IntServ Guaranteed Service).

One form of heterogeneity that will almost always be seen is between
receivers that have obtained reservations and those which are satisfied with
best effort service (or who have not yet requested the reservation).


3.1.3) Policing/reshaping at merge points:  In the case of multicast flows,
reservations from multiple receivers are, depending on the style of
reservation,  "merged" at IP multicast branch points as the reservation
propagates back up toward the sender.  It is then possible that some of the
outgoing interfaces at this downstream branch point will not be able to
support the full combined flowspec from upstream.

For example, a reservation arrives with a TSpec "r" value of 64Kbps on a
128Kbps link.  Another reservation, with an "r" value of 1Mbps, for the same
flow and sender arrives on an ethernet interface on the same router.
Admission control on each interface can succeed, and a merged reservation of
1Mbps is forwarded toward the sender. A sending ED may offer up to 1Mbps of
load toward both the 1Mbps interface and the 128Kbps interface.  The slower
interface must police this flow to 64Kbps in order to minimize the effects on
other traffic on the interface (both reserved and non-reserved). (See Section
3.2 discussion on handling of excess traffic.)

In addition, a reservation may be "shared" among multiple senders (in the
case of WF or SE reservation styles).  In such cases, the total possible
aggregate offered load from all the senders may exceed the reservation on a
single outgoing interface by a significant amount.  In certain conferencing
applications this can be by a factor of several hundred.  The application
assumes in this case that some external mechanisms (which may not always be
reliable) prevents too many senders from transmitting at once.






draft-hoffman-issll-l2tcreq-00.txt                              [Page 4]


INTERNET-DRAFT  Requirements for Layer 2 Traffic Control  December, 1996


Finally, the effects of queuing at intermediate systems may cause
sufficient traffic rate distortion that a compliant flow no longer
remains compliant with the Tspec.

Because of these three scenarios, the RSVP/IntServ architecture requires that
reshaping and/or policing be done at all source merge points and at
heterogeneous branch points.  These policing points are known to RSVP and
provided to local traffic control mechanisms on each outgoing interface.

(Side note - It should be noted, however, that the more extreme cases
discussed above will not be common in actual operation.)

3.1.4)  Scalability:  One motivation for RSVP's receiver-orientation
is to achieve very large scale multicast fan-out.  A key part of this is the
merging process mentioned above.  It is still uncertain how RSVP will scale
on subnets with VERY large fanout within a single hop (many of thousands, as
might be seen in a single campus wide L2 topology), where the merging
functions are of limited assistance.  Although the soft-state refresh
interval for RESV messages can be set arbitrarily long, this is in conflict
with responsive recovery from certain error conditions.


3.2) Integrated Services

3.2.1) Controlled Load Service:  The basic behavior of a compliant
Controlled Load (CL) Service stream is approximated by the behavior visible
to applications receiving best-effort service under unloaded conditions.
This behavior should be seen by all compliant CL streams even in the case of
severe congestion for best-effort traffic. The implication of this is that
congestion in the best-effort class should not interfere with CL traffic.
This can generally be taken to imply that some sort of priority, traffic
limiting or traffic separation scheme should be implemented on each outgoing
interface, and if the link is multi-access (i.e., multiple senders), an
equivalent scheme should be implemented on the link (or coordinated across
all output ports on to the link).

The CL specification requires that if a flow is non-conformant to the TSpec,
the forwarding node MUST attempt to forward excess traffic on a best-effort
basis.   Further, non-conformance will not be unusual at merge and branch
points and will happen as "a matter of normal operation." Non-conformant
traffic must not interfere with conformant CL traffic in other flows.

The specification suggests that a marking scheme be used for non-conformant
traffic if one is available.

In the case of flow non-conformance, the forwarding element is allowed to
degrade all the flow's packets equally, or it may sort the flow's traffic into
conformant and non-conformant sets.  In the latter case the packets in a flow
may be reordered by the network elements.


3.2.2) Guaranteed Service:  The basic behavior of a Guaranteed Service (GS)
flow is an assured level of bandwidth that produces a delay-bounded service
with no queuing loss for all conforming datagrams.  Unlike CL service, there



draft-hoffman-issll-l2tcreq-00.txt                              [Page 5]


INTERNET-DRAFT  Requirements for Layer 2 Traffic Control  December, 1996


are fairly specific requirements on the behavior of all forwarding elements
in the path.  Briefly, the end-end behavior conforms to the fluid model
within a specified set of error bounds. The GS draft should be consulted for
a full understanding of these requirements.

As with CL services, traffic is is policed at the edge of the network and
non-conforming traffic should be treated as best-effort datagrams (with the
same implications with regard to packet reordering).  The handling at interior
merge and branch point is different, however.  In this case, non-conforming
flows are "reshaped" by delaying datagrams until the flow is within
conformance of the TSpec.  Again, reordering is allowed, but the GS
specification suggests ways that this can be minimized.


4) Layer 2 Requirements

Unless otherwise specified, the requirements defined in this section are
mandatory for a L2 mapping of IP Integrated Services to be considered
compliant.  (Note - These are offered for discussion, and my be seriously
modified in future versions of the draft)

Unless otherwise specified, a compliant L3/L2 mapping must maintain the RSVP
and Integrated Services semantics and behavior defined in section 3 for the
services it supports (at this time either Controlled Load or Guaranteed
Service).  This includes semantics not mentioned directly, but covered in
referenced specifications.  No specific L2 or L3 mechanisms to accomplish
this are required by this document.

Taken as a black box, the L2 domain can be considered to be a single shared
link with multiple input and output interfaces.  As such, it can also be
considered an implicit merge and split point.  The behavior of this link is
assumed to be more complex than strictly FIFO. As they are based on a black
box model, these requirements do not mandate policing and reshaping in the
interior of the L2 domain.  (Although it may be desirable.  See Section 5.)
Nor do they mandate any particular scheduling algorithm.

Instead, compliance is measured at the receiving ED, based on IS-compliant
behavior at the sending EDs. An L2 traffic control mechanism is considered
compliant if the traffic, measured at a point after each receiving ED's input
queue, meets the Rspec for the flow, assuming:

        The flow sources are policed/reshaped at each ED output interface
        onto the domain according to the appropriate TSpec for that flow.

        The aggregate flow bandwidth from all sender ED output interface does
        not exceed the merged Tspec at any particular receiver.  Merging is
        defined to be according to the reservation style in use for that
        flow.









draft-hoffman-issll-l2tcreq-00.txt                              [Page 6]


INTERNET-DRAFT  Requirements for Layer 2 Traffic Control  December, 1996


If one of the above assumptions is not met, compliant behavior for the L2
traffic control mechanism is not defined.  In particular, the second
assumption may be violated in the course of normal operation. Several
complexities arise from this:

        The flow may be multicast, and the available bandwidth on each of the
        receiver input ports may be different (For example, some receivers
        have 100Mbps input ports, other only have 10Mbps input ports).
        Consequently, it might be possible for all assumptions to apply to
        only a subset of the receivers.  In this case, a traffic control
        mechanism is considered compliant if the flow is compliant with the
        RSpec at the subset of receivers that satisfy all assumptions.

        These requirements do not mandate that the effective utilized
        bandwidth at ED input ports be less than the merged (were
        appropriate) TSpecs for shared reservation styles.  But, a compliant
        L2 traffic control environment MUST continue to meet the Rspec for
        other flows where the above input assumptions are met. For example,
        in cases where many senders to a WF flow all send at once, exceeding
        the merged Tspec at all receivers, compliant behavior for that flow
        is undefined, and may result in violating the Rspec.  A compliant L2
        traffic control implementation will not cause other flows that do
        meet the input assumptions to violate the Rspec.


An L2 traffic control mechanism may (and probably will) provide some way to
limit the total number of reserved flows, or the total amount of bandwidth
allowed in that domain.  The exact nature of that mechanism and the interface
between L3 signaling and the L2 mechanism is outside the scope of this
document.

As multicast is a key element of many of the applications that make use of
Integrated Services, the mechanisms provided in L2 traffic control must scale
to the maximum number of nodes anticipated for that domain.


5) L2 Pragmatics

The approaches discussed in this section are not firm requirements, but are
to be taken as suggestions for possible mechanisms for implementing the
Integrated Services and RSVP functions over 802-style networks.  The
implementor or specified of L2 mechanisms is free to employ other
approaches.  Multiple mechanisms may be suggested in several cases.  (Note -
These are offered for discussion, and my be seriously modified or dropped in
future versions of the draft.)

5.1) Policing/reshaping at merge/split points.

As mentioned above, a L2 domain is an implicit merge/split point for RSVP
flows.  As long as the requirements in section 4 are met, there is no
specific requirement to do policing or reshaping at these implicit merge






draft-hoffman-issll-l2tcreq-00.txt                              [Page 7]


INTERNET-DRAFT  Requirements for Layer 2 Traffic Control  December, 1996


points.  It is likely, however, that in order to avoid congestion of internal
links and ED input ports some sort of policing/reshaping may be desirable
internal to the L2 switched environment. Several mechanisms may be possible:


        The L2 environment may employ sufficiently conservative admission
        control criteria such that offered loads significantly over the
        receiver TSpec do not result in congestion or delay bound violation.
        No policing/reshaping is done.

        Police/reshape on aggregations of flows.  Note that policing
        mechanisms based on aggregated sets of flows may result in service
        degradation for conformant flows due to non-conformance by other
        flows in the same aggregation.

        Implement IntServ-style per-flow mechanisms in L2.

The first two approaches may result in behavior that does not meet
the requirements in Section 4.  This will be the most problematic for
GS, but may provide a useful approximation of CL service in certain
environments. (See Section 5.3.)

5.2) Flow identification

It is probably undesirable to require flow packet classification based on IP
header information in all L2 elements.  The L2 mechanism may use some sort of
information in the L2 header (e.g., VLAN tag, flow tag, COS field or priority
bits) to facilitate packet processing in the interior of the L2 domain.  In
this case, the supplemental L2 header information may be derived based on
information provided by the L3 ED, obtained from the IP flow classifier in
that node.

If full per-flow  policing and merging is implemented in the interior of the
L2 domain, then the L2 header info must key to a specific IP flow.  If no or
only loose policing is done then this header information may map to some
aggregation of IP flows (e.g., based on service type).

Note that policing mechanisms based on aggregated sets of flows may result in
service degradation for conformant flows due to non-conformance by other
flows.

5.3) Service approximation

In the above sections, several cases are discussed where extreme cases of
receiver heterogeneity and sender fan-in can result in significant issues for
a compliant L2 traffic control mechanism.  It may be worthwhile to define
approximations to full compliance that meet the practical requirements of
actual applications in real-life situations.  Future versions of this
document may talk more specifically on agreed-on approximations.








draft-hoffman-issll-l2tcreq-00.txt                              [Page 8]


INTERNET-DRAFT  Requirements for Layer 2 Traffic Control  December, 1996


Expires: June 30, 1997


References:

[1]  Braden, R., Clark, D., and S. Shenker, "Integrated Services
    in the Internet Architecture: an Overview", RFC 1633, ISI, MIT, and
    PARC, June 1994.

[2] S. Shenker and J. Wroclawski. "Network Element QoS Control
   Service Specification Template". Internet Draft, July 1996, <draft-
   ietf-intserv-svc-template-03.txt>

[3] J. Wroclawski, "Specification of the Controlled-Load Network
    Element Service", Internet Draft, August 1996,
    <draft-ietf-intserv-ctrl-load-svc-03.txt>

[4] S. Shenker et. al., "Specification of Guaranteed Quality
    of Service", Internet Draft, August 1996,
    <draft-ietf-intserv-guaranteed-svc-06.txt>

[5] J. Wroclawski, "Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated Services",
   Internet Draft, July 1996, <draft-ietf-intserv-rsvp-use-00.txt>

[6] B. Braden, et. al. "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) -
    Version 1 Functional Specification", Internet Draft, July 1996,
    <draft-ietf-rsvp-spec-13.txt>



Authors' Addresses:


        Don Hoffman
        Sun Microsystems, Inc.
        MS: UMPK14-305
        2550 Garcia Avenue
        Mountain View, California 94043-1100
        USA
        phone: +1 503-297-1580
        email: don.hoffman@eng.sun.com


        Raj Yavatkar
        Intel Corporation
        MS: JF3-206
        2111 N.E. 25th Avenue,
        Hillsboro, OR 97124
        USA
        phone: +1 503-264-9077
        email: yavatkar@ibeam.intel.com






draft-hoffman-issll-l2tcreq-00.txt                              [Page 9]