[Search] [pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 rfc2379                                        
Internet Draft                                                 L. Berger
Expires: January 1998                                       FORE Systems
File: draft-ietf-issll-atm-imp-guide-01.txt



                RSVP over ATM Implementation Guidelines



                             July 11, 1997

Status of 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 ds.internic.net (US East Coast), nic.nordu.net
   (Europe), ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast), or munnari.oz.au (Pacific
   Rim).

Abstract

   This note presents specific implementation guidelines for running
   RSVP over ATM switched virtual circuits (SVCs).  The general problem
   is discussed in [8].  Implementation requirements are discussed in
   [3].  Integrated Services to ATM service mappings are covered in [6].
   The full set of documents present the background and information
   needed to implement Integrated Services and RSVP over ATM.













Berger                   Expires: January 1998                  [Page 1]


Internet Draft          RSVP over ATM Guidelines               July 1997


1. Introduction

   This note discusses running IP over ATM in an environment where SVCs
   are used to support QoS flows and RSVP is used as the internet level
   QoS signaling protocol.  It applies when using CLIP/ION, LANE2.0 and
   MPOA methods for supporting IP over ATM.  The general issues related
   to running RSVP[7] over ATM have been covered in several papers
   including [8,4,2,5].  This document is intended as a companion to
   [8,3] and as a guide to implementers.  The reader should be familiar
   with both documents.

   This document will provide a recommended set of functionality for
   implementations using ATM UNI3.x and 4.0, while allowing for more
   sophisticated approaches.  We expect some vendors to additionally
   provide some of the more sophisticated approaches described in [8],
   and some networks to only make use of such approaches.  The
   recommended set of functionality is defined to ensure predictability
   and interoperability between different implementations.  Requirements
   for RSVP over ATM implementations are provided in [3].

   This document uses the same terms and assumption stated in [3].

2. Implementation Recommendations

   This section provides implementation guidelines for implementation of
   RSVP over ATM.  Several recommendations are common for all, both
   unicast and multicast, RSVP sessions.  There are also recommendations
   that are unique to unicast and multicast session types.

   2.1 RSVP Message VC Usage

      The general issues related to which VC should be used for RSVP
      messages is covered in [8]. It discussed several implementation
      options including: mixed control and data, single control VC per
      session,  single control VC multiplexed among sessions, and
      multiple VCs multiplexed among sessions.  QoS for control VCs was
      also discussed.  The general discussion is not repeated here and
      [8] should be reviewed for detailed information.

      RSVP over ATM implementations SHOULD send RSVP control (messages)
      over the best effort data path, see figure 1.  It is permissible
      to allow a user to override this behavior.  The stated approach
      minimizes VC requirements since the best effort data path will
      need to exist in order for RSVP sessions to be established and in
      order for RSVP reservations to be initiated.  The specific best
      effort paths that will be used by RSVP are: for unicast, the same
      VC used to reach the unicast destination; and for multicast, the
      same VC that is used for best effort traffic destined to the IP



Berger                   Expires: January 1998                  [Page 2]


Internet Draft          RSVP over ATM Guidelines               July 1997


      multicast group.  Note that for multicast there may be another
      best effort VC that is used to carry session data traffic, i.e.,
      for data that is both in the multicast group and matching a
      sessions protocol and port.


                             Data Flow ==========>

                                    QoS VCs
                     +-----+    -------------->   +----+
                     |     |  -------------->     |    |
                     | Src |                      | R1 |
                     |     |   Best Effort VC(s)  |    |
                     +-----+  <-----------------> +----+
                                  /\
                                  ||
                                  ||
                              RSVP Control
                                Messages

                   Figure 1: RSVP Control Message VC Usage


      The disadvantage of this approach is that best effort VCs may not
      provide the reliability that RSVP needs.  However the best-effort
      path is expected to satisfy RSVP reliability requirements in most
      networks. Especially since RSVP allows for a certain amount of
      packet loss without any loss of state synchronization.

   2.2 Aggregation

      As discussed in [8], data associated with multiple RSVP sessions
      could be sent using the same shared VCs. Implementation of such
      "aggregation" models is still a matter for research.  Therefore,
      RSVP over ATM implementations SHOULD use independent VCs for each
      RSVP reservation.

   2.3 Short-Cuts

      Short-cuts allow ATM attached routers and hosts to directly
      establish point-to-point VCs across LIS boundaries, i.e., the VC
      end-points are on different IP sub-nets. Short-cut support for
      unicast traffic has been defined in [9] and [1].  The ability for
      short-cuts and RSVP to interoperate has been raised as a general
      question.  The area of concern is the ability to handle asymmetric
      short-cuts.  Specifically how RSVP can handle the case where a
      downstream short-cut may not have a matching upstream short-cut.
      In this case, which is shown in figure 2, PATH and RESV messages



Berger                   Expires: January 1998                  [Page 3]


Internet Draft          RSVP over ATM Guidelines               July 1997


      following different paths.


                           ______
                          /      \
               +-------- / Router \ <-------+
               |         \        /         |   <....... RESVs Follow
               |          \______/          |            Hop-by-hop Path
               |                            |
               |                            |
               V           QoS VCs          |
            +-----+    ==============>   +----+
            |     |  ==============>     |    |
            | Src |                      | R1 |
            |     |   Best Effort VC(s)  |    |
            +-----+  <=================> +----+

                         /\
                         ::                        Data Paths:
                         ::                        ----> Hop-by-hop (routed)
                   PATHs and Data                  ====> Short-cut
                  Follow Short-cut
                         Path

       Figure 2: Asymmetric RSVP Message Forwarding With ATM Short-Cuts


      Examination of RSVP shows that the protocol already includes
      mechanisms that allows support of short-cuts.  The mechanism is
      the same one used to support RESV messages arriving at the wrong
      router and the wrong interface.  The key aspect of this mechanism
      is RSVP only processing messages that arrive at the proper
      interface and RSVP forwarding of messages that arrive on the wrong
      interface.  The proper interface is indicated in the NHOP object
      of the message.  So, existing RSVP mechanisms will support
      asymmetric paths.

      The short-cut model of VC establishment still poses several issues
      when running with RSVP. The major issues are dealing with
      established best-effort short-cuts, when to establish short-cuts,
      and QoS only short-cuts. These issues will need to be addressed by
      RSVP implementations.

      The key issue to be addressed by any RSVP over ATM solution is
      when to establish a short-cut for a QoS data flow.  RSVP over ATM
      implementations SHOULD simply follow best-effort traffic. When a
      short-cut has been established for best-effort traffic to a
      destination or next-hop, that same end-point SHOULD be used when



Berger                   Expires: January 1998                  [Page 4]


Internet Draft          RSVP over ATM Guidelines               July 1997


      setting up RSVP triggered VCs for QoS traffic to the same
      destination or next-hop. This will happen naturally when PATH
      messages are forwarded over the best-effort short-cut.  Note that
      in this approach when best-effort short-cuts are never
      established, RSVP triggered QoS short-cuts will also never be
      established.

   2.4 Data VC Management for Heterogeneous Sessions

      Heterogeneous sessions can only occur with multicast RSVP
      sessions.  The issues relating to data VC management of
      heterogeneous sessions are covered in detail in [8] and are not
      repeated.  In summary, heterogeneity occurs when receivers request
      different levels of QoS within a single session and also when some
      receivers do not request any QoS.  Both types of heterogeneity are
      shown in figure 3.

                                    +----+
                           +------> | R1 |
                           |        +----+
                           |
                           |        +----+
              +-----+ -----+   +--> | R2 |
              |     | ---------+    +----+        Receiver Request Types:
              | Src |                             ---->  QoS 1 and QoS 2
              |     | .........+    +----+        ....>  Best-Effort
              +-----+ .....+   +..> | R3 |
                           :        +----+
                       /\  :
                       ||  :        +----+
                       ||  +......> | R4 |
                       ||           +----+
                     Single
                  IP Mulicast
                     Group

                    Figure 3: Types of Multicast Receivers


      [8] provides four models for dealing with heterogeneity: full
      heterogeneity,  limited heterogeneity, homogeneous, and modified
      homogeneous models.  The key issue to be addressed by an
      implementation is providing requested QoS downstream. One of or
      some combination of the discussed models [8] may be used to
      provide requested QoS.  Unfortunately, none of the described
      models is the right answer for all cases.  For some networks, e.g.
      public WANs, it is likely that the limited heterogeneous model or
      a hybrid limited-full heterogeneous model will be desired.  In



Berger                   Expires: January 1998                  [Page 5]


Internet Draft          RSVP over ATM Guidelines               July 1997


      other networks, e.g. LANs, it is likely that a the modified
      homogeneous model will be desired.

      Since there is not one model that satisfies all cases,
      implementations SHOULD implement one of either the limited
      heterogeneity model or the modified homogeneous model.
      Implementations SHOULD support both approaches and provide the
      ability to select which method is actually used, but are not
      required to do so.

3. Security

   The same considerations stated in [7] and [10] apply to this
   document.  There are no additional security issues raised in this
   document.

4. Acknowledgments

   This work is based on earlier drafts [2,4] and comments from the
   ISSLL working group.  The author would like to acknowledge their
   contribution, most notably Steve Berson who coauthored [4].

5. Author's Address

      Lou Berger
      FORE Systems
      6905 Rockledge Drive
      Suite 800
      Bethesda, MD 20817

      Phone: +1 301 571 2534
      EMail: lberger@fore.com

REFERENCES

[1] The ATM Forum, "MPOA Baseline Version 1", May 1997.

[2] Berger, L., "RSVP over ATM: Framework and UNI3.0/3.1 Method",
    Internet Draft, June 1996.

[3] Berger, L., "RSVP over ATM Implementation Requirements, Internet
    Draft, July 1997.

[4] Berson, S., Berger, L., "IP Integrated Services with RSVP over ATM,"
    Internet Draft, draft-ietf-issll-atm-support-02.txt, November 1996.

[5] Borden, M., Crawley, E., Krawczyk, J, Baker, F., and Berson, S.,
    "Issues for RSVP and Integrated Services over ATM," Internet Draft,



Berger                   Expires: January 1998                  [Page 6]


Internet Draft          RSVP over ATM Guidelines               July 1997


    February 1996.

[6] Borden, M., and Garrett, M., "Interoperation of Controlled-Load and
    Guaranteed-Service with ATM," Internet Draft, March 1997.

[7] Braden, R., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and Jamin, S.,
    "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional
    Specification," Internet Draft, June 1997.

[8] Crawley, E., Berger, L., Berson, S., Baker, F., Borden, M., and
    Krawczyk, J, "Issues for Integrated Services and RSVP over ATM,"
    Internet Draft, July 1997.

[9] Luciani, J., Katz, D., Piscitello, D., Cole, B., "NBMA Next Hop
    Resolution Protocol (NHRP)," Internet Draft, January 1997.

[10] Perez, M., Liaw, F., Grossman, D., Mankin, A., Hoffman, E., and
    Malis, A., "ATM Signalling Support for IP over ATM," RFC 1755.

































Berger                   Expires: January 1998                  [Page 7]