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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 rfc2380                            Standards Track
Internet Draft                                                 L. Berger
Expires: October 1998                                       FORE Systems
File: draft-ietf-issll-atm-imp-req-03.txt

               RSVP over ATM Implementation Requirements

                             April 3, 1998

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 view the entire list of current Internet-Drafts, please check
   the "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts
   Shadow Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), ftp.nordu.net
   (Northern Europe), ftp.nis.garr.it (Southern Europe), munnari.oz.au
   (Pacific Rim), ftp.ietf.org (US East Coast), or ftp.isi.edu
   (US West Coast).


   This memo presents specific implementation requirements for running
   RSVP over ATM switched virtual circuits (SVCs).  It presents
   requirements that ensure interoperability between multiple
   implementations and conformance to the RSVP and Integrated Services
   specifications.  A separate document [5] provides specific guidelines
   for running over today's ATM networks.  The general problem is
   discussed in [9].   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

Berger                   Expires: October 1998                  [Page 1]

Internet Draft         RSVP over ATM Requirements             April 1998

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ........................................................3
   1.1 Terms ...........................................................3
   1.2 Assumptions .....................................................4
2. General RSVP Session Support ........................................4
   2.1 RSVP Message VC Usage ...........................................5
   2.2 VC Initiation ...................................................5
   2.3 VC Teardown .....................................................6
   2.4 Dynamic QoS .....................................................7
   2.5 Encapsulation ...................................................7
3. Multicast RSVP Session Support ......................................8
   3.1 Data VC Management for Heterogeneous Sessions ...................8
   3.2 Multicast End-Point Identification ..............................9
   3.3 Multicast Data Distribution .....................................10
   3.4 Receiver Transitions ............................................12
4. Security ............................................................12
5. Acknowledgments .....................................................12
6. Author's Address ....................................................13

Berger                   Expires: October 1998                  [Page 2]

Internet Draft         RSVP over ATM Requirements             April 1998

1. Introduction

   This memo 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[4] methods for supporting IP over ATM.  The general issues
   related to running RSVP[8] over ATM have been covered in several
   papers including [9] and other earlier work.  This document is
   intended as a companion to [9,5].  The reader should be familiar with
   both documents.

   This document defines the specific requirements for implementations
   using ATM UNI3.x and 4.0.  These requirements must be adhered to by
   all RSVP over ATM implementations to ensure interoperability.
   Further recommendations to guide implementers of RSVP over ATM are
   provided in [5].

   The rest of this section will define terms and assumptions. Section 2
   will cover implementation guidelines common to all RSVP session.
   Section 3 will cover implementation guidelines specific to multicast

   1.1 Terms

      The terms "reservation" and "flow" are used in many contexts,
      often with different meaning.  These terms are used in this
      document with the following meaning:

      o    Reservation is used in this document to refer to an RSVP
           initiated request for resources.  RSVP initiates requests for
           resources based on RESV message processing.  RESV messages
           that simply refresh state do not trigger resource requests.
           Resource requests may be made based on RSVP sessions and RSVP
           reservation styles. RSVP styles dictate whether the reserved
           resources are used by one sender or shared by multiple
           senders.  See [8] for details of each. Each new request is
           referred to in this document as an RSVP reservation, or
           simply reservation.

      o    Flow is used to refer to the data traffic associated with a
           particular reservation.  The specific meaning of flow is RSVP
           style dependent.  For shared style reservations, there is one
           flow per session.  For distinct style reservations, there is
           one flow per sender (per session).

      The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL

Berger                   Expires: October 1998                  [Page 3]

Internet Draft         RSVP over ATM Requirements             April 1998

      "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
      RFC 2119 [7].

   1.2 Assumptions

      The following assumptions are made:

      o    RSVP

           We assume RSVP as the internet signaling protocol which is
           described in [8].  The reader is assumed to be familiar with

      o    IPv4 and IPv6

           RSVP support has been defined for both IPv4 and IPv6.  The
           guidelines in this document are intended to be used to
           support RSVP with either IPv4 or IPv6.  This document does
           not require one version over the other.

      o    Best effort service model

           The current Internet only supports best effort service.  We
           assume that as additional components of the Integrated
           Services model that best effort service must continue to be

      o    ATM UNI 3.x and 4.0

           We assume ATM service as defined by UNI 3.x and 4.0.  ATM
           provides both point-to-point and point-to-multipoint Virtual
           Circuits (VCs) with a specified Quality of Service (QoS).
           ATM provides both Permanent Virtual Circuits (PVCs) and
           Switched Virtual Circuits (SVCs).  In the Permanent Virtual
           Circuit (PVC) environment, PVCs are typically used as point-
           to-point link replacements.  So the support issues are
           similar to point-to-point links.  This draft assumes that
           SVCs are used to support RSVP over ATM.

2. General RSVP Session Support

   This section provides implementation requirements that are common for
   all (both unicast and multicast) RSVP sessions.  The section covers
   VC usage, QoS VC initiation, VC teardown, handling requested changes
   in QoS, and encapsulation.

Berger                   Expires: October 1998                  [Page 4]

Internet Draft         RSVP over ATM Requirements             April 1998

   2.1 RSVP Message VC Usage

      There are several RSVP Message VC Usage options available to
      implementers.  Implementers must select which VC to use for RSVP
      messages and how to aggregate RSVP sessions over QoS VCs.  These
      options have been covered in [9] and some specific implementation
      guidelines are stated in [5].  In order to ensure interoperability
      between implementations that follow different options, RSVP over
      ATM implementations MUST NOT send RSVP (control) messages on the
      same QoS VC as RSVP associated data packets.  RSVP over ATM
      implementations MAY send RSVP messages on either the best effort
      data path or on a separate control VC.

      Since RSVP (control) messages and RSVP associated data packets are
      not sent on the same VCs, it is possible for a VC supporting one
      type of traffic to fail while the other remains in place.  When
      the VC associated with data packets fails and cannot be
      reestablished, RSVP SHOULD treat this as an allocation failure.
      When the VC used to forward RSVP control messages is abnormally
      released and cannot be reestablished, the RSVP associated QoS VCs
      MUST also be released.  The release of the associated data VCs is
      required to maintain the synchronization between forwarding and
      reservation states for the associated data flows.

   2.2 VC Initiation

      There is an apparent mismatch between RSVP and ATM. Specifically,
      RSVP control is receiver oriented and ATM control is sender
      oriented.  This initially may seem like a major issue but really
      is not.  While RSVP reservation (RESV) requests are generated at
      the receiver, actual allocation of resources takes place at the
      subnet sender.

      For data flows, this means that subnet senders MUST establish all
      QoS VCs and the RSVP enabled subnet receiver MUST be able to
      accept incoming QoS VCs.  These restrictions are consistent with
      RSVP version 1 processing rules and allow senders to use different
      flow to VC mappings and even different QoS renegotiation
      techniques without interoperability problems.  All RSVP over ATM
      approaches that have VCs initiated and controlled by the subnet
      senders will interoperate.  Figure 1 shows this model of data flow
      VC initiation.

Berger                   Expires: October 1998                  [Page 5]

Internet Draft         RSVP over ATM Requirements             April 1998

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

                       |     |      -------------->  +----+
                       | Src |    -------------->    | R1 |
                       |    *|  -------------->      +----+
                       +-----+       QoS VCs
                        VC  ||

                      Figure 1: Data Flow VC Initiation

      RSVP over ATM implementations MAY send data in the backwards
      direction on an RSVP initiated QoS point-to-point VC.  When
      sending in the backwards data path, the sender MUST ensure that
      the data conforms to the backwards direction traffic parameters.
      Since the traffic parameters are set by the VC initiator, it is
      quite likely that no resources will be requested for traffic
      originating at the called party.  It should be noted that the
      backwards data path is not available with point-to-multipoint VCs.

   2.3 VC Teardown

      VCs supporting IP over ATM data are typically torndown based on
      inactivity timers.  This mechanism is used since IP is
      connectionless and there is therefore no way to know when a VC is
      no longer needed.  Since RSVP provides explicit mechanisms
      (messages and timeouts) to determine when an associated data VC is
      no longer needed, the traditional VC timeout mechanisms are not
      needed. Additionally, under normal operations RSVP implementations
      expect to be able to allocate resources and have those resources
      remain allocated until released at the direction of RSVP.
      Therefore, data VCs set up to support RSVP controlled flows should
      only be released at the direction of RSVP. Such VCs must not be
      timed out due to inactivity by either the VC initiator or the VC
      receiver.  This conflicts with VCs timing out as described in RFC
      1755[11], section 3.4 on VC Teardown.  RFC 1755 recommends tearing
      down a VC that is inactive for a certain length of time. Twenty
      minutes is recommended.  This timeout is typically implemented at
      both the VC initiator and the VC receiver.  Although, section 3.1
      of the update to RFC 1755[12] states that inactivity timers must
      not be used at the VC receiver.

      In RSVP over ATM implementations, the configurable inactivity
      timer mentioned in [11] MUST be set to "infinite" for VCs

Berger                   Expires: October 1998                  [Page 6]

Internet Draft         RSVP over ATM Requirements             April 1998

      initiated at the request of RSVP.  Setting the inactivity timer
      value at the VC initiator should not be problematic since the
      proper value can be relayed internally at the originator.  Setting
      the inactivity timer at the VC receiver is more difficult, and
      would require some mechanism to signal that an incoming VC was
      RSVP initiated.  To avoid this complexity and to conform to [12],
      RSVP over ATM implementations MUST not use an inactivity timer to
      clear any received connections.

   2.4 Dynamic QoS

      As stated in [9], there is a mismatch in the service provided by
      RSVP and that provided by ATM UNI3.x and 4.0.  RSVP allows
      modifications to QoS parameters at any time while ATM does not
      support any modifications to QoS parameters post VC setup.  See
      [9] for more detail.

      The method for supporting changes in RSVP reservations is to
      attempt to replace an existing VC with a new appropriately sized
      VC. During setup of the replacement VC, the old VC MUST be left in
      place unmodified. The old VC is left unmodified to minimize
      interruption of QoS data delivery.  Once the replacement VC is
      established, data transmission is shifted to the new VC, and only
      then is the old VC closed.

      If setup of the replacement VC fails, then the old QoS VC MUST
      continue to be used.  When the new reservation is greater than the
      old reservation, the reservation request MUST be answered with an
      error. When the new reservation is less than the old reservation,
      the request MUST be treated as if the modification was successful.
      While leaving the larger allocation in place is suboptimal, it
      maximizes delivery of service to the user.  The behavior is also
      required in order to conform to RSVP error handling as defined in
      sections 2.5, 3.1.8 and 3.11.2 of [8].  Implementations SHOULD
      retry replacing a too large VC after some appropriate elapsed

      One additional issue is that only one QoS change can be processed
      at one time per reservation. If the (RSVP) requested QoS is
      changed while the first replacement VC is still being setup, then
      the replacement VC SHOULD BE released and the whole VC replacement
      process is restarted.  Implementations MAY also limit number of
      changes processed in a time period per [9].

   2.5 Encapsulation

      There are multiple encapsulation options for data sent over RSVP
      triggered QoS VCs.  All RSVP over ATM implementations MUST be able

Berger                   Expires: October 1998                  [Page 7]

Internet Draft         RSVP over ATM Requirements             April 1998

      to support LLC encapsulation per RFC 1483[10] on such QoS VCs.
      Implementations MAY negotiate alternative encapsulations using the
      B-LLI negotiation procedures defined in ATM Signalling, see [11]
      for details.  When a QoS VC is only being used to carry IP
      packets, implementations SHOULD negotiate VC based multiplexing to
      avoid incurring the overhead of the LLC header.

3. Multicast RSVP Session Support

   There are several aspects to running RSVP over ATM that are unique to
   multicast sessions.  This section addresses multicast end-point
   identification, multicast data distribution, multicast receiver
   transitions and next-hops requesting different QoS values
   (heterogeneity) which includes the handling of multicast best effort
   receivers.  Handling of best effort receivers is not strictly an RSVP
   issue, but needs to be addressed by any RSVP over ATM implementation
   in order to maintain expected best effort internet service.

   3.1 Data VC Management for Heterogeneous Sessions

      The issues relating to data VC management of heterogeneous
      sessions are covered in detail in [9].  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 2.

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

                    Figure 2: Types of Multicast Receivers

Berger                   Expires: October 1998                  [Page 8]

Internet Draft         RSVP over ATM Requirements             April 1998

      [9] provides four models for dealing with heterogeneity: full
      heterogeneity, limited heterogeneity, homogeneous, and modified
      homogeneous models.  No matter which model or combination of
      models is used by an implementation, implementations MUST NOT
      normally send more than one copy of a particular data packet to a
      particular next-hop (ATM end-point).  Some transient duplicate
      transmission is acceptable, but only during VC setup and

      Implementations MUST also ensure that data traffic is sent to best
      effort receivers.  Data traffic MAY be sent to best effort
      receivers via best effort or QoS VCs as is appropriate for the
      implemented model.  In all cases, implementations MUST NOT create
      VCs in such a way that data cannot be sent to best effort
      receivers.  This includes the case of not being able to add a best
      effort receiver to a QoS VC,  but does not include the case where
      best effort VCs cannot be setup. The failure to establish best
      effort VCs is considered to be a general IP over ATM failure and
      is therefore beyond the scope of this document.

      There is an interesting interaction between dynamic QoS and
      heterogeneous requests when using the limited heterogeneity,
      homogeneous, or modified homogeneous models.  In the case where a
      RESV message is received from a new next-hop and the requested
      resources are larger than any existing reservation, both dynamic
      QoS and heterogeneity need to be addressed.  A key issue is
      whether to first add the new next-hop or to change to the new QoS.
      This is a fairly straight forward special case.  Since the older,
      smaller reservation does not support the new next-hop, the dynamic
      QoS process SHOULD be initiated first. Since the new QoS is only
      needed by the new next-hop, it SHOULD be the first end-point of
      the new VC.  This way signaling is minimized when the setup to the
      new next-hop fails.

   3.2 Multicast End-Point Identification

      Implementations must be able to identify ATM end-points
      participating in an IP multicast group.  The ATM end-points will
      be IP multicast receivers and/or next-hops.  Both QoS and best
      effort end-points must be identified.  RSVP next-hop information
      will usually provide QoS end-points, but not best effort end-

      There is a special case where RSVP next-hop information will not
      provide the appropriate end-points.  This occurs when a next-hop
      is not RSVP capable and RSVP is being automatically tunneled. In
      this case a PATH message travels through a non-RSVP egress router
      on the way to the next-hop RSVP node.  When the next-hop RSVP node

Berger                   Expires: October 1998                  [Page 9]

Internet Draft         RSVP over ATM Requirements             April 1998

      sends a RESV message it may arrive at the source via a different
      route than used by the PATH message.  The source will get the RESV
      message, but will not know which ATM end-point should be
      associated with the reservation. For unicast sessions, there is no
      problem since the ATM end-point will be the IP next-hop router.
      There is a problem with multicast, since multicast routing may not
      be able to uniquely identify the IP next-hop router.  It is
      therefore possible for a multicast end-point to not be properly

      In certain cases it is also possible to identify the list of all
      best effort end-points.  Some multicast over ATM control
      mechanisms, such as MARS in mesh mode, can be used to identify all
      end-points of a multicast group.  Also, some multicast routing
      protocols can  provide all next-hops for a particular multicast
      group.  In both cases, RSVP over ATM implementations can obtain a
      full list of end-points, both QoS and non-QoS, using the
      appropriate mechanisms.  The full list can then be compared
      against the RSVP identified end-points to determine the list of
      best effort receivers.

      While there are cases where QoS and best effort end-points can be
      identified, there is no straightforward solution to uniquely
      identifying end-points of multicast traffic handled by non-RSVP
      next-hops.  The preferred solution is to use multicast control
      mechanisms and routing protocols that support unique end-point
      identification.  In cases where such mechanisms and routing
      protocols are unavailable, all IP routers that will be used to
      support RSVP over ATM should support RSVP. To ensure proper
      behavior, baseline RSVP over ATM implementations MUST only
      establish RSVP-initiated VCs to RSVP capable end-points.  It is
      permissible to allow a user to override this behavior.

   3.3 Multicast Data Distribution

      Two basic models exist for IP multicast data distribution over
      ATM.  In one model, senders establish point-to-multipoint VCs to
      all ATM attached destinations, and data is then sent over these
      VCs.  This model is often called "multicast mesh" or "VC mesh"
      mode distribution.  In the second model, senders send data over
      point-to-point VCs to a central point and the central point relays
      the data onto point-to-multipoint VCs that have been established
      to all receivers of the IP multicast group.  This model is often
      referred to as "multicast server" mode distribution. Figure 3
      shows data flow for both modes of IP multicast data distribution.

Berger                   Expires: October 1998                 [Page 10]

Internet Draft         RSVP over ATM Requirements             April 1998

                            /         \
                           / Multicast \
                           \   Server  /
                              ^  |  |
                              |  |  +--------+
               +-----+        |  |           |
               |     | -------+  |           |         Data Flow:
               | Src | ...+......|....+      V         ---->  Server
               |     |    :      |    :    +----+      ....>  Mesh
               +-----+    :      |    +...>| R1 |
                          :      |         +----+
                          :      V
                          :    +----+
                          +..> | R2 |

              Figure 3: IP Multicast Data Distribution Over ATM

      The goal of RSVP over ATM solutions is to ensure that IP multicast
      data is distributed with appropriate QoS.  Current multicast
      servers [1,2] do not support any mechanisms for communicating QoS
      requirements to a multicast server.  For this reason, RSVP over
      ATM implementations SHOULD support "mesh-mode" distribution for
      RSVP controlled multicast flows.  When using multicast servers
      that do not support QoS requests, a sender MUST set the service,
      not global, break bit(s). Use of the service-specific break bit
      tells the receiver(s) that RSVP and Integrated Services are
      supported by the router but that the service cannot be delivered
      over the ATM network for the specific request.

      In the case of MARS[1], the selection of distribution modes is
      administratively controlled.  Therefore network administrators
      that desire proper RSVP over ATM operation MUST appropriately
      configure their network to support mesh mode distribution for
      multicast groups that will be used in RSVP sessions.  For LANE1.0
      networks the only multicast distribution option is over the LANE
      BUS [Note 1] , which means that the break bit MUST always be set.
      For LANE2.0 [3] there are provisions that allow for non-BUS
      solutions with which it may be possible to ensure proper QoS

[Note 1] Broadcast and Unknown Server

Berger                   Expires: October 1998                 [Page 11]

Internet Draft         RSVP over ATM Requirements             April 1998

   3.4 Receiver Transitions

      When setting up a point-to-multipoint VCs there will be a time
      when some receivers have been added to a QoS VC and some have not.
      During such transition times it is possible to start sending data
      on the newly established VC. If data is sent both on the new VC
      and the old VC, then data will be delivered with proper QoS to
      some receivers and with the old QoS to all receivers.
      Additionally, the QoS receivers would get duplicate data.  If data
      is sent just on the new QoS VC, the receivers that have not yet
      been added will miss data.  So, the issue comes down to whether to
      send to both the old and new VCs, or to just send to one of the
      VCs.  In one case duplicate data will be received, in the other
      some data may not be received.  This issue needs to be considered
      for three cases: when establishing the first QoS VC, when
      establishing a VC to support a QoS change, and when adding a new
      end-point to an already established QoS VC.

      The first two cases are essentially the same.  In both, it is
      possible to send data on the partially completed new VC.  In both,
      there is the option of duplicate or lost data.  In order to ensure
      predictable behavior and to conform to the requirement to deliver
      data to all receivers, data MUST NOT be sent on new VCs until all
      parties have been added.  This will ensure that all data is only
      delivered once to all receivers.

      The last case differs from the others and occurs when an end-point
      must be added to an existing QoS VC.  In this case the end-point
      must be both added to the QoS VC and dropped from a best effort
      VC.  The issue is which to do first.  If the add is first
      requested, then the end-point may get duplicate data.  If the drop
      is requested first, then the end-point may miss data.  In order to
      avoid loss of data, the add MUST be completed first and then
      followed by the drop.  This behavior requires receivers to be
      prepared to receive some duplicate packets at times of QoS setup.

4. Security

   The same considerations stated in [8] and [11] apply to this
   document.  There are no additional security issues raised in this

5. Acknowledgments

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

Berger                   Expires: October 1998                 [Page 12]

Internet Draft         RSVP over ATM Requirements             April 1998

6. Author's Address

      Lou Berger
      FORE Systems
      1595 Spring Hill Road
      5th Floor
      Vienna, VA 22182

      Phone: +1 703-245-4527
      EMail: lberger@fore.com


[1] Armitage, G., "Support for Multicast over UNI 3.0/3.1 based ATM
    Networks," RFC 2022, November 1996.

[2] The ATM Forum, "LAN Emulation Over ATM Specification", Version 1.0.

[3] The ATM Forum, "LAN Emulation over ATM Version 2 - LUNI
    Specification ", April 1997.

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

[5] Berger, L., "RSVP over ATM Implementation Guidelines", Internet
    Draft, January 1998.

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

[7] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
    Levels," RFC 2119, March 1997.

[8] Braden, R., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and Jamin, S.,
    "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional
    Specification," RFC 2205, September 1997.

[9] Crawley, E., Berger, L., Berson, S., Baker, F., Borden, M., and
    Krawczyk, J, "A Framework for Integrated Services and RSVP over
    ATM," Internet Draft, February 1998.

[10] Heinanen, J., "Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM Adaptation
    Layer 5," RFC 1483.

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

[12] Maher, M., "ATM Signalling Support for IP over ATM - UNI 4.0
    Update" Internet Draft, May 1997.

Berger                   Expires: October 1998                 [Page 13]