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

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

               RSVP over ATM Implementation Requirements

                             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


   This note 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 [6] provides specific guidelines
   for running over today's ATM networks.  The general problem is
   discussed in [11].   Integrated Services to ATM service mappings are
   covered in [9].  The full set of documents present the background and
   information needed to implement Integrated Services and RSVP over

Berger                   Expires: January 1998                  [Page 1]

Internet Draft         RSVP over ATM Requirements              July 1997

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ........................................................3
   1.1 Terms ...........................................................3
   1.2 Assumptions .....................................................4
2. General RSVP Session Support ........................................4
   2.1 VC Usage ........................................................4
   2.2 VC Initiation ...................................................5
   2.3 VC Teardown .....................................................5
   2.4 Dynamic QoS .....................................................6
   2.5 Encapsulation ...................................................7
3. Multicast RSVP Session Support ......................................7
   3.1 Data VC Management for Heterogeneous Sessions ...................7
   3.2 Multicast End-Point Identification ..............................9
   3.3 Multicast Data Distribution .....................................10
   3.4 Receiver Transitions ............................................11
4. Security ............................................................12
5. Acknowledgments .....................................................12
6. Author's Address ....................................................12

Berger                   Expires: January 1998                  [Page 2]

Internet Draft         RSVP over ATM Requirements              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[4] methods for supporting IP over ATM.  The general issues
   related to running RSVP[10] over ATM have been covered in several
   papers including [11,7,5,8].  This document is intended as a
   companion to [11,6].  The reader should be familiar with both

   This document will define 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 [6].

   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 [10] 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).

Berger                   Expires: January 1998                  [Page 3]

Internet Draft         RSVP over ATM Requirements              July 1997

   1.2 Assumptions

      The following assumptions are made:

      o    RSVP We assume RSVP as the internet signalling protocol which
           is described in [10].  The reader is assumed to be familiar
           with [10].

      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
           will continue to be a supported.

      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.

   2.1 VC Usage

      There are several options open to implementations on which VC to
      use for RSVP messages and how to aggregate RSVP sessions over QoS
      VCs.  These options have been covered in [11] and some specific
      implementation guidelines are stated in [6].  In order to ensure
      interoperability between implementations that follow different
      options, RSVP over ATM implementations MUST be able to receive
      RSVP (control) messages on both QoS and best-effort VCs, and MUST
      be able to receive multiple RSVP sessions per QoS VC.

Berger                   Expires: January 1998                  [Page 4]

Internet Draft         RSVP over ATM Requirements              July 1997

   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
      sub-net sender.

      For data flows, this means that sub-net senders MUST establish all
      QoS VCs and the RSVP enabled sub-net 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 sub-net
      senders will interoperate.  Figure 1 shows this model of data flow
      VC initiation.

                               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 a 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.  Of course, 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

Berger                   Expires: January 1998                  [Page 5]

Internet Draft         RSVP over ATM Requirements              July 1997

      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 is not
      needed.  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[14], 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[15] states that inactivity timers must
      not be used at the VC receiver.

      In RSVP over ATM implementations, the configurable inactivity
      timer mentioned in [14] MUST be set to "infinite" for VCs
      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 [15],
      RSVP over ATM implementations MUST not use an inactivity timer to
      clear any received connection.

   2.4 Dynamic QoS

      As stated in [11], 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 after VC setup.  See
      [11] 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

Berger                   Expires: January 1998                  [Page 6]

Internet Draft         RSVP over ATM Requirements              July 1997

      required in order to conform to RSVP error handling as defined in
      sections 2.5, 3.1.8 and 3.11.2 of [10].  Implementations SHOULD
      retry replacing the 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 is released and the whole VC replacement
      process is restarted.  Implementations MAY also limit number of
      changes processed in a time period per [11].

   2.5 Encapsulation

      There are multiple encapsulation options for data sent over RSVP
      triggered QoS VCs.  All RSVP over ATM implementations MUST be able
      to support LLC encapsulation per RFC 1483[12] on such QoS VCs.
      Implementations MAY negotiate alternative encapsulations using the
      B-LLI negotiation procedures defined in ATM Signalling, see [14]
      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
   particular to multicast sessions.  These issues result from the
   nature of ATM point-to-multipoint connections.  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 issues, but needs to be addressed in any RSVP
   over ATM implementation in order to maintain expected Internet

   3.1 Data VC Management for Heterogeneous Sessions

      The issues relating to data VC management of heterogeneous
      sessions are covered in detail in [11] and 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 2.

Berger                   Expires: January 1998                  [Page 7]

Internet Draft         RSVP over ATM Requirements              July 1997

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

                    Figure 2: Types of Multicast Receivers

      [11] 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 over
      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

Berger                   Expires: January 1998                  [Page 8]

Internet Draft         RSVP over ATM Requirements              July 1997

      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 signalling 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-point.  This occurs when the 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
      sends a RESV message it may arrive at the source over a different
      route than what the data is using.  The source will get the RESV
      message, but will not know which egress router needs the QoS.  For
      unicast sessions, there is no problem since the ATM end-point will
      be the IP next-hop router.  Unfortunately, multicast routing may
      not be able to uniquely identify the IP next-hop router.  It is
      therefore possible that a multicast end-point can not be properly

      In the host case, some multicast over ATM control mechanisms, such
      as MARS, can be used to identify all end-points of a multicast
      group.  In the router to router case, a multicast routing protocol
      may provide all next-hops for a particular multicast group.  In
      either case, RSVP over ATM implementations must obtain a full list
      of end-points, both QoS and non-QoS, using the appropriate
      mechanisms.  The full list can be compared against the RSVP
      identified end-points to determine the list of best-effort

      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 routing protocols that
      support unique end-point identification.  In cases where such
      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

Berger                   Expires: January 1998                  [Page 9]

Internet Draft         RSVP over ATM Requirements              July 1997

      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 models are planned 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.
      The goal of RSVP over ATM solutions is to ensure that IP multicast
      data is distributed with appropriate QoS.

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

              Figure 3: IP Multicast Data Distribution Over ATM

      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.

Berger                   Expires: January 1998                 [Page 10]

Internet Draft         RSVP over ATM Requirements              July 1997

      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 BUS,
      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 delivery.

   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.  The issue is when to start send data
      on the new 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.  This means 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 lose information.
      So, the issue comes down to whether to send to both the old and
      new VCs, or to send to just one of the VCs.  In one case duplicate
      information will be received, in the other some information 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, and the
      issue of duplicate versus lost information is similar. The last
      case 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 information.  If the drop is requested first, then the
      end-point may loose information.

      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.
      This approach does not quite apply for the last case. In the last
      case, the add MUST be completed first, then the drop.  This last
      behavior requires receivers to be prepared to receive some
      duplicate packets at times of QoS setup.

Berger                   Expires: January 1998                 [Page 11]

Internet Draft         RSVP over ATM Requirements              July 1997

4. Security

   The same considerations stated in [10] and [14] apply to this
   document.  There are no additional security issues raised in this

5. Acknowledgments

   This work is based on earlier drafts [5,7] and comments from the
   ISSLL working group.  The author would like to acknowledge their
   contribution, most notably Steve Berson who coauthored [7].

6. Author's Address

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

      Phone: +1 301 571 2534
      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: Framework and UNI3.0/3.1 Method",
    Internet Draft, June 1996.

[6] Berger, L., "RSVP over ATM Implementation Guidelines", Internet
    Draft, July 1997.

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

[8] Borden, M., Crawley, E., Krawczyk, J, Baker, F., and Berson, S.,
    "Issues for RSVP and Integrated Services over ATM," Internet Draft,
    February 1996.

Berger                   Expires: January 1998                 [Page 12]

Internet Draft         RSVP over ATM Requirements              July 1997

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

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

[11] 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.

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

[13] Onvural, R., Srinivasan, V., "A Framework for Supporting RSVP Flows
    Over ATM Networks," Internet Draft, March 1996.

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

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

Berger                   Expires: January 1998                 [Page 13]