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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 rfc5462                            
Network Working Group                                       L. Andersson
Internet-Draft                                                  Acreo AB
Intended status: Standards Track                            May 19, 2008
Expires: November 20, 2008


                   "EXP field" renamed to "CoS Field"
                  draft-ietf-mpls-cosfield-def-00.txt

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 20, 2008.


















Andersson               Expires November 20, 2008               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft          MPLS CoS field defintion                May 2008


Abstract

   -


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Details of change  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.1.  RFC 3032 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.2.  RFC 3270 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.3.  RFC 5129 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Use of the CoS field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  IANA considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   5.  Security considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   6.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     6.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     6.2.  Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 12































Andersson               Expires November 20, 2008               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft          MPLS CoS field defintion                May 2008


1.  Introduction

   The format of the MPLS label is defined in RFC 3032 [RFC3032], that
   definition includes three bit field called "EXP field".  RFC 3032
   leaves the exact description of how the EXP field should be used
   undefined, they are said to be for "experimental use".

   The EXP field has from the start been intended to be used for "Class
   of Service", the field were actually called "Class of Service field"
   in the early versions of the working group document that was publshed
   as RFC 3032.  However at the time that RFC 3032 were published the
   "Class of Service" were considered not to be defined well enough and
   the field were left for "Experimental use".

   The use of the EXP field was first defined in RFC 3270 [RFC3270]
   where a method to define a variant of DiffServ LSPs called EXP-
   Inferred-PSC LSP (E-LSPs).

   The use of the EXP field as defined in RFC 3270 has been further
   extended in RFC 5129 [RFC5129], where methods for explicit congestion
   marking in MPLS is defined.

   The defintions of how the EXP field are used are perfectly clear in
   RFC 3270 and RFC 5129.  However it is never explicitly stated that
   these RFCs updates RFC 3032, and it is not captured in the RFC
   respository.  This document changes RFC 3032, RFC 3270 and RFC 5129
   to capture these updates.

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].




















Andersson               Expires November 20, 2008               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft          MPLS CoS field defintion                May 2008


2.  Details of change

   The three RFCs are now updated according to the following.

2.1.  RFC 3032

   The RFC 3032 state on page 3:

      3.  Experimental Use

      This three-bit field is reserved for experimental use.

   This paragraph is now changed to:

      3.  Class of Service (CoS) field

      This three-bit field is used to carry Class of Service information
      and the change of the name is applicable to all places it occurs
      in IETF RFCs and other IETF documents.

      The definition of how to use the CoS field has been updated by RFC
      3270 and RFC 5129.

2.2.  RFC 3270

   RFC 3270 says on page 6:

   1.2 EXP-Inferred-PSC LSPs (E-LSP)

      A single LSP can be used to support one or more OAs.  Such LSPs
      can support up to eight BAs of a given FEC, regardless of how many
      OAs these BAs span.  With such LSPs, the EXP field of the MPLS
      Shim Header is used by the LSR to determine the PHB to be applied
      to the packet.  This includes both the PSC and the drop
      preference.

      We refer to such LSPs as "EXP-inferred-PSC LSPs" (E-LSP), since
      the PSC of a packet transported on this LSP depends on the EXP
      field value for that packet.

      The mapping from the EXP field to the PHB (i.e., to PSC and drop
      precedence) for a given such LSP, is either explicitly signaled at
      label set-up or relies on a pre-configured mapping.

      Detailed operations of E-LSPs are specified in section 3 below.

   Section 1.2 on page 5 in RFC 3270 is now changed to:




Andersson               Expires November 20, 2008               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft          MPLS CoS field defintion                May 2008


   1.2 EXP-Inferred-PSC LSPs (E-LSP)

      The EXP field have been renamed to the CoS field, and thus all
      references in RFC 3270 to EXP field SHOULD be taken to refer to
      the CoS field.  However, we retain the term E-LSP (EXP-Inferred-
      PSC LSP) as it is in widespread use.

      A single LSP can be used to support one or more OAs.  Such LSPs
      can support up to eight BAs of a given FEC, regardless of how many
      OAs these BAs span.  With such LSPs, the CoS field of the MPLS
      Shim Header is used by the LSR to determine the PHB to be applied
      to the packet.  This includes both the PSC and the drop
      preference.

      We refer to such LSPs as "EXP-inferred-PSC LSPs" (E-LSP), since
      the PSC of a packet transported on this LSP depends on the CoS
      field (previously called the EXP field) value for that packet.

      The mapping from the CoS field to the PHB (i.e., to PSC and drop
      precedence) for a given such LSP, is either explicitly signaled at
      label set-up or relies on a pre-configured mapping.

      This is an update to RFC 3032 [RFC3032] in line with the original
      intent of how this field in the MPLS Shim Header should be used
      (as CoS field).  The RFC 3270 has itself been updated by RFC 5129
      [RFC5129].

      Detailed operations of E-LSPs are specified in section 3 of
      RFC3270.

2.3.  RFC 5129

   Section 2 (bullet 3) on page 6 of RFC 5129 says:

   o  A third possible approach was suggested by [Shayman].  In this
      scheme, interior LSRs assume that the endpoints are ECN-capable,
      but this assumption is checked when the final label is popped.  If
      an interior LSR has marked ECN in the EXP field of the shim
      header, but the IP header says the endpoints are not ECN-capable,
      the edge router (or penultimate router, if using penultimate hop
      popping) drops the packet.  We recommend this scheme, which we
      call `per-domain ECT checking', and define it more precisely in
      the following section.  Its chief drawback is that it can cause
      packets to be forwarded after encountering congestion only to be
      dropped at the egress of the MPLS domain.  The rationale for this
      decision is given in Section 8.1.

   RFC 5219 is now updated like this:



Andersson               Expires November 20, 2008               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft          MPLS CoS field defintion                May 2008


   A new paragraph is added at the end of section 1.1 "Background":

      The EXP field have been renamed to the CoS field, and thus all
      references in RFC 5219 to EXP field SHOULD be taken to refer to
      the CoS field.

   Section 2 (bullet 3) on page 6 ofis now changed to:

   o  A third possible approach was suggested by [Shayman].  In this
      scheme, interior LSRs assume that the endpoints are ECN-capable,
      but this assumption is checked when the final label is popped.  If
      an interior LSR has marked ECN in the CoS field of the shim
      header, but the IP header says the endpoints are not CoS-capable,
      the edge router (or penultimate router, if using penultimate hop
      popping) drops the packet.  We recommend this scheme, which we
      call `per-domain ECT checking', and define it more precisely in
      the following section.  Its chief drawback is that it can cause
      packets to be forwarded after encountering congestion only to be
      dropped at the egress of the MPLS domain.  The rationale for this
      decision is given in Section 8.1.  This scheme is an update to RFC
      3032 [RFC3032] and RFC 3270 [RFC3270].






























Andersson               Expires November 20, 2008               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft          MPLS CoS field defintion                May 2008


3.  Use of the CoS field

   Due to the limited number of bits the particular use of the bits is
   intended to be flexible - including the defininition of various QoS
   and ECN functions.

   Current implementations look at the CoS field with and without label
   context and the CoS field may be copied to the labels that are pushed
   onto the laabel stack.  This is to avoid that the pushed labels has a
   different CoS field.

   CoS and ECN funtions may rewrite all or some of the bits.







































Andersson               Expires November 20, 2008               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft          MPLS CoS field defintion                May 2008


4.  IANA considerations

   TBD
















































Andersson               Expires November 20, 2008               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft          MPLS CoS field defintion                May 2008


5.  Security considerations

   This document only changes the name of one field in the MPLS Shim
   Header and thus do not introduce any new security considerations.















































Andersson               Expires November 20, 2008               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft          MPLS CoS field defintion                May 2008


6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3032]  Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
              Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
              Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001.

   [RFC3270]  Le Faucheur, F., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S., Vaananen,
              P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and J. Heinanen, "Multi-
              Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated
              Services", RFC 3270, May 2002.

   [RFC5129]  Davie, B., Briscoe, B., and J. Tay, "Explicit Congestion
              Marking in MPLS", RFC 5129, January 2008.

6.2.  Informative references

   [Shayman]  Shayman, M. and R. Jaeger, University of Michigan, "Using
              ECN to Signal Congestion Within an MPLS Domain", Work in
              Progress, November 2000.", <http://www.watersprings.org/
              pub/id/draft-shayman-mpls-ecn-00.txt/>.


























Andersson               Expires November 20, 2008              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft          MPLS CoS field defintion                May 2008


Author's Address

   Loa Andersson
   Acreo AB

   Email: loa@pi.nu













































Andersson               Expires November 20, 2008              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft          MPLS CoS field defintion                May 2008


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.











Andersson               Expires November 20, 2008              [Page 12]