Congestion and Pre Congestion T. Moncaster
Internet-Draft BT
Intended status: Standards Track B. Briscoe
Expires: April 17, 2009 BT & UCL
M. Menth
University of Wuerzburg
October 14, 2008
Baseline Encoding and Transport of Pre-Congestion Information
draft-ietf-pcn-baseline-encoding-01
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 April 17, 2009.
Abstract
Pre-congestion notification (PCN) provides information to support
admission control and flow termination in order to protect the
Quality of Service of inelastic flows. It does this by marking
packets when traffic load on a link is approaching or has exceeded a
threshold below the physical link rate. This document specifies how
such marks are to be encoded into the IP header. The baseline
encoding described here provides for only two PCN encoding states.
It is designed to be easily extended to provide more encoding states
but such schemes will be described in other documents.
Moncaster, et al. Expires April 17, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Baseline PCN Encoding October 2008
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Encoding two PCN States in IP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Rationale for Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. PCN-Compatible DiffServ Codepoints . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Rules for Experimental Encoding Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Backwards Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
11. Comments Solicited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix A. Tunnelling Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix B. PCN Node Behaviours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix C. Deployment Scenarios for PCN Using Baseline
Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Moncaster, et al. Expires April 17, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Baseline PCN Encoding October 2008
1. Introduction
Pre-congestion notification (PCN) provides information to support
admission control and flow termination in order to protect the
quality of service (QoS) of inelastic flows. This is achieved by
marking packets according to the level of pre-congestion at nodes
within a PCN-domain. These markings are evaluated by the egress
nodes of the PCN-domain. [pcn-arch] describes how PCN packet markings
can be used to assure the QoS of inelastic flows within a single
DiffServ domain.
This document specifies how these PCN marks are encoded into the IP
header. It also describes how packets are identified as belonging to
a PCN flow. Some deployment models require two PCN encoding states,
others require more. The baseline encoding described here only
provides for two PCN encoding states. An extension of the baseline
encoding described in [PCN-3-enc-state] provides for three PCN
encoding states. Other extensions have also been suggested all of
which can build on the baseline encoding. In order to ensure
backward compatibility any alternative encoding schemes that claim
compliance with PCN standards MUST extend this baseline scheme.
Changes from previous drafts (to be removed by the RFC Editor):
From -00 to -01:
Added section on restrictions for extension encoding schemes.
Included table in Appendix showing encoding transitions at
different PCN nodes.
Checked for consistency of terminology.
Minor language changes for clarity.
Changes from previous filename
Filename changed from draft-moncaster-pcn-baseline-encoding.
Terminology changed for clarity (PCN-compatible DSCP and PCN-
enabled packet).
Minor changes throughout.
Modified meaning of ECT(1) state to EXP.
Moncaster, et al. Expires April 17, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Baseline PCN Encoding October 2008
Moved text relevant to behaviour of nodes into appendix for later
transfer to new document on edge behaviours.
From draft-moncaster -01 to -02:
Minor changes throughout including tightening up language to
remain consistent with the PCN Architecture terminology
From draft-moncaster -00 to -01:
Change of title from "Encoding and Transport of (Pre-)Congestion
Information from within a DiffServ Domain to the Egress"
Extensive changes to Introduction and abstract.
Added a section on the implications of re-using a DSCP.
Added appendix listing possible operator scenarios for using this
baseline encoding.
Minor changes throughout.
2. Requirements notation
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 [RFC2119].
3. Terminology
The following terms are used in this document:
o Not-PCN - packets that are not PCN-enabled.
o PCN-marked - codepoint indicating packets that have been marked at
a PCN-interior-node using some PCN marking behaviour. Also PM.
o Not-marked - codepoint indicating packets that are PCN-capable but
are not PCN-marked. Also NM.
o PCN-enabled codepoints - collective term for all the NM and PM
codepoints.
o PCN-compatible Diffserv codepoint - a Diffserv codepoint for which
the ECN field is used to carry PCN markings rather than [RFC3168]
markings.
In addition the document uses the terminology defined in [pcn-arch].
Moncaster, et al. Expires April 17, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Baseline PCN Encoding October 2008
4. Encoding two PCN States in IP
The PCN encoding states are defined using a combination of the DSCP
and ECN fields within the IP header. The baseline PCN encoding
closely follows the semantics of ECN [RFC3168]. It allows the
encoding of two PCN states: Not-Marked and PCN-Marked. It also
allows for traffic that is not PCN capable to be marked as such (not-
PCN). Given the scarcity of codepoints within the IP header the
baseline encoding leaves one codepoint free for experimental use.
The following table defines how to encode these states in IP:
+---------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+---------+
| ECN codepoint | not-ECT | ECT(0) (10) | ECT(1) (01) | CE (11) |
| | (00) | | | |
+---------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+---------+
| DSCP n | not-PCN | NM | EXP | PM |
+---------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+---------+
Where DSCP n is a PCN-compatible DiffServ codepoint (see Section 4.2)
and EXP means available for Experimental use.
Table 1: Encoding PCN in IP
The following rules apply to all PCN traffic:
o PCN-traffic MUST be marked with a PCN-compatible DiffServ
Codepoint. To conserve DSCPs, DiffServ Codepoints SHOULD be
chosen that are already defined for use with admission controlled
traffic, such as the Voice-Admit codepoint defined in
[voice-admit]. Guidelines for mixing traffic-types within a PCN-
domain are given in [pcn-marking-behaviour].
o Any packet that is not PCN-enabled (not-PCN) but which shares the
same DiffServ codepoint as PCN-enabled traffic MUST have the ECN
field equal to 00.
4.1. Rationale for Encoding
The exact choice of encoding was dictated by the constraints imposed
by existing IETF RFCs, in particular [RFC3168] and [RFC4774]. One of
the tightest constraints was the need for any PCN encoding to survive
being tunnelled through either an IP in IP tunnel or an IPSec Tunnel.
Appendix A explains this in detail. The main effect of this
constraint is that any PCN marking has to carry the 11 codepoint in
the ECN field. If the packet is being tunneled then only the 11
codepoint gets copied into the inner header upon decapsulation. An
additional constraint is the need to minimise the use of DiffServ
codepoints as there is a limited supply of standards track codepoints
Moncaster, et al. Expires April 17, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Baseline PCN Encoding October 2008
remaining. Section 4.2 explains how we have minimised this still
further by reusing pre-existing Diffserv codepoint(s) such that non-
PCN traffic can still be distinguished from PCN traffic. There are a
number of factors that were considered before deciding to set 10 as
the NM state. These included similarity to ECN, presence of tunnels
within the domain, leakage into and out of PCN-domain and incremental
deployment.
The encoding scheme above seems to meet all these constraints and
ends up looking very similar to ECN. This is perhaps not surprising
given the similarity in architectural intent between PCN and ECN.
4.2. PCN-Compatible DiffServ Codepoints
Equipment complying with the baseline PCN encoding MUST allow PCN to
be enabled for certain Diffserv codepoints. This document defines
the term "PCN-compatible Diffserv codepoint" for such a DSCP.
Enabling PCN for a DSCP switches on PCN marking behaviour for packets
with that DSCP, but only if those packets also have their ECN field
set to indicate a codepoint other than not-PCN.
Enabling PCN marking behaviour disables any other marking behaviour
(e.g. enabling PCN disables the default ECN marking behaviour
introduced in [RFC3168]). All traffic scheduling and conditioning
behaviours are discussed in [pcn-marking-behaviour].
5. Rules for Experimental Encoding Schemes
Any experimental encoding scheme MUST follow these rules to ensure
backward compatibility with this baseline scheme:
o The 00 codepoint in the ECN field MUST mean not-PCN.
o The 11 codepoint in the ECN field MUST mean PCN-marked (though
this doesn't exclude other codepoints from carrying the same
meaning).
o Once set the 11 codepoint in the ECN field MUST NOT be changed to
any other codepoint.
6. Backwards Compatibility
BCP 124 [RFC4774] gives guidelines for specifying alternative
semantics for the ECN field. It sets out a number of factors to be
taken into consideration. It also suggests various techniques to
allow the co-existence of default ECN and alternative ECN semantics.
The baseline encoding specified in this document defines PCN-
compatible DiffServ codepoints as no longer supporting the default
Moncaster, et al. Expires April 17, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Baseline PCN Encoding October 2008
ECN semantics. As such this document is compatible with BCP 124. It
should be noted that this baseline encoding blocks end-to-end ECN
except where mechanisms are put in place to tunnel such traffic
across the PCN-domain.
7. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request to IANA.
8. Security Considerations
Packets claim entitlement to be PCN marked by carrying a PCN-
Compatible DSCP and a PCN-Enabled ECN codepoint. This encoding
document is intended to stand independently of the architecture used
to determine whether specific packets are authorised to be PCN
marked, which will be described in a future separate document on PCN
edge-node behaviour (see Appendix B).
The PCN working group has initially been chartered to only consider a
PCN-domain to be entirely under the control of one operator, or a set
of operators who trust each other [PCN-charter]. However there is a
requirement to keep inter-domain scenarios in mind when defining the
PCN encoding. One way to extend to multiple domains would be to
concatenate PCN-domains and use PCN-boundary-nodes back to back at
borders. Then any one domain's security against its neighbours would
be described as part of the proposed edge-node behaviour document.
One proposal on the table allows one to extend PCN across multiple
domains without PCN-boundary-nodes back-to-back at borders [re-PCN].
It is believed that the encoding described here would be compatible
with the security framework described there.
9. Conclusions
This document defines the baseline PCN encoding utilising a
combination of a PCN-enabled DSCP and the ECN field in the IP header.
This baseline encoding allows the existence of two PCN encoding
states, not-Marked and PCN-Marked. It also allows for the co-
existence of competing traffic within the same DSCP so long as that
traffic doesn't require end-to-end ECN support. The encoding scheme
is conformant with [RFC4774].
10. Acknowledgements
This document builds extensively on work done in the PCN working
group by Kwok Ho Chan, Georgios Karagiannis, Philip Eardley, Anna
Charny, Joe Babiarz and others. Thanks to Ruediger Geib for
providing detailed comments on this document.
Moncaster, et al. Expires April 17, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Baseline PCN Encoding October 2008
11. Comments Solicited
Comments and questions are encouraged and very welcome. They can be
addressed to the IETF congestion and pre-congestion working group
mailing list <pcn@ietf.org>, and/or to the authors.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to
Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14,
RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4774] Floyd, S., "Specifying Alternate Semantics
for the Explicit Congestion Notification
(ECN) Field", BCP 124, RFC 4774,
November 2006.
[pcn-arch] Eardley, P., "Pre-Congestion Notification
(PCN) Architecture",
draft-ietf-pcn-architecture-07 (work in
progress), September 2008.
12.2. Informative References
[PCN-3-enc-state] Moncaster, T., Briscoe, B., and M. Menth, "A
three state extended PCN encoding scheme",
draft-moncaster-pcn-3-state-encoding-00
(work in progress), June 2008.
[PCN-charter] IETF, "IETF Charter for Congestion and Pre-
Congestion Notification Working Group".
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black,
"The Addition of Explicit Congestion
Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC 3168,
September 2001.
[RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture
for the Internet Protocol", RFC 4301,
December 2005.
[ecn-tunnelling] Briscoe, B., "Layered Encapsulation of
Congestion Notification",
draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-tunnel-01 (work in
progress), July 2008.
Moncaster, et al. Expires April 17, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Baseline PCN Encoding October 2008
[pcn-marking-behaviour] Eardley, P., "Marking behaviour of PCN-
nodes", draft-ietf-pcn-marking-behaviour-00
(work in progress), October 2008.
[re-PCN] Briscoe, B., "Emulating Border Flow Policing
using Re-ECN on Bulk Data",
draft-briscoe-re-pcn-border-cheat-00 (work
in progress), July 2007.
[voice-admit] Baker, F., Polk, J., and M. Dolly, "DSCPs
for Capacity-Admitted Traffic",
draft-ietf-tsvwg-admitted-realtime-dscp-04
(work in progress), February 2008.
Appendix A. Tunnelling Constraints
The rules that govern the behaviour of the ECN field for IP-in-IP
tunnels were defined in [RFC3168]. This allowed for two tunnel
modes. The limited functionality mode sets the outer header to not-
ECT, regardless of the value of the inner header, in other words
disabling ECN within the tunnel. The full functionality mode copies
the inner ECN field into the outer header if the inner header is not-
ECT or either of the 2 ECT codepoints. If the inner header is CE
then the outer header is set to ECT(0). On decapsulation, if the CE
codepoint is set on the outer header then this is copied into the
inner header. Otherwise the inner header is left unchanged. The
stated reason for blocking CE from being copied to the outer header
was to prevent this from being used as a covert channel through IPSec
tunnels.
The IPSec protocol [RFC4301] changed the ECN tunnelling rule to allow
IPSec tunnels to simply copy the inner header into the outer header.
On decapsulation the outer header is discarded and the ECN field is
only copied down if it is set to CE.
Because of the possible existence of tunnels, only CE (11) can be
used as a PCN marking as it is the only mark that will always survive
decapsulation. However there is a need for caution with all
tunneling within the PCN-domain. RFC3168 full functionality IP in IP
tunnels are expected to set the ECN field to ECT(0) if the inner ECN
field is set to CE. This leads to the possibility that some packets
within the PCN-domain that have already been marked may have that
mark concealed further into the domain. This is undesirable for many
PCN schemes and thus the PCN working group needs to decide whether to
advise against the use of full functionality RFC3168 IP in IP tunnels
within a PCN-domain to support the ongoing work within the Transport
Area to rationalise the behaviour of IP in IP tunnels in respect to
the ECN field and bring them in line with the behaviour of IPSec
Moncaster, et al. Expires April 17, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Baseline PCN Encoding October 2008
tunnels [ecn-tunnelling].
Appendix B. PCN Node Behaviours
The following table of valid and invalid transitions, while necessary
for the correct functioning of PCN they is not strictly part of the
encoding scheme. The PCN working group needs to decide whether to
include this in this baseline encoding or whether to transfer it to
an alternative document.
+-----------+-------------+-----------------+-----------------------+
| PCN node | Codepoint | Valid codepoint | Invalid codepoint out |
| type | in | out | |
+-----------+-------------+-----------------+-----------------------+
| ingress | Any | NM (or Not-PCN) | PM |
| interior | NM | NM or PM | not-PCN |
| interior | Not-PCN | Not-PCN | Any other codepoint |
| egress | Any | 00 | Any other codepoint * |
+-----------+-------------+-----------------+-----------------------+
* Except where the egress node knows that other marks may be safely
exposed outside the PCN-domain (e.g. [PCN-3-enc-state]).
Table 2: Valid and Invalid Transitions at PCN nodes
It is also necessary to define a safe behaviour for baseline-
compliant nodes to follow should they unexpectedly encounter a packet
carrying the EXP (01) codepoint. The obvious safe behaviour would be
to treat this as if it were a NM packet but to raise an alarm at a
higher layer to check why the packet was there. An alternative safe
approach is to treat it as a not-PCN packet but this might jeopardise
partial deployment of any future experimental encoding scheme.
Appendix C. Deployment Scenarios for PCN Using Baseline Encoding
This appendix illustrates possible PCN deployment scenarios where the
baseline encoding can be used and also explain a case for which
baseline encoding is not sufficient. {Note this appendix is provided
for information only}.
1. an operator requires only admission control. Then admission
control is triggered from PCN-packets that are threshold-marked
and this baseline encdoding scheme suffices.
2. an operator requires only flow termination. Then flow
termination is triggered from PCN-packets that are excess-
traffic-marked and this baseline encdoding scheme suffices.
Moncaster, et al. Expires April 17, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Baseline PCN Encoding October 2008
3. an operator requires both admission control and flow termination.
If both admission control and flow termination are triggered from
PCN-packets that are excess-traffic-marked then this baseline
encoding scheme suffices.
4. an operator requires both admission control triggered by packets
that are threshold-marked and flow termination triggered by
packets that are excess-traffic-marked. In this case the
baseline encoding provides insufficient encoding states to
achieve this.
Authors' Addresses
Toby Moncaster
BT
B54/70, Adastral Park
Martlesham Heath
Ipswich IP5 3RE
UK
Phone: +44 1473 648734
EMail: toby.moncaster@bt.com
Bob Briscoe
BT & UCL
B54/77, Adastral Park
Martlesham Heath
Ipswich IP5 3RE
UK
Phone: +44 1473 645196
EMail: bob.briscoe@bt.com
Michael Menth
University of Wuerzburg
room B206, Institute of Computer Science
Am Hubland
Wuerzburg D-97074
Germany
Phone: +49 931 888 6644
EMail: menth@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de
Moncaster, et al. Expires April 17, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Baseline PCN Encoding October 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.
Acknowledgement
This document was produced using xml2rfc v1.33 (of
http://xml.resource.org/) from a source in RFC-2629 XML format.
Moncaster, et al. Expires April 17, 2009 [Page 12]
