Congestion and Pre Congestion T. Moncaster
Internet-Draft BT
Intended status: Standards Track B. Briscoe
Expires: August 14, 2009 BT & UCL
M. Menth
University of Wuerzburg
February 10, 2009
Baseline Encoding and Transport of Pre-Congestion Information
draft-ietf-pcn-baseline-encoding-02
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and 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 August 14, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document.
Moncaster, et al. Expires August 14, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Baseline PCN Encoding February 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.
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. PCN-Compatible DiffServ Codepoints . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Rules for Experimental Encoding Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Backwards Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11. Comments Solicited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix A. PCN Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
A.1. Choice of Suitable DSCPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
A.2. Rationale for Using ECT(0) for Not Marked . . . . . . . . 10
Moncaster, et al. Expires August 14, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Baseline PCN Encoding February 2009
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 -01 to -02:
Removed Appendix A and replaced with reference to [ecn-tunneling]
Moved Appendix B into main body of text.
Changed Appendix C to give deployment advice.
Minor changes throughout including checking consistency of
capitalisation of defined terms.
Clarified that LU was deliberately excluded from encoding.
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.
Moncaster, et al. Expires August 14, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Baseline PCN Encoding February 2009
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.
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.
Moncaster, et al. Expires August 14, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Baseline PCN Encoding February 2009
o PCN-marked - codepoint indicating packets that have been marked at
a PCN-interior-node using some PCN marking behaviour
[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. By definition packets carrying such codepoints are
PCN-packets.
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].
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. N.B. we deliberately
reserve this codepoint for experimental use only (and not local use)
to prevent any possible future compatability issues.
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
Moncaster, et al. Expires August 14, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Baseline PCN Encoding February 2009
[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.
The following table sets out the valid and invalid codepoint
transitions at PCN-nodes for this baseline encoding. Extension
encodings may have different rules regarding the validity of the
transitions. Note that this table assumes there is a functional
separation between a PCN-boundary-node and a PCN-interior-node such
that PCN-boundary-nodes do not perform packet metering or marking
functions. PCN-nodes MUST follow the encoding transition rules set
out in this table (e.g. they MUST NOT set invalid codepoints on
packets they forward). This table only applies to PCN-packets.
+-----------+-------------+-----------------+-----------------------+
| 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 or EXP |
| interior | EXP + | EXP or PM | Not-PCN |
| interior | Not-PCN | Not-PCN | Any other codepoint |
| interior | PM | PM | Any other codepoint |
| egress | Any | 00 | Any other codepoint * |
+-----------+-------------+-----------------+-----------------------+
+ This SHOULD cause an alarm to be raised at a higher layer. The
packet MUST be treated as if it were NM.
* 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 Codepoint Transitions for
PCN-packets at PCN-nodes
If a pcn-interior-node compliant with this baseline encoding receives
a
4.1. Rationale for Encoding
The exact choice of encoding was dictated by the constraints imposed
by existing IETF RFCs, in particular [RFC3168], [RFC4301] 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. [ecn-tunneling] explains this in more 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
Moncaster, et al. Expires August 14, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Baseline PCN Encoding February 2009
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 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]. This ensures
compliance with the BCP guidance set out in [RFC4774].
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.
o Any experimental scheme MUST include details of all valid and
invalid codepoint transitions at any PCN nodes.
Moncaster, et al. Expires August 14, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Baseline PCN Encoding February 2009
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
ECN semantics. As such this document is compatible with BCP 124. It
should be noted that this baseline encoding effectively disables 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.
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
Moncaster, et al. Expires August 14, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Baseline PCN Encoding February 2009
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.
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.
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.
[RFC5127] Chan, K., Babiarz, J., and F. Baker,
Moncaster, et al. Expires August 14, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Baseline PCN Encoding February 2009
"Aggregation of DiffServ Service Classes",
RFC 5127, February 2008.
[ecn-tunneling] Briscoe, B., "Layered Encapsulation of
Congestion Notification",
draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-tunnel-01 (work in
progress), October 2008.
[pcn-arch] Eardley, P., "Pre-Congestion Notification
(PCN) Architecture",
draft-ietf-pcn-architecture-07 (work in
progress), September 2008.
[pcn-marking-behaviour] Eardley, P., "Marking behaviour of PCN-
nodes", draft-ietf-pcn-marking-behaviour-01
(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, "DSCP for
Capacity-Admitted Traffic",
draft-ietf-tsvwg-admitted-realtime-dscp-05
(work in progress), November 2008.
Appendix A. PCN Deployment Considerations
A.1. Choice of Suitable DSCPs
The choice of which DSCP is most suitable for the PCN-domain is
dependant on the nature of the traffic entering that domain and the
link rates of all the links making up that domain. In PCN-domains
with uniformly high link rates, the appropriate DSCPs would currently
be those for the Real Time Traffic Class [RFC5127]. If the PCN
domain includes lower speed links it would also be appropriate to use
the DSCPs of the other traffic classes that [voice-admit] defines for
use with admission control, such as the three video classes CS4, CS3
and AF4 and the Admitted Telephony Class.
A.2. Rationale for Using ECT(0) for Not Marked
The choice of which ECT codepoint to use for the Not Marked state was
based on the following considerations:
o [RFC3168] full functionality tunnel within PCN-domain: Either ECT
is safe.
Moncaster, et al. Expires August 14, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Baseline PCN Encoding February 2009
o Leakage of traffic into PCN-domain: ECT(1) is less often correct.
o Leakage of traffic out of PCN-domainL Either ECT is equally unsafe
(since this would incorrectly indicate the traffic was ECN capable
outside the controlled PCN-domain).
o Incremental deployment: Either ECT is suitable as long as they are
used consistently.
o Conceptual consistency with other schemes: ECT(0) is conceptually
consistent with [RFC3168].
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 August 14, 2009 [Page 11]
