PCN Working Group                               Philip. Eardley (Editor)
Internet-Draft                                                        BT
Intended status: Standards Track                           March 5, 2009
Expires: September 6, 2009


                     Marking behaviour of PCN-nodes
                  draft-ietf-pcn-marking-behaviour-02

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.  This document may contain material
   from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly
   available before November 10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the
   copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF
   Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the
   IETF Standards Process.  Without obtaining an adequate license from
   the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this
   document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and
   derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards
   Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
   translate it into languages other than English.

   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 September 6, 2009.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the



Eardley (Editor)        Expires September 6, 2009               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft       Marking behaviour of PCN-nodes           March 2009


   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.

Abstract


   This document standardises the two marking behaviours of PCN-nodes:
   threshold marking and excess traffic marking.  Threshold marking
   marks all PCN-packets if the PCN traffic rate is greater than a
   configured rate ("PCN-threshold-rate").  Excess traffic marking marks
   a proportion of PCN-packets, such that the amount marked equals the
   traffic rate in excess of a configured rate ("PCN-excess-rate").
   Setting the configured rates below the physical link rates enables
   PCN-nodes to provide information to support admission control and
   flow termination in order to protect the quality of service of
   established inelastic flows.

Requirements Language

   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].

























Eardley (Editor)        Expires September 6, 2009               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft       Marking behaviour of PCN-nodes           March 2009


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.  Specified PCN-marking behaviour  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.1.  Behaviour aggregate classification function  . . . . . . .  6
     2.2.  Traffic conditioning function  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.3.  Threshold meter function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.4.  Excess traffic meter function  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.5.  Marking function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   3.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   4.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   5.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   6.  Changes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     6.1.  Changes to -02 from -01  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     6.2.  Changes to -01 from -00  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     6.3.  Changes to -00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   7.  Authors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   8.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   Appendix A.  Example algorithms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     A.1.  Threshold metering and marking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     A.2.  Excess traffic metering and marking  . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   Appendix B.  Implementation notes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     B.1.  Competing-non-PCN-traffic  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     B.2.  Scope  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     B.3.  Behaviour aggregate classification . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     B.4.  Traffic conditioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     B.5.  Threshold metering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     B.6.  Excess traffic metering  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     B.7.  Marking  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20




















Eardley (Editor)        Expires September 6, 2009               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft       Marking behaviour of PCN-nodes           March 2009


1.  Introduction

   This document standardises the two marking behaviours of PCN-nodes.
   Their aim is to enable PCN-nodes to give an "early warning" of
   potential congestion before there is any significant build-up of PCN-
   packets in their queues.  In summary, their objectives are:

   o  threshold marking: its objective is to mark all PCN-packets (with
      a "threshold-mark") whenever the rate of PCN-packets is greater
      than its configured rate ("PCN-threshold-rate");

   o  excess traffic marking: whenever the rate of PCN-packets is
      greater than its configured rate ("PCN-excess-rate"), its
      objective is to mark PCN-packets (with an "excess-traffic-mark")
      at a rate equal to the difference between the bit rate of PCN-
      packets and the PCN-excess-rate.

   [I-D.ietf-pcn-architecture] describes a general architecture for how,
   in a particular DiffServ domain, PCN-boundary-nodes convert these
   PCN-markings into decisions about flow admission and flow
   termination.  Other documents describe the wider per-domain behaviour
   and how the PCN-markings are encoded in packet headers.  PCN encoding
   uses a combination of the DSCP field and ECN field in the IP header
   to indicate that a packet is a PCN-packet and whether it is PCN-
   marked.  The baseline encoding [I-D.ietf-pcn-baseline-encoding]
   standardises two encoding states (PCN-marked and not-marked), whilst
   other documents define extended schemes with three encoding states
   (eg [I-D.moncaster-pcn-3-state-encoding] defines PCN-threshold-
   marked, PCN-excess-traffic-marked and not-marked).  [RFC3168] defines
   a broadly RED-like default congestion marking behaviour, but allows
   alternatives to be defined; this document defines such an
   alternative.

   Section 2 below specifies the functions involved, which in outline
   (see Figure 1) are:

   o  Behaviour aggregate classification: decide whether an incoming
      packet is a PCN-packet or not.

   o  Traffic condition (optional): drop packets if the link is
      overloaded.

   o  Threshold meter: determine whether the rate of PCN-packets is
      greater than its configured PCN-threshold-rate.  The meter
      operates on the aggregate of all PCN-packets on the link, and not
      on individual flows.





Eardley (Editor)        Expires September 6, 2009               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft       Marking behaviour of PCN-nodes           March 2009


   o  Excess traffic meter: measure by how much the rate of PCN-packets
      is greater than its configured PCN-excess-rate.  The meter
      operates on the aggregate of all PCN-packets on the link, and not
      on individual flows.

   o  PCN-mark: actually mark the PCN-packets, if the meter functions
      indicate to do so.


                                       +---------+   Result
                                    +->|Threshold|-------+
                                    |  |  Meter  |       |
                                    |  +---------+       V
         +---------+   +- - - - -+  |                 +------+
         |   BA    |   |         |  |                 |      |    Marked
Packet =>|Classify |==>|Condition|==?================>|Marker|==> Packet
Stream   |         |   |         |  |                 |      |    Stream
         +---------+   +- - - - -+  |                 +------+
                                    |  +---------+       ^
                                    |  | Excess  |       |
                                    +->| Traffic |-------+
                                       |  Meter  |   Result
                                       +---------+

   Figure 1: Schematic of functions for PCN-marking

   Appendix A gives an example of algorithms that fulfil the
   specification of Section 2, and Appendix B provides some explanations
   of and comments on Section 2.  Both the Appendices are informative.

1.1.  Terminology

   In addition to the terminology defined in [I-D.ietf-pcn-architecture]
   and [RFC2474], the following terms are defined:

   o  Competing-non-PCN-packet: a non PCN-packet that shares a link with
      PCN-packets and competes with them for its forwarding bandwidth.
      Competing-non-PCN-packets MUST NOT be PCN-marked (ie only PCN-
      packets can be PCN-marked).  Note: In general it is not advised to
      have any competing-non-PCN-traffic.

   o  Metered-packet: a packet that is metered by the metering functions
      specified below.  A PCN-packet MUST be treated as a metered-packet
      (with the minor exception noted below in Section 2.4).  A
      competing-non-PCN-packet MAY be treated as a metered-packet.

   o  Note: "Excess-traffic-marked" means a packet that is marked as a
      result of the excess traffic meter function; "threshold-marked"



Eardley (Editor)        Expires September 6, 2009               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft       Marking behaviour of PCN-nodes           March 2009


      means a packet that is marked as a result of the threshold meter
      function.  [I-D.ietf-pcn-baseline-encoding] defines only two PCN
      encoding states available (PCN-marked and not-marked); the
      deployment MUST choose whether PCN-marked is interpreted as
      excess-traffic-marked or threshold-marked; a consistent choice
      MUST be made throughout a PCN-domain.


2.  Specified PCN-marking behaviour

   This section specifies the PCN-marking behaviour.  The descriptions
   are functional and are not intended to restrict the implementation.
   The informative Appendices supplement this section.

2.1.  Behaviour aggregate classification function

   A PCN-node MUST classify a packet as a PCN-packet if the value of its
   DSCP and ECN fields correspond to a PCN-enabled codepoint, as defined
   in the encoding scheme applicable to the PCN-domain.  Otherwise the
   packet MUST NOT be classified as a PCN-packet.

   A PCN-node MUST classify a packet as a competing-non-PCN-packet if it
   is not a PCN-packet and it competes with PCN-packets for its
   forwarding bandwidth on a link.

2.2.  Traffic conditioning function

   Note: if the PCN-node's queue overflows then naturally packets are
   dropped; traffic conditioning is action additional to this.

   On all links in the PCN-domain, traffic conditioning MAY be done by:

   o  metering all metered-packets to determine if the rate of metered-
      traffic is greater than its scheduling rate (ie determine if any
      packets are out-of-profile.  Metering is "the process of measuring
      the temporal properties (eg rate) of a traffic stream" [RFC2475].)

   o  if the rate of metered-traffic is too high, then drop metered-
      packets.

   If the PCN-node drops PCN-packets then:

   o  PCN-packets that arrive at the PCN-node already excess-traffic-
      marked SHOULD be preferentially dropped;

   o  the PCN-node's Excess traffic Meter SHOULD NOT meter the PCN-
      packets that it drops.




Eardley (Editor)        Expires September 6, 2009               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft       Marking behaviour of PCN-nodes           March 2009


2.3.  Threshold meter function

   A PCN-node MUST implement a Threshold Meter that has behaviour
   functionally equivalent to the following.

   The meter acts like a token bucket, which is sized in bits and has a
   configured bit rate, termed PCN-threshold-rate.  The amount of tokens
   in the token bucket is termed TBthreshold.fill.  Tokens are added at
   the PCN-threshold-rate, to a maximum value TBthreshold.max.  Tokens
   are removed equal to the size in bits of the metered-packet, to a
   minimum TBthreshold.fill=0.

   The token bucket has a configured intermediate depth, termed
   TBthreshold.threshold.  If TBthreshold.fill < TBthreshold.threshold,
   then the meter indicates to the Marking function that the packet is
   to be threshold-marked; otherwise it does not.

2.4.  Excess traffic meter function

   A PCN-packet SHOULD NOT be metered (by this excess traffic meter
   function) in the following two cases:

   o  If the packet is already excess-traffic-marked on arrival at the
      PCN-node;

   o  If this PCN-node drops the packet.

   Otherwise the PCN-packet MUST be treated as a metered-packet, that is
   it is metered by the Excess traffic Meter.

   A PCN-node MUST implement an Excess traffic Meter that has behaviour
   functionally equivalent to the following.

   The meter acts like a token bucket, which is sized in bits and has a
   configured bit rate, termed PCN-excess-rate.  The amount of tokens in
   the token bucket is termed TBexcess.fill.  Tokens are added at the
   PCN-excess-rate, to a maximum value TBexcess.max.  Tokens are removed
   equal to the size in bits of the metered-packet, to a minimum
   TBexcess-fill=0.  If the token bucket is empty (TBexcess.fill = 0),
   then the meter indicates to the Marking function that the packet is
   to be excess-traffic-marked.  The PCN-excess-rate is greater than (or
   equal to) the PCN-threshold-rate.

   In addition to the above, if the token bucket is within an MTU of
   being empty, then the meter SHOULD indicate to the Marking function
   that the packet is to be excess-traffic-marked; MTU means the maximum
   size of PCN-packets on the link ("packet size independent marking").




Eardley (Editor)        Expires September 6, 2009               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft       Marking behaviour of PCN-nodes           March 2009


   Otherwise the meter MUST NOT indicate marking.

2.5.  Marking function

   A PCN-node MUST NOT:

   o  PCN-mark a packet that is not a PCN-packet;

   o  change a non PCN-packet into a PCN-packet;

   o  change a PCN-packet into a non PCN-packet.

   A PCN-packet MUST be marked to reflect the metering results by
   setting its encoding state appropriately, as specified by the
   specific encoding scheme that applies in the PCN-domain.

   Note: In some deployment scenarios there may be only two PCN encoding
   states available (PCN-marked and not-marked).  In such scenarios, the
   deployment MUST choose whether the Threshold meter function or the
   Excess traffic meter function can trigger a packet to be PCN-marked;
   a consistent choice MUST be made throughout a PCN-domain.


3.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request of IANA.

   Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
   RFC.


4.  Security Considerations

   See [I-D.ietf-pcn-architecture]


5.  Acknowledgements

   Michael Menth, Joe Babiarz, Anna Charny reviewed a preliminary
   version of the draft-eardley-pcn-marking-behaviour-00 draft.

   Thanks to those who've made comments on this draft: Michael Menth,
   Joe Babiarz, Anna Charny, Ruediger Geib, Wei Gengyu, Fortune Huang,
   Bob Briscoe, Toby Moncaster, Christian Hublet, Ingemar Johansson, Ken
   Carlberg, Georgios Karagiannis.

   All the work by many people in the PCN WG.




Eardley (Editor)        Expires September 6, 2009               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft       Marking behaviour of PCN-nodes           March 2009


6.  Changes

6.1.  Changes to -02 from -01

   Updates as follows:

   o  added notes (end of S1.1 & 2.5) to clarify what "excess-traffic-
      marked" means when there is only one encoding for PCN-marking

   o  added explanations for in Section B.4 and B.6 about why various
      things are SHOULD or SHOULD NOT rather than MUST or MUST NOT.

   o  Deleted a couple of paragraphs about encoding states, as they are
      relevant to encoding documents rather than this document.

6.2.  Changes to -01 from -00

   Updates as follows:

   o  corrected the term 'not PCN-marked' to 'not-marked' (throughout)

   o  re-phrased the definition of competing-non-PCN-packets

   o  corrected the definition of metered-packet

   o  delete most of Section 2.5 (marking function).  The material
      deleted belongs as part of [I-D.ietf-pcn-baseline-encoding]; other
      encoding schemes would need to include similar material.

   o  deleted Appendix C (it was only a temporary archive of material
      concerning per domain behaviour and PCN-boundary-node operation)

   o  clarifications throughout

   o  made all references Informative

6.3.  Changes to -00

   First version of WG draft, derived from
   draft-eardley-pcn-marking-behaviour-01, with the following changes:

   o  Removed material concerning per domain behaviour and PCN-boundary-
      node operation (temporarily archived to Appendix C)

   o  Removed mention of downgrading as an option for per-hop traffic
      conditioning.  In fact, downgrading is no longer allowed because S
      2.6 now says "A PCN-node MUST NOT ...change a PCN-packet into a
      non PCN-packet".



Eardley (Editor)        Expires September 6, 2009               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft       Marking behaviour of PCN-nodes           March 2009


   o  Traffic conditioning is now a MAY.  Since in general flow
      termination (not traffic conditioning) is PCN's method for
      handling problems of too much traffic.

   o  Metered-packets: competing-non-PCN-packets now MAY be metered.
      Since it is recommended that the operator doesn't allow any
      competing-non-PCN-traffic, and (if there is) there are potentially
      other ways of coping.

   o  No changes (outside traffic conditioning & metering of competing-
      non-PCN-traffic) to the Normative sections of the draft.

   o  Appendix B.1 added about competing-non-PCN-traffic.  Recommended
      that there is no such traffic, but guidance given if there is.


7.  Authors

   Many people need to be added.


8.  Informative References

   [I-D.briscoe-tsvwg-byte-pkt-mark]
              Briscoe, B., "Byte and Packet Congestion Notification",
              draft-briscoe-tsvwg-byte-pkt-mark-02 (work in progress),
              February 2008.

   [I-D.briscoe-tsvwg-cl-architecture]
              Briscoe, B., "An edge-to-edge Deployment Model for Pre-
              Congestion Notification: Admission  Control over a
              DiffServ Region", draft-briscoe-tsvwg-cl-architecture-04
              (work in progress), October 2006.

   [I-D.charny-pcn-comparison]
              Charny, A., "Comparison of Proposed PCN Approaches",
              draft-charny-pcn-comparison-00 (work in progress),
              November 2007.

   [I-D.ietf-pcn-architecture]
              Eardley, P., "Pre-Congestion Notification (PCN)
              Architecture", draft-ietf-pcn-architecture-07 (work in
              progress), September 2008.

   [I-D.ietf-pcn-baseline-encoding]
              Moncaster, T., Briscoe, B., and M. Menth, "Baseline
              Encoding and Transport of Pre-Congestion Information",
              draft-ietf-pcn-baseline-encoding-01 (work in progress),



Eardley (Editor)        Expires September 6, 2009              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft       Marking behaviour of PCN-nodes           March 2009


              October 2008.

   [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-admitted-realtime-dscp]
              Baker, F., Polk, J., and M. Dolly, "DSCPs for Capacity-
              Admitted Traffic",
              draft-ietf-tsvwg-admitted-realtime-dscp-04 (work in
              progress), February 2008.

   [I-D.moncaster-pcn-3-state-encoding]
              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.

   [Menth]    "Menth", 2008, <http://www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/
              staff/menth/Publications/Menth08-PCN-Comparison.pdf>.

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

   [RFC2474]  Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
              "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
              Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
              December 1998.

   [RFC2475]  Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
              and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
              Services", RFC 2475, December 1998.

   [RFC3168]  Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
              of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
              RFC 3168, September 2001.

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


Appendix A.  Example algorithms

   Note: This Appendix is informative, not normative.  It is an example
   of algorithms that implement Section 2 and is based on
   [I-D.charny-pcn-comparison] and [Menth].

   There is no attempt to optimise the algorithms.  It implements the
   metering and marking functions together.  It is assumed that three
   encoding states are available (one for threshold-marked, one for
   excess-traffic-marked and one for not-marked").  It is assumed that
   all metered-packets are PCN-packets and that the link is never



Eardley (Editor)        Expires September 6, 2009              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft       Marking behaviour of PCN-nodes           March 2009


   overloaded.

A.1.  Threshold metering and marking

   A token bucket with the following parameters:

   o  TBthreshold.PCN-threshold-rate: token rate of token bucket (bits/
      second)

   o  TBthreshold.max: depth of token bucket (bits)

   o  TBthreshold.threshold: marking threshold of token bucket (bits)

   o  TBthreshold.lastUpdate: time the token bucket was last updated
      (seconds)

   o  TBthreshold.fill: amount of tokens in token bucket (bits)

   A PCN-packet has the following parameters:

   o  packet.size: the size of the PCN-packet (bits)

   o  packet.mark: the PCN encoding state of the packet

   In addition there are the parameters:

   o  now: the current time (seconds)

   The following steps are performed when a PCN-packet arrives on a
   link:

   o  TBthreshold.fill = min(TBthreshold.max, TBthreshold.fill + (now -
      TBthreshold.lastUpdate) * TBthreshold.PCN-threshold-rate); // add
      tokens to token bucket

   o  TBthreshold.fill = max(0, TBthreshold.fill - packet.size); //
      remove tokens from token bucket

   o  if ((TBthreshold.fill < TBthreshold.threshold) AND (packet.mark !=
      excess-traffic-marked)) then packet.mark = threshold-marked; // do
      threshold marking, but don't re-mark packets that are already
      excess-traffic-marked

   o  TBthreshold.lastUpdate = now







Eardley (Editor)        Expires September 6, 2009              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft       Marking behaviour of PCN-nodes           March 2009


A.2.  Excess traffic metering and marking

   A token bucket with the following parameters:

   o  TBexcess.PCN-excess-rate: token rate of token bucket (bits/second)

   o  TBexcess.max: depth of TB in token bucket (bits)

   o  TBexcess.lastUpdate: time the token bucket was last updated
      (seconds)

   o  TBexcess.fill: amount of tokens in token bucket (bits)

   A PCN-packet has the following parameters:

   o  packet.size: the size of the PCN-packet (bits)

   o  packet.mark: the PCN encoding state of the packet

   In addition there are the parameters:

   o  now: the current time (seconds)

   o  MTU: the maximum transfer unit of the link (or the known maximum
      size of PCN-packets on the link) (bits)

   The following steps are performed when a PCN-packet arrives on a
   link:

   o  TBexcess.fill = min(TBexcess.max, TBexcess.fill + (now -
      TBexcess.lastUpdate) * TBexcess.PCN-excess-rate); // add tokens to
      token bucket

   o  if (packet.mark != excess-traffic-marked) then TBexcess.fill =
      max(0, TBexcess.fill - packet.size); // remove tokens from token
      bucket, but do not meter packets that are already excess-traffic-
      marked

   o  if (TBexcess.fill < MTU) then packet.mark = excess-traffic-marked;
      // do (packet size independent) excess traffic marking

   o  TBthreshold.lastUpdate = now


Appendix B.  Implementation notes

   Note: This Appendix is informative, not normative.  It comments on
   Section 2.



Eardley (Editor)        Expires September 6, 2009              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft       Marking behaviour of PCN-nodes           March 2009


B.1.  Competing-non-PCN-traffic

   In general it is not advised to have any competing-non-PCN-traffic,
   essentially because the unpredictable amount of competing-non-PCN-
   traffic makes the PCN mechanisms less accurate and so reduces PCN's
   ability to protect the QoS of admitted PCN-flows
   [I-D.ietf-pcn-architecture].  But if there is competing-non-PCN-
   traffic, then there needs to be:

   1.  a mechanism to limit it, for example:

       *  limiting the rate at which competing-non-PCN-traffic can be
          forwarded on each link in the PCN-domain.  One method for
          achieving this is to queue competing-non-PCN-packets
          separately from PCN-packets, and to limit the scheduling rate
          of the former.  Another method is to police (traffic
          condition) the competing-non-PCN-traffic on each link, ie drop
          competing-non-PCN-packets in excess of some rate.

       *  policing of competing-non-PCN-traffic at the PCN-ingress-
          nodes.  For example, as in the DiffServ architecture -
          although its static traffic conditioning agreements risk a
          focused overload of traffic from several PCN-ingress-nodes on
          one link.

       *  design: it is known by design that the level of competing-non-
          PCN-traffic is always very small (perhaps it consists of
          operator control messages only)

   2.  In general PCN's mechanisms should take account of competing-non-
       PCN-traffic (in order to improve the accuracy of the decision
       about whether to admit (or terminate) a PCN-flow), for example
       by:

       *  competing-non-PCN-traffic contributes to the PCN meters (ie
          competing-non-PCN-packets are treated as metered-packets).

       *  each PCN-node reduces, on its links, the PCN-threshold-rate
          and PCN-excess-rate, in order to allow 'headroom' for the
          competing-non-PCN-traffic; also limiting the maximum
          forwarding rate of competing-non-PCN-traffic to be less than
          the 'headroom'.  In this case competing-non-PCN-packets are
          not treated as metered-packets.

   It is left up to the operator to decide on appropriate action.
   Traffic conditioning is discussed further in the separate section
   below.




Eardley (Editor)        Expires September 6, 2009              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft       Marking behaviour of PCN-nodes           March 2009


   One specific example of competing-non-PCN-traffic occurs if the PCN-
   compatible Diffserv codepoint is the Voice-admit codepoint, and there
   is voice-admit traffic in the PCN-domain.

   Another example would occur if there was more than one PCN-compatible
   Diffserv codepoint in a PCN-domain.  For instance, suppose there were
   two PCN-BAs treated at different priorities.  Then as far as the
   lower priority PCN-BA is concerned, the higher priority PCN-traffic
   needs to be treated as competing-non-PCN-traffic.

B.2.  Scope

   It may be known, eg by the design of the network topology, that some
   links can never be pre-congested (even in unusual circumstances, eg
   after the failure of some links).  There is then no need to deploy
   PCN behaviour on those links.

   The meter and marker can be implemented on the ingoing or outgoing
   interface of a PCN-node.  It may be that existing hardware can
   support only one meter and marker per ingoing interface and one per
   outgoing interface.  Then for instance threshold metering and marking
   could be run on all the ingoing interfaces and excess traffic
   metering and marking on all the outgoing interfaces; note that the
   same choice must be made for all the links in a PCN-domain to ensure
   that the two metering behaviours are applied exactly once for all the
   links.

   Note that even if there are only two encoding states, it is still
   required that both the meters are implemented, in order to ease
   compatibility between equipment and remove a configuration option and
   associated complexity.  Hardware with limited availability of token
   buckets could be configured to run only one of the meters, but it
   must be possible to enable either meter.  Although this scenario
   means that the Marking function ignores indications from one of the
   meters, they may be logged or acted upon in some other way, for
   example by the management system or an explicit signalling protocol;
   such considerations are out of scope of PCN.

B.3.  Behaviour aggregate classification

   Configuration of PCN-nodes will define what values of the DSCP and
   ECN fields indicate a PCN-packet in a particular PCN-domain.

   Configuration will also define what values of the DSCP and ECN fields
   indicate a competing-non-PCN-packet in a particular PCN-domain.






Eardley (Editor)        Expires September 6, 2009              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft       Marking behaviour of PCN-nodes           March 2009


B.4.  Traffic conditioning

   If there is no competing-non-PCN-traffic, then it is not expected
   that traffic conditioning is needed, since PCN's flow admission and
   termination mechanisms limit the amount of PCN-traffic.  Even so,
   traffic conditioning still might be implemented as a back stop
   against misconfiguration of the PCN-domain, for instance.

   The objective of traffic conditioning is to minimise the queueing
   delay suffered by metered-traffic at a PCN-node, since PCN-traffic
   (and perhaps competing-non-PCN-traffic) is expected to be inelastic
   traffic generated by real time applications.  In practice it would be
   defined as exceeding a specific traffic profile, typically based on a
   token bucket.  The details will depend on how the router's
   implementation handles the two sorts of traffic
   [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-admitted-realtime-dscp]:

   o  a common queue for PCN-traffic and competing-non-PCN-traffic, and
      a traffic conditioner for the competing-non-PCN-traffic;

   o  separate queues.  In this case the amount of competing-non-PCN-
      traffic can be limited by limiting the rate at which the scheduler
      (for the competing-non-PCN-traffic) forwards packets.

   The traffic conditioning action is to drop packets (which is often
   called "policing").  Downgrading of packets to a lower priority BA is
   not allowed (see B.7), since it wold lead to packet mis-ordering.
   Shaping ("the process of delaying packets" [RFC2475]) is not suitable
   if the traffic comes from real time applications.  In general it is
   reasonable for competing-non-PCN-traffic to get harsher treatment
   than PCN-traffic (ie competing-non-PCN-packets are preferentially
   dropped), because PCN's flow admission and termination mechanisms are
   stronger than the mechanisms that are likely to be applied to the
   competing-non-PCN-traffic.  The PCN mechanisms also mean that a
   traffic conditioner should not be needed for the PCN-traffic.

   Preferential dropping of excess-traffic-marked packets: Section 2.3
   specifies: "If the PCN-node drops PCN-packets then ...  PCN-packets
   that arrive at the PCN-node already excess-traffic-marked SHOULD be
   preferentially dropped".  In brief, the reason is that this avoids
   over-termination, with the CL/SM edge behaviour, in the event of
   multiple bottlenecks in the PCN-domain [I-D.charny-pcn-comparison].
   A fuller explanation is as follows.  The optimal dropping behaviour
   depends on the particular edge behaviour [Menth].  A single dropping
   behaviour is defined, as it is simpler to standardise, implement and
   operate.  The standardised dropping behaviour is at least adequate
   for all edge behaviours (and good for some), whereas others are not
   (for example with tail dropping far too much traffic may be



Eardley (Editor)        Expires September 6, 2009              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft       Marking behaviour of PCN-nodes           March 2009


   terminated with the CL/SM edge behaviour, in the event of multiple
   bottlenecks in the PCN-domain [I-D.charny-pcn-comparison]).  The
   dropping behaviour is defined as a 'SHOULD', rather than a 'MUST', in
   recognition that other dropping behaviour may be preferred in
   particular circumstances, for example: (1) with the marked flow
   termination edge behaviour, preferential dropping of unmarked packets
   may be better; (2) tail dropping may make PCN marking behaviour
   easier to implement on current routers.

   Exactly what "preferentially dropped" means is left to the
   implementation.  It is also left to the implementation what to do if
   there are no excess-traffic-marked PCN-packets available at a
   particular instant.

   Section 2.2 also specifies: "the PCN-node's Excess traffic Meter
   SHOULD NOT meter the PCN-packets that it drops."  This avoids over-
   termination [Menth].  Effectively it means that traffic conditioning
   should be done before the meter functions - which is natural.

B.5.  Threshold metering

   The description is in terms of a 'token bucket with threshold' (which
   [I-D.briscoe-tsvwg-cl-architecture] views as a virtual queue).
   However the implementation is not standardised.

   Section 2.3 defines: "If TBthreshold.fill < TBthreshold.threshold,
   then the meter indicates to the Marking function that the packet is
   to be threshold-marked; otherwise it does not."  Note that the PCN-
   packet (that causes the token bucket to cross TBthreshold.threshold)
   is marked without explicit additional bias for the packet's size.

   The behaviour must be functionally equivalent to the description in
   Section 2.3.  "Functionally equivalent" means the observable 'black
   box' behaviour is the same or very similar.  It is intended to allow
   implementation freedom over matters such as:

   o  whether tokens are added to the token bucket at regular time
      intervals or only when a packet is processed

   o  whether the new token bucket depth is calculated before or after
      it is decided whether to mark the packet.  The effect of this is
      simply to shift the sequence of marks by one packet.

   o  when the token bucket is very nearly empty and a packet arrives
      larger than TBthreshold.fill, then the precise change in
      TBthreshold.fill is up to the implementation.  A behaviour is
      functionally equivalent if either precisely the same set of
      packets is marked, or if the set is shifted by one packet.  For



Eardley (Editor)        Expires September 6, 2009              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft       Marking behaviour of PCN-nodes           March 2009


      instance, the following should all be considered as "functionally
      equivalent":

      *  set TBthreshold.fill = 0 and indicate threshold-mark to the
         Marking function.

      *  check whether TBthreshold.fill < TBthreshold.threshold and if
         it is then indicate threshold-mark to the Marking function;
         then set TBthreshold.fill = 0.

      *  leave TBthreshold.fill unaltered and indicate threshold-mark to
         the Marking function.

   o  similarly, when the token bucket is very nearly full and a packet
      arrives large than (TBthreshold.max - TBthreshold.fill), then the
      precise change in TBthreshold.fill is up to the implementation.

   o  Note that all packets, even if already marked, are metered by the
      threshold meter function (unlike the excess traffic meter function
      - see below) - because all packets should contribute to the
      decision whether there is room for a new flow.

B.6.  Excess traffic metering

   The description is in terms of a token bucket, however the
   implementation is not standardised.

   As in Section B.3, "functionally equivalent" allows some
   implementation flexibility when the token bucket is very nearly empty
   or very nearly full.

   Section 2.4 specifies: "A packet SHOULD NOT be metered (by this
   excess traffic meter function) ...  If the packet is already excess-
   traffic-marked on arrival at the PCN-node".  This avoids over-
   termination (with some edge behaviours) in the event that the PCN-
   traffic passes through multiple bottlenecks in the PCN-domain
   [I-D.charny-pcn-comparison].  Note that an implementation could
   determine whether the packet is already excess-traffic-marked as an
   integral part of its Classification function.  The behaviour is
   defined as a 'SHOULD NOT', rather than a 'MUST NOT', because it may
   be slightly harder to implement than a metering function that is
   blind to previous packet markings.

   Section 2.4 specifies: "A packet SHOULD NOT be metered (by this
   excess traffic meter function) ...  If this PCN-node drops the
   packet."  This avoids over-termination [Menth].  (A similar statement
   could also be made for the threshold meter function, but is
   irrelevant, as a link that is overloaded will already be



Eardley (Editor)        Expires September 6, 2009              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft       Marking behaviour of PCN-nodes           March 2009


   substantially pre-congested and hence PCN-marking all packets.)  It
   seems natural to do traffic conditioning before the metering
   functions, although for some equipment it may be harder to implement;
   hence the behaviour is defined as a 'SHOULD NOT', rather than a 'MUST
   NOT'.

   Packet size independent marking is specified as a SHOULD in Section
   2.4 ( "if the token bucket is within an MTU of being empty, then the
   meter SHOULD indicate to the Marking function that the packet is to
   be excess-traffic-marked; MTU means the maximum size of PCN-packets
   on the link".)  Without it, large packets are more likely to be
   excess-traffic-marked than small packets and this means that, with
   some edge behaviours, flows with large packets are more likely to be
   terminated than flows with small packets
   [I-D.briscoe-tsvwg-byte-pkt-mark] [Menth].  The behaviour is a
   'SHOULD', rather than a 'MUST', because packet size independent
   marking may be slightly harder for some equipment to implement, and
   the impact of not doing it is moderate (sufficient traffic is
   terminated, but flows with large packets are more likely to be
   terminated).

   Note that TBexcess.max is independent of TBthreshold.max;
   TBexcess.fill is independent of TBthreshold.fill (except in that a
   packet changes both); and the two configured rates, PCN-excess-rate
   and PCN-threshold-rate are independent (except that PCN-excess-rate
   >= PCN-threshold-rate).

B.7.  Marking

   Section 2.5 defines: "A PCN-node MUST NOT ...change a PCN-packet into
   a non PCN-packet".  This means that a PCN-node MUST NOT traffic
   condition by downgrading a PCN-packet into a lower priority DiffServ
   BA.

   Section 2.5 defines: "A PCN-node MUST NOT ...PCN-mark a packet that
   is not a PCN-packet".  This means that in the scenario where
   competing-non-PCN-packets are treated as metered-packets, a meter may
   indicate a packet is to be PCN-marked, but the Marking function knows
   it cannot be marked.  It is left open to the implementation exactly
   what to do in this case; one simple possibility is to mark the next
   PCN-packet.  Note that unless the PCN-packets are a large fraction of
   all the metered-packets then the PCN mechanisms may not work well.

   Although the metering functions are described separately from the
   Marking function, they can be implemented in an integrated fashion.






Eardley (Editor)        Expires September 6, 2009              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft       Marking behaviour of PCN-nodes           March 2009


Author's Address

   Philip Eardley
   BT
   Adastral Park, Martlesham Heath
   Ipswich  IP5 3RE
   UK

   Email: philip.eardley@bt.com










































Eardley (Editor)        Expires September 6, 2009              [Page 20]

Internet-Draft       Marking behaviour of PCN-nodes           March 2009