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

Versions: 00                                                            
Internet Engineering Task Force                                  RSVP WG
INTERNET-DRAFT                                     L. Breslau/S. Shenker
draft-ietf-rsvp-partial-service-00.txt                        Xerox PARC
                                                          April 23, 1997
                                                       Expires: 10/23/97



   Partial Service Deployment in the Integrated Services Architecture


Status of this Memo


   This document is an Internet-Draft.  Internet-Drafts are working
   documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas,
   and its working groups.  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the
   "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow
   Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe),
   munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or
   ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast).


Abstract


   Specifications for providing enhanced qualities of service in the
   Internet have been defined in [2,4].  Technical and administrative
   concerns may prevent a network element from offering one or more of
   these services.  In this document, we present a mechanism for dealing
   with heterogeneity in the set of services offered by different
   network elements.  This approach enables end-to-end service to be
   composed of different per-hop services while not requiring end
   systems to be aware of the details of the service provided at each
   hop.








Breslau/Shenker             Expires 10/23/97                    [Page 1]


INTERNET-DRAFT   draft-ietf-rsvp-partial-service-00.txt   April 23, 1997


Introduction


   The Integrated Services Working Group has produced specifications for
   new types of service[2,4].  These services will provide enhanced
   qualities of service to applications that use them.  Such services
   will be most useful when they are provided at all network elements
   along a data distribution path.  However, because these services
   impose stricter requirements on the network elements than traditional
   best-effort service, it may not be practical to provide these
   services on some subnet technologies.  Furthermore, the ultimate
   decision to implement and deploy a particular service belongs to
   vendors and network service providers, respectively.  A vendor may
   choose not to implement a service, or network service provider may
   choose not to offer a service (e.g., for administrative reasons),
   even if the underlying technology is able to support the service.
   Therefore, newly defined services will not always be available end-
   to-end along a data distribution path.  In this document we describe
   a strategy for coping with this heterogeneity in the set of services
   offered in a network.



Replacement Services


   The mechanism for addressing the problem of service heterogeneity is
   built on the concept of "replacement" services. When a network
   element does not offer a service, it can offer a replacement service
   for it.  Under circumstances described below, when a network element
   receives a request for a service it does not offer, it treats the
   request as if it were for the replacement service.  A replacement
   service can be one of the other real-time services, best-effort
   service, or a non-compliant implementation of the original service.
   Decisions about the use of replacement services are a local matter.

   Replacement services are characterized as either "reliable" or
   "unreliable".  A reliable replacement is one that is expected to meet
   the requirements of the service being replaced a large majority of
   the time (e.g., over 95%).  No assurance is given about the resulting
   quality of an unreliable replacement.  Since best effort service
   qualifies as an unreliable replacement in all circumstances, network
   elements are always able to at least offer unreliable replacements
   for every service.

   When a network element offers a reliable replacement it MUST also
   export meaningful values for any characterization parameters required
   by the original service.  (See [1] and [3] for a discussion of



Breslau/Shenker             Expires 10/23/97                    [Page 2]


INTERNET-DRAFT   draft-ietf-rsvp-partial-service-00.txt   April 23, 1997


   characterization parameters.) These parameters must accurately
   characterize the replacement service, and when composed end-to-end
   with parameters from other network elements they must provide
   applications with a valid characterization of the end-to-end service.
   When a network element offers an unreliable replacement it MAY export
   values for any characterization parameters of the original service if
   it is able to accurately characterize the service.  However, given
   that an unreliable replacement may be arbitrarily bad, the network
   element may instead set the value of all characterization parameters
   to the "invalid" values defined for those parameters.

   We provide the following guidelines for determining whether a network
   element offers an actual service, a reliable replacement, or an
   unreliable replacement.

   Offered Service:  In order to claim to offer a service, a network
   element's implementation of the service must conform to the service
   specification. Specific conformance requirements are included in the
   service specification documents (e.g., [2,4]).  Some knowledge about
   the environment in which an implementation is deployed can be used in
   making this determination.  For example, an implementation of
   Controlled-Load in a router attached to an ethernet may be compliant
   if all routers and hosts attached to the network participate in a
   distributed admission control process to reserve resources on the
   ethernet.  However, the same implementation may not be compliant if
   there are hosts attached to the ethernet that do not participate in
   the bandwidth allocation procedure.  Knowledge of link bandwidth can
   also be used to determine service compliance.  For example, a router
   may be able to offer a service on an interface using FIFO scheduling
   and no admission control if the bandwidth on the link exceeds the sum
   of the input bandwidths on all other links.  On the other hand,
   knowledge about average levels of offered load cannot be used to
   claim compliance with the currently defined service specifications;
   the offered service must comply with the service specifications
   independent of ambient loading.

   Reliable Replacement:  A network element can claim to offer a
   reliable replacement if it does not offer the actual service but the
   service it provides is expected to adhere to the specification of the
   original service a large majority of the time.  This determination
   can take local conditions, including expected load, into account.
   However, since the semantics of a reliable replacement are that it
   emulates very closely the actual service, applications using reliable
   replacements will expect to receive service that is in general not
   significantly different than the original service.  Therefore, the
   reliable replacement label should be applied to service replacements
   with caution.  Furthermore, since a reliable replacement will often
   depend on local conditions, and conditions may change over time,



Breslau/Shenker             Expires 10/23/97                    [Page 3]


INTERNET-DRAFT   draft-ietf-rsvp-partial-service-00.txt   April 23, 1997


   network operators should monitor these conditions and continually
   reassess the suitability of reliable replacements. Finally, note that
   the ability to provide a reliable replacement may also depend on the
   availability of appropriate invocation parameters for the replacement
   service.

   We offer two examples of reliable replacements.  First, a router on a
   vastly underutilized point-to-point link, which rarely experiences
   persistent congestion, may offer best effort service as a reliable
   replacement for Controlled Load service.  Second, a router attached
   to an ethernet that has an otherwise compliant implementation of
   Controlled Load but has no means to control the load generated by
   other stations attached to the ethernet may claim to offer a reliable
   replacement for Controlled Load if the ethernet is not in general
   highly loaded.

   Unreliable Replacement:  Since unreliable replacements make no
   assurances about the service they provide, any service qualifies as
   an unreliable replacement for any other service.  Hence, when the
   actual service or a reliable replacement is not offered, an
   unreliable replacement can always be offered.  For example, best
   effort service on a congested link qualifies as an unreliable
   replacement for any real-time service.  Applications should have no
   expectations about the resulting service when they use an unreliable
   replacement.  Finally, additional real-time services may be defined
   after a particular implementation is deployed.  Hence, a network
   element may not even know about a requested service, so it cannot
   make an informed decision about the suitability of its offered
   services (other than best effort) to act as replacements.  In such
   cases, the router can always use best effort as an unreliable
   replacement.


Characterizing Service Offerings


   Each network element must export characterization parameters
   describing the various services and replacements that it offers.  An
   example format and composition rules for these characterization
   parameters are described in the Appendix to this document.


Service Handling Flags


   When characterization parameters are provided end-to-end by a setup
   protocol, an application will know before issuing a service request
   whether any replacement services will be substituted for its request.



Breslau/Shenker             Expires 10/23/97                    [Page 4]


INTERNET-DRAFT   draft-ietf-rsvp-partial-service-00.txt   April 23, 1997


   Applications that would be dissatisfied with the level of assurance
   provided by the resulting service should refrain from issuing service
   requests when such substitutions would be made.

   The Integrated Services architecture is intended to allow services to
   be invoked by more than one setup protocol or by network management
   functions.  Therefore, we cannot assume that end-to-end
   characterizations of service offerings will always be available to
   the applications.  When they are not, mechanisms are needed so that
   applications can express to the network elements their willingness to
   accept replacement services.

   We propose that application preferences be expressed in a new object
   that we refer to as the Service Handling Flags, which is optionally
   included in service requests.  These flags are associated with
   service requests in general, and not with specific services, so they
   are associated with service_name 0 (just like general
   characterization parameters).  The parameter is a 16-bit value.  The
   most significant bit is set to 1 if service replacements are *not*
   allowed and 0 if replacements are allowed.  The remaining 15 bits are
   currently unused.

   Hence, the default router action is to perform replacements when a
   requested service is not available.  In environments where end-to-end
   characterizations are available (e.g., as with RSVP) the Service
   Handling Flags are not needed.  When end-to-end characterizations are
   not available, an end system must include the Service Handling Flags
   with the most significant bit set in order to prevent the use of
   replacement services.


Security Considerations


   Security considerations are not discussed in this memo.


Appendix -- Service Availability Characterization Parameters


   The following is an example format for characterization parameters
   describing service availability.

   An integrated services aware router exports a general
   characterization parameter for each service that it knows about
   indicating whether it offers the service, a reliable replacement for
   the service, or an unreliable replacement for the service.  These
   parameters, when composed end-to-end, inform the endpoints about the



Breslau/Shenker             Expires 10/23/97                    [Page 5]


INTERNET-DRAFT   draft-ietf-rsvp-partial-service-00.txt   April 23, 1997


   end-to-end availability of services.

   The parameter_name for the local parameter is N.  A single router can
   export multiple characterization parameters with parameter_name N,
   each corresponding to a different service.  The specific service
   referenced by a particular parameter is identified by a field within
   the parameter itself.

   Each local parameter is represented by a sequence of 4 16-bit
   unsigned integers in network byte order.  The first is the
   service_name for the service referenced by the parameter.  The
   service_name is defined within the service specification for each
   service (e.g., see [2,4]).  The second has the value 1 if the router
   offers the indicated service and 0 if the router does not offer the
   service.  The third field has the value 1 if the router offers a
   reliable replacement for the service and 0 if the router does not
   offer a reliable replacement for the service.  The fourth field has
   the value 1 if the router offers an unreliable replacement for the
   service and 0 if the router does not offer an unreliable replacement
   for the service.  A router must assign a value of 1 to exactly one of
   the latter three fields.  Guidelines for offering reliable
   replacements and unreliable replacements are specified earlier in
   this document.

   The parameter_name for the composed end-to-end parameter is N+1.  The
   specific service referenced by a particular parameter is specified by
   a field inside the parameter itself.

   Each composed parameter is represented by a sequence of 4 16-bit
   unsigned integers in network byte order.  The first is the
   service_name for the service characterized by the parameter.  The
   second is the number of routers that offer the service.  The third is
   the number of routers that offer reliable replacements for the
   service.  The fourth is the number of routers that offer unreliable
   replacements for the service.

   The composition rule for composing a local parameter with a composed
   parameter is to add the i_th value of the local parameter to the i_th
   value of the composed parameter, for i = {2,3,4}.  Two parameters can
   be composed only if the first field in each parameter (the
   service_name) is the same.



References


   [1] S. Shenker and J. Wroclawski.  "Specification of General



Breslau/Shenker             Expires 10/23/97                    [Page 6]


INTERNET-DRAFT   draft-ietf-rsvp-partial-service-00.txt   April 23, 1997


   Characterization Parameters", Internet Draft, October 1996, <draft-
   ietf-intserv-charac-02.txt>.

   [2] S. Shenker, C. Partridge and R. Guerin. "Specification of
   Guaranteed Quality of Service", Internet Draft, February 1997,
   <draft-ietf-intserv-guaranteed-svc-07.txt>.

   [3] S. Shenker and J. Wroclawski.  "Network Element Service
   Specification Template", Internet Draft, November 1996, <draft-ietf-
   intserv-svc-template-03.txt>.

   [4] J. Wroclawski.  "Specification of Controlled-Load Network Element
   Service", Internet Draft, November 1996, <draft-ietf-intserv-ctrl-
   load-svc-04.txt>.



Authors' Addresses:


   Lee Breslau
   Xerox PARC
   3333 Coyote Hill Road
   Palo Alto, CA  94304-1314
   breslau@parc.xerox.com
   415-812-4402
   415-812-4471 (FAX)

   Scott Shenker
   Xerox PARC
   3333 Coyote Hill Road
   Palo Alto, CA  94304-1314
   shenker@parc.xerox.com
   415-812-4840
   415-812-4471 (FAX)
















Breslau/Shenker             Expires 10/23/97                    [Page 7]