[Search] [txt|pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11            Standards Track
          rfc7417                                                       
Internet Engineering Task Force                     Georgios Karagiannis
Internet-Draft                                      University of Twente
Intended status: Experimental                         Anurag Bhargava
Expires: April 12, 2013                            Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                       October 12, 2012



        Generic Aggregation of Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)
              for IPv4 And IPv6 Reservations over PCN domains
                     draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-03

Abstract

   This document specifies the extensions to the Generic Aggregated RSVP
   [RFC4860] for support of the PCN Controlled Load (CL) and Single
   Marking (SM) edge behaviors over a Diffserv cloud using Pre-
   Congestion Notification.




Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 12, 2013.


















Karagiannis, et al.   Expires April 12, 2013                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2012

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 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.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.


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].

Table of Contents
1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
2.  Overview of RSVP extensions and Operations . . . . . . . . . . .  10
2.1 Overview of RSVP Aggregation Procedures in PCN domains . . . . .  10
2.1.1   PCN Marking and encoding and transport of pre-congestion
        Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.1.2.  Traffic Classification Within The Aggregation Region . . . .  12
2.1.3.  Deaggregator (PCN-egress-node) Determination . . . . . . . .  12
2.1.4.  Mapping E2E Reservations Onto Aggregate Reservations . . . .  12
2.1.5.  Size of Aggregate Reservations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
2.1.6.  E2E Path ADSPEC update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
2.1.7.  Intra-domain Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.1.8.  Inter-domain Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.1.9.  Reservations for Multicast Sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.1.10.  Multi-level Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
2.1.11.  Reliability Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.1.12.  Message Integrity and Node Authentication . . . . . . . . .  13
3. Elements of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
3.1.  Receipt of E2E Path Message By PCN-ingress-node
     (aggregating router) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2.  Handling Of E2E Path Message By Interior Routers . . . . . . .  14
3.3.  Receipt of E2E Path Message By PCN-egress-node
     (deaggregating router) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.4.  Initiation of new Aggregate Path Message By PCN-ingress-node
      (Aggregating Router) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
3.5.  Handling Of new Aggregate Path Message By Interior Routers . .  15
3.6.  Handling of E2E Resv Message by Deaggregating Router . . . . .  15
3.7.  Handling Of E2E Resv Message By Interior Routers . . . . . . .  15
3.8. Initiation of New Aggregate Resv Message By Deaggregating Router 15


Karagiannis, et al.   Expires April 12, 2013                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2012

3.9.  Handling of Aggregate Resv Message by Interior Routers . . . .  16
3.10.  Handling of E2E Resv Message by Aggregating Router . . . . . . 16
3.11.  Handling of Aggregated Resv Message by Aggregating Router . .  16
3.12.  Removal of E2E Reservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.13.  Removal of Aggregate Reservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17


3.14.  Handling of Data On Reserved E2E Flow by Aggregating Router .  17
3.15.  Procedures for Multicast Sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
4.  Protocol Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.1 PCN object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
7.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
9.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
10.  Authors' Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25





































Karagiannis, et al.   Expires April 12, 2013                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2012

1.  Introduction

   Two main Quality of Service (QoS) architectures have been specified
   by the IETF. These are the Integrated Services (Intserv) [RFC1633]
   architecture and the Differentiated Services (DiffServ) architecture
   ([RFC2475]).

   Intserv provides methods for the delivery of end-to-end Quality of
   Service (QoS) to applications over heterogeneous networks. One of the
   QoS signaling protocols used by the Intserv architecture is the
   Resource reServation Protocol (RSVP) [RFC2205], which can be used by
   applications to request per-flow resources from the network. These
   RSVP requests can be admitted or rejected by the network.
   Applications can express their quantifiable resource requirements
   using Intserv parameters as defined in [RFC2211] and [RFC2212]. The
   Controlled Load (CL) service [RFC2211] is a quality of service (QoS)
   closely approximating the QoS that the same flow would receive from a
   lightly loaded network element. The CL service is useful for
   inelastic flows such as those used for real-time media.

   The DiffServ architecture can support the differentiated treatment of
   packets in very large scale environments. While Intserv and RSVP
   classify packets per-flow, Diffserv networks classify packets into
   one of a small number of aggregated flows or "classes", based on the
   Diffserv codepoint (DSCP) in the packet IP header. At each Diffserv
   router, packets are subjected to a "per-hop behavior" (PHB), which is
   invoked by the DSCP.  The primary benefit of Diffserv is its
   scalability, since the need for per-flow state and per-flow
   processing, is eliminated.

   However, DiffServ does not include any mechanism for communication
   between applications and the network.  Several solutions have been
   specified to solve this issue. One of these solutions is Intserv over
   Diffserv [RFC2998] including resource-based admission control,
   policy-based admission control, assistance in traffic
   identification/classification, and traffic conditioning.
   Intserv over Diffserv can operate over a statically provisioned
   Diffserv region or RSVP aware. When it is RSVP aware, several
   mechanisms may be used to support dynamic provisioning and topology-
   aware admission control, including aggregate RSVP reservations, per-
   flow RSVP, or a bandwidth broker.
   [RFC3175] specifies aggregation of Resource ReSerVation
   Protocol (RSVP) end-to-end reservations over aggregate RSVP
   reservations. In [RFC3175] the RSVP aggregated reservation is
   characterized by a RSVP SESSION object using the 3-tuple <source IP
   address, destination IP address, Diffserv Code Point>.

   Several scenarios require the use of multiple generic aggregate
   reservations that are established for a given PHB from a given source
   IP address to a given destination IP address, see [RFC4860],
   [SIG-NESTED].



Karagiannis, et al.   Expires April 12, 2013                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2012

   For example, multiple generic aggregate reservations
   can be applied in the situation that multiple e2e reservations using
   different preemption priorities need to be aggregated through a PCN-
   domain using the same PHB. By using multiple aggregate reservations
   for the same PHB allows enforcement of the different preemption
   priorities within the aggregation region. This allows more efficient
   management of the Diffserv resources, and in periods of resource
   shortage, this allows sustainment of a larger number of E2E
   reservations with higher preemption priorities. In particular,
   [SIG-NESTED] discusses in detail how end-to-end RSVP reservations can
   be established in a nested VPN environment through RSVP aggregation.

   [RFC4860] provides generic aggregate reservations by extending
   [RFC3175] to support multiple aggregate reservations for the same
   source IP address, destination IP address, and PHB (or set of PHBs).
   In particular, multiple such generic aggregate reservations can be
   established for a given PHB from a given source IP address to a given
   destination IP address. This is achieved by adding the concept of a
   Virtual Destination Port and of an Extended Virtual Destination Port
   in the RSVP SESSION object. In addition to this, the RSVP SESSION
   object for generic aggregate reservations uses the PHB Identification
   Code (PHB-ID) defined in [RFC3140], instead of using the Diffserv
   Code Point (DSCP) used in [RFC3175]. The PHB-ID is used to identify
   the PHB, or set of PHBs, from which the Diffserv resources are to be
   reserved.

   The main objective of Pre-Congestion Notification (PCN) is to support
   the quality of service (QoS) of inelastic flows within a Diffserv
   domain in a simple, scalable, and robust fashion. Two mechanisms are
   used: admission control, to decide whether to admit or block a new
   flow request, and (in abnormal circumstances) flow termination to
   decide whether to terminate some of the existing flows. To achieve
   this, the overall rate of PCN-traffic is metered on every link in the
   PCN-domain, and PCN-packets are appropriately marked when certain
   configured rates are exceeded.  These configured rates are below the
   rate of the link thus providing notification to PCN-boundary-nodes
   about incipient overloads before any congestion occurs (hence the
   "pre" part of "pre-congestion notification"). The level of marking
   allows decisions to be made about whether to admit or terminate PCN-
   flows.

   The PCN-egress-nodes measure the rates of differently marked
   PCN-traffic in periodic intervals and report these rates to the
   decision points for admission control and flow termination, based on
   which they take their decisions. The decision points may be
   collocated with the PCN-ingress-nodes or their function may be
   implemented in a centralized node. For more details see [RFC5559],
   [RFC6661], [RFC6662]. In this document it is considered that the
   decision point is collocated with the PCN-ingress-node.




Karagiannis, et al.   Expires April 12, 2013                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2012

   This document follows the PCN signaling requirements defined in
   [RFC6663] and specifies the
   extensions to the Generic Aggregated RSVP [RFC4860] for the support
   of PCN edge behaviors as specified in [RFC6661] and [RFC6662].
   Moreover, this document specifies how RSVP aggregation can be used to
   setup and maintain: (1) Ingress Egress Aggregate (IEA) states at
   Ingress and Egress nodes and (2) generic aggregation of RSVP end-to-
   end RSVP reservations over PCN (Congestion and Pre-Congestion
   Notification) domains.

   This document, and according to [RFC4860] MAY also be used end-to-end
   directly by end-systems attached to a Diffserv network.
   Furthermore, this document and according to [RFC4860], in absence of
   e2e RSVP flows, a variety of policies (not defined in this document)
   can be used at the Aggregator to set the DSCP of packets passing into
   the aggregation region and how they are mapped onto generic aggregate
   reservations. These policies are not described in this document but
   are a matter of local configuration.

   In this document it is considered that the PCN-nodes MUST be able to
   support the functionality specified in [RFC5670], [RFC5559],
   [RFC6660], [RFC6661], [RFC6662]. Furthermore, the PCN-boundary-nodes
   MUST support the RSVP generic aggregated reservation procedures
   specified in [RFC4860] which are augmented with procedures specified
   in this document.

1.1.  Terminology

   This document uses terms defined in [RFC4860], [RFC3175], [RFC5559],
   [RFC5670], [RFC6661], [RFC6662].

   For readability, a number of definitions from [RFC3175] as well as
   definitions for terms used in [RFC5559], [RFC6661], and [RFC6662] are
   provided here, where some of them are augmented with new meanings:

   Aggregator       This is the process in (or associated with) the
                    router at the ingress edge of the aggregation region
                    (with respect to the end-to-end RSVP reservation)
                    and behaving in accordance with [RFC4860].  In this
                    document, it is also the PCN-ingress-node and the
                    decision point.

   Deaggregator     This is the process in (or associated with) the
                    router at the egress edge of the aggregation region
                    (with respect to the end-to-end RSVP reservation)
                    and behaving in accordance with [RFC4860].  In this
                    document, it is also the PCN-egress-node.

   E2E (or e2e)     end to end

Karagiannis, et al.   Expires April 12, 2013                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2012

   E2E Reservation  This is an RSVP reservation such that:

                    (i)   corresponding RSVP Path messages are initiated
                          upstream of the Aggregator and terminated
                          downstream of the Deaggregator, and

                    (ii)  corresponding RSVP Resv messages are initiated
                          downstream of the Deaggregator and terminated
                          upstream of the Aggregator, and

                    (iii) this RSVP reservation is aggregated over an
                          Ingress Egress Aggregate (IEA) between the
                          Aggregator and Deaggregator.
                    An E2E RSVP reservation may be a per-flow
                    reservation, which in this document is only
                    maintained at the PCN-ingress-node and PCN-egress-
                    node. Alternatively, the E2E reservation may itself
                    be an aggregate reservation of various types (e.g.,
                    Aggregate IP reservation, Aggregate IPsec
                    reservation, see [RFC4860]).  As per regular RSVP
                    operations, E2E RSVP  reservations are
                    unidirectional.

   PHB-ID (Per Hop Behavior Identification Code)
                     A 16-bit field containing the Per Hop Behavior
                     Identification Code of the PHB, or of the set of
                     PHBs, from which Diffserv resources
                     are to be reserved.  This field MUST be encoded as
                     specified in Section 2 of [RFC3140].

   VDstPort (Virtual Destination Port)

                     A 16-bit identifier used in the SESSION that
                     remains constant over the life of the generic
                     aggregate reservation.

   Extended vDstPort (Extended Virtual Destination Port)

                     An identifier used in the SESSION that remains
                     constant over the life of the generic aggregate
                     reservation. The length of this idenitifier is 32-
                     bits when IPv4 addresses are used and 128 bits when
                     IPv6 addresses are used. A sender(or Aggregator)
                     that wishes to narrow the scope of a SESSION to the
                     sender-receiver pair (or Aggregator-Deaggregator
                     pair) SHOULD place its IPv4 or IPv6 address here as
                     a network unique identifier. A sender (or
                     Aggregator) that wishes to use a common session
                     with other senders (or Aggregators) in order to use
                     a shared reservation across senders (or
                     Aggregators) MUST set this field to all zeros. In
                     this document, the Extended vDstPort SHOULD contain
                     the IPv4 or IPv6 address of the Aggregator.


Karagiannis, et al.   Expires April 12, 2013                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2012

   PCN-domain:      a PCN-capable domain; a contiguous set of
                    PCN-enabled nodes that perform Diffserv scheduling
                    [RFC2474]; the complete set of PCN-nodes that in
                    principle can, through PCN-marking packets,
                    influence decisions about flow admission and
                    termination for the PCN-domain; includes
                    the PCN-egress-nodes, which measure these
                    PCN-marks, and the PCN-ingress-nodes.

   PCN-boundary-node: a PCN-node that connects one PCN-domain to a node
                    either in another PCN-domain or in a non-PCN-domain.

   PCN-interior-node: a node in a PCN-domain that is not a PCN-
                    boundary-node.


   PCN-node:        a PCN-boundary-node or a PCN-interior-node.

   PCN-egress-node: a PCN-boundary-node in its role in handling
                    traffic as it leaves a PCN-domain.

   PCN-ingress-node: a PCN-boundary-node in its role in handling
                    traffic as it enters a PCN-domain. In this
                    document the PCN-ingress-node operates also as a
                    Decision Point and aggregator.

   PCN-traffic,
   PCN-packets,
   PCN-BA:          a PCN-domain carries traffic of different Diffserv
                    behavior aggregates (BAs) [RFC2474]. The PCN-BA
                    uses the PCN mechanisms to carry PCN-traffic, and
                    the corresponding packets are PCN-packets.
                    The same network will carry traffic of other
                    Diffserv BAs.  The PCN-BA is
                    distinguished by a combination of the Diffserv
                    codepoint (DSCP) and ECN fields.

   Microflow:       a single instance of an application-to-application
 (from [RFC2474])   flow of packets which is identified by source
                    address, destination address, protocol id, and
                    source port, destination port (where applicable).

  e2e microflow     a microflow where its associated packets are being
                    forwarded on an E2E path.

   PCN-flow:        the unit of PCN-traffic that the PCN-boundary-node
                    admits (or terminates); the unit could be a single
                    e2e microflow (as defined in [RFC2474]) or some
                    identifiable collection of microflows.





Karagiannis, et al.   Expires April 12, 2013                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2012

RSVP generic aggregated reservation: an RSVP reservation that is
                    identified by using the RSVP SESSION object
                    for generic RSVP aggregate reservation. This RSVP
                    SESSION object is based on the RSVP SESSION object
                    specified in [RFC4860] augmented with the following
                    information:

                    o) the IPv4 DestAddress, IPv6 DestAddress SHOULD be
                       set to the IPv4 or IPv6 destination addresses,
                       respectively, of the Deaggregator (PCN-egress-
                       node)

                    o) PHB-ID (Per Hop Behavior Identification Code)
                       SHOULD be set equal to PCN-compatible Diffserv
                       codepoint(s).

                    o) Extended vDstPort SHOULD be set to the IPv4 or
                       IPv6 destination addresses, of the Aggregator
                       (PCN-ingress-node)

  Ingress-egress-aggregate (IEA):
                    The collection of PCN-packets from all PCN-flows
                    that travel in one direction between a specific pair
                    of PCN-boundary-nodes. An ingress-
                    egress-aggregate is identified by the
                    combination of (1) fields), (2) IP addresses of the
                    specific pair of PCN-boundary-nodes used by a
                    ingress-egress-aggregate. In this document one RSVP
                    generic aggregated reservation is mapped to only one
                    ingress-egress-aggregate, while one ingress-egress-
                    aggregate is mapped to either one or to more than
                    one RSVP generic aggregated reservations.

   PCN-admission-state
                    The state ("admit" or "block") derived by the
                    Decision Point for a given ingress-egress-aggregate
                    based on statistics about PCN-packet marking.  The
                    Decision Point decides to admit or block new flows
                    offered to the aggregate based on the current value
                    of the PCN-admission-state.

   Congestion level estimate (CLE)
                    The ratio of PCN-marked to total PCN-traffic
                    (measured in octets) received for a given ingress-
                    egress-aggregate during a given measurement period.
                    The CLE is used to derive the PCN-admission-state
                    and is also used by the report suppression procedure
                    if report suppression is activated.


   t_meas
                   A configurable time interval that defines the
                   measurement period over which the PCN-egress-node
                   collects statistics relating to PCN-traffic marking.

Karagiannis, et al.   Expires April 12, 2013                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2012

  t_maxsuppress
                   A configurable time interval after which the
                   PCN-egress-node MUST send a report to the Decision
                   Point for a given ingress-egress-aggregate regardless
                   of the most recent values of the CLE.  This
                   mechanism provides the Decision Point with a periodic
                   confirmation of liveness when report suppression is
                   activated.

   t_fail
                   An interval after which the Decision Point concludes
                   That communication from a given PCN-egress-node has
                   failed if it has received no reports from the
                   PCN-egress-node during that interval.

   t_crit
                    A configurable interval used in the calculation of
                    T_fail.

   t-recvFail

                    An ingress-egress-aggregate timer that is used at
                    The Decision point (in this document at the PCN-
                    ingress-node) which when expires raises an alarm to
                    management, and activates the PCN-ingress-node to
                    block the admission of new PCN-flows. This timer
                    expires when it value is equal to T-fail and is
                    reset when a report, i.e., RSVP aggregated RESV
                    message, is received for a RSVP generic aggregated
                    reservation (which is matched to one
                    ingress-egress-aggregate).

2.  Overview of RSVP extensions and Operations

2.1 Overview of RSVP Aggregation Procedures in PCN domains

   The PCN-boundary-nodes, see Figure 1, can support RSVP SESSIONS for
   generic aggregated reservations {RFC4860], which are depending on
   ingress-egress-aggregates. In particular, one RSVP generic aggregated
   reservation matches to only one ingress-egress-aggregate.
   However, one ingress-egress-aggregate matches to either
   one or to more than one RSVP generic aggregated reservations.
   In addition, in this document it is considered that the PCN-boundary
   nodes are able to distinguish and process (1) RSVP SESSIONS for
   generic aggregated sessions and their messages according to
   [RFC4860], (2) e2e RSVP sessions and messages according to [RFC2205].
   Furthermore, it is considered that the PCN-interior-nodes are not
   able to distinguish neither RSVP generic aggregated sessions and
   their associated messages [RFC4860], nor e2e RSVP sessions and their
   associated messages [RFC2205].




Karagiannis, et al.   Expires April 12, 2013                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2012

                    --------------------------
                   /       PCN-domain         \
      |----|      |                            |      |----|
   H--| R  |\ |-----|                       |------| /| R  |-->H
   H--|    |\\|     |   |---|     |---|     |      |//|    |-->H
      |----| \|     |   | I |     | I |     |      |/ |----|
              | Agg |======================>| Deag |
             /|     |   |   |     |   |     |      |\
   H--------//|     |   |---|     |---|     |      |\\-------->H
   H--------/ |-----|                       |------| \-------->H
                  |                            |
                   \                          /
                    --------------------------

   H       = Host requesting end-to-end RSVP reservations
   R       = RSVP router
   Agg     = Aggregator (PCN-ingress-node)
   Deag    = Deaggregator (PCN-egress-node)
   I       = Interior Router (PCN-interior-node)

   -->   = E2E RSVP reservation
   ==>   = Aggregate RSVP reservation

           Figure 1 : Aggregation of E2E Reservations
            over Generic Aggregate RSVP Reservations
               in PCN domains, based on [RFC4860]

   Moreover, each Aggregator and Deaggregator (i.e., PCN-boundary-nodes)
   MUST support policies to initiate and maintain for each pair of
   PCN-boundary-nodes of the same PCN-domain (1) one ingress-egress-
   aggregate and (2) either one or more RSVP generic aggregated
   reservations.  Note that one RSVP generic aggregated reservation
   matches to only one ingress-egress-aggregate, while one ingress-
   egress-aggregate matches to either one or to more than one RSVP
   generic aggregated reservations. This can be accomplished by using
   for the different RSVP generic aggregated reservations the same
   combinations of ingress and egress identifiers, but with a different
   PHB-ID value (see [RFC4860]).
   Depending on a policy the Aggregator SHOULD be able to decide whether
   an e2e microflow (i.e., PCN-flow) can be mapped into (1) one RSVP
   generic aggregated reservation and (2) one ingress-egress-aggregate
   maintained by the Aggregator (i.e., PCN-ingress-node). Note that each
   RSVP generic aggregated reservation is identified by using the RSVP
   SESSION object [RFC4860]. The RSVP SESSION object for generic
   aggregate reservations is based on the RSVP SESSION object specified
   in [RFC4860] augmented with the following information:

    o) the IPv4 DestAddress, IPv6 DestAddress SHOULD be set to the IPv4
       or IPv6 destination addresses, respectively, of the Deaggregator
      (PCN-egress-node)

    o) PHB-ID (Per Hop Behavior Identification Code) SHOULD be set equal
       to PCN-compatible Diffserv codepoint(s).

Karagiannis, et al.   Expires April 12, 2013                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2012

    o) Extended vDstPort SHOULD be set to the IPv4 or IPv6 destination
       addresses, of the Aggregator (PCN-ingress-node)

2.1.1   PCN Marking and encoding and transport of pre-congestion
        information

   The method of PCN marking within the PCN domain is based on
   [RFC5670]. In addition, the method of encoding and transport of pre-
   congestion information is based [RFC6660]. The PHB-ID (Per Hop
   Behavior Identification Code) used, SHOULD be set equal
   to PCN-compatible Diffserv codepoint(s).

2.1.2.  Traffic Classification Within The Aggregation Region

   The PCN-traffic is marked using PCN-marking and is classified using
   The PCN-BA (i.e., combination of the DSCP and ECN fields).
   The PCN-traffic (e.g., e2e microflows) belonging to an ingress-
   egress-aggregate can be classified only at the PCN-boundary-nodes
   using the combination of (1) PCN-BA (i.e., combination of the DSCP
   and ECN fields), (2) IP addresses of the specific pair of PCN-
   boundary-nodes used by a ingress-egress-aggregate.
   The method of classification and traffic conditioning of PCN-traffic
   and non-PCN traffic and PHB configuration is described in [RFC6661]
   and [RFC6662]. Moreover, the PCN-traffic (e.g., e2e microflows)
   belonging to a RSVP generic aggregated reservation can be classified
   only at the PCN-boundary-nodes (i.e., Aggregator and Deaggregator) by
   using the RSVP SESSION object for RSVP generic aggregated
   reservations, see [RFC4860].

2.1.3.  Deaggregator (PCN-egress-node) Determination

   In this document it is considered that for the determination of the
   Deaggregator, the same methods can be used as the ones described in
   [RFC4860].

2.1.4.  Mapping E2E Reservations Onto Aggregate Reservations

   In this document it is considered that for the mapping of e2e
   reservations onto aggregate reservations, the same methods can be
   used as the ones described in [RFC4860], augmented by the following
   rules:

   o) PCN-ingress-node MUST use one or more policies to estimate whether
      an e2e RSVP reservation session associated with an e2e Path
      message that arrives at the external interface of the PCN-ingress-
      node can be mapped onto an existing RSVP generic aggregation
      reservation state.

2.1.5.  Size of Aggregate Reservations

   In this document it is considered that for the determination of the
   size of the RSVP generic aggregate reservations, the same methods can
   be used as the ones described in [RFC4860].

Karagiannis, et al.   Expires April 12, 2013                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2012

2.1.6.  E2E Path ADSPEC update

   In this document it is considered that for the update of the e2e Path
   ADSPEC, the same methods can be used as the ones described in
   [RFC4860].

2.1.7.  Intra-domain Routes

   The PCN-interior-nodes are neither maintaining e2e RSVP nor RSVP
   generic aggregation states and reservations. Therefore, intra-domain
   route changes will not affect intra-domain reservations since such
   reservations are not maintained by the PCN-interior-nodes.

2.1.8.  Inter-domain Routes

   In this document it is considered that for the solving the issues
   caused by the inter-domain route changes, the same methods can be
   used as the ones described in [RFC4860].


2.1.9.  Reservations for Multicast Sessions

   PCN does not consider reservations for multicast sessions.

2.1.10.  Multi-level Aggregation

   PCN does not consider multi-level aggregations within the PCN domain.

2.1.11.  Reliability Issues

   In this document it is considered that for solving possible
   reliability issues, the same methods can be used as the ones
   described in [RFC4860].

2.1.12.  Message Integrity and Node Authentication

   In this document it is considered that for message integrity and node
   authentication, the same methods can be used as the ones described in
   [RFC4860] and [RFC5559].

3. Elements of Procedure

   This section describes the procedures used to implement the
   aggregated RSVP procedure over PCN.

3.1.  Receipt of E2E Path Message By PCN-ingress-node (aggregating
      router)

   When the e2e RSVP message arrives at the exterior interface of the
   Aggregator, i.e., PCN-ingress-node, then standard RSVP generic
   aggregation [RFC4860] procedures are used, augmented with the
   following rules:


Karagiannis, et al.   Expires April 12, 2013                 [Page 13]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2012

     o) The e2e RSVP reservation session associated with an e2e Path
        message that arrives at the external interface of the PCN-
        ingress-node is mapped/matched onto an existing RSVP generic
        aggregation reservation state.

     o) If the timer t-recvFail expires for a given PCN-egress-node, the
        Decision Point (i.e., PCN-ingress-node) SHOULD NOT
        allow the e2e microflow (i.e., PCN-flow) to be admitted to that
        RSVP generic aggregated reservation (which is matched to one
        ingress-egress-aggregate). The admission or rejection procedure
        of a PCN-flow into the PCN-domain is defined in detail in:
        [RFC6661] and [RFC6662].
        If the Aggregator is not able to admit the e2e microflow it
        SHOULD then generate an e2e PathErr message using standard e2e
        RSVP procedures [RFC4495]. This e2e PathErr message is sent to
        the originating sender of the e2e Path message. A new error code
        "PCN-domain rejects e2e reservation" MUST be augmented to the
        RSVP error codes to inform the sender that a PCN domains rejects
        the e2e reservation request.

     o) If the timer t-recvFail does NOT expire for a given PCN-egress-
        node, then:

         o) If (1) the PCN-admission state for the ingress-egress-
            aggregate associated with the received e2e Path and (2) the
            state for the selected RSVP generic aggregated reservation,
            see [RFC4860], are "admit", the Decision Point (i.e., PCN-
            ingress-node) SHOULD allow the new flow to be admitted to
            that RSVP generic aggregated reservation. The e2e Path
            message is then forwarded towards destination.

         o) If for the same ingress-egress-aggregated and the same RSVP
            generic aggregated reservation then (1) the PCN-admission-
            state and/or (2) the state for the RSVP generic aggregated
            reservation are/is "block", the flow SHOULD NOT be
            admitted by the Aggregator and an e2e PathErr message SHOULD
            be generated, using standard e2e RSVP procedures
            [RFC4495]. This e2e PathErr message is sent to the
            originating sender of the e2e Path message, using standard
            e2e RSVP procedures [RFC2205], [RFC4495]. A new error code
            "PCN-domain rejects e2e reservation" MUST be augmented to
            the RSVP error codes to inform the sender that a PCN domains
            rejects the e2e reservation request.

   The way of how the PCN-admission-state is maintained is specified in
   [RFC6661] and [RFC6662]. The way of how the RSVP generic aggregated
   reservation state is maintained is specified in [RFC4860].

3.2.  Handling Of E2E Path Message By Interior Routers

   The e2e Path messages traverse zero or more PCN-interior-nodes.


Karagiannis, et al.   Expires April 12, 2013                 [Page 14]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2012

   The PCN-interior-nodes receive the e2e Path message on an interior
   interface and forward it on another interior interface. The e2e Path
   messages are simply forwarded as normal IP datagrams.

3.3.  Receipt of E2E Path Message By PCN-egress-node (deaggregating
      router)

   When receiving the e2e Path message the PCN-egress-node
   (Deaggregator) performs main regular [RFC4860] procedures, augmented
   with the following rules, see also [draft-lefaucheur-rsvp-ecn-01]:

      o) The PCN-egress-node MUST NOT perform the RSVP-TTL vs IP TTL-
         check and MUST NOT update the ADspec Break bit. This is because
         the whole PCN-domain is effectively handled by e2e RSVP as a
         virtual link on which integrated service is indeed supported
         (and admission control performed) so that the Break bit MUST
         NOT be set.

    The PCN-egress-nodes forwards the e2e Path message towards the
    receiver.

3.4.  Initiation of new Aggregate Path Message By PCN-ingress-node
      (Aggregating Router)

   In this document it is considered that for the initiation of the new
   RSVP aggregated Path message by the PCN-ingress-node (Aggregator),
   the same methods can be used as the ones described in [RFC4860].

3.5.  Handling Of new Aggregate Path Message By Interior Routers

   The Aggregate Path messages traverse zero or more PCN-interior-nodes.
   The PCN-interior-nodes receive the e2e Path message on an interior
   interface and forward it on another interior interface. The
   Aggregated Path messages are simply forwarded as normal IP datagrams.

3.6.  Handling of E2E Resv Message by Deaggregating Router

   When the e2e Resv message arrives at the exterior interface of the
   Deaggregator, i.e., PCN-egress-node, then standard RSVP
   aggregation [RFC4860] procedures are used.

3.7.  Handling Of E2E Resv Message By Interior Routers

   The e2e Resv messages traverse zero or more PCN-interior-nodes. The
   PCN-interior-nodes receive the e2e Resv message on an interior
   interface and forward it on another interior interface. The e2e Resv
   messages are simply forwarded as normal IP datagrams.

3.8.  Initiation of New Aggregate Resv Message By Deaggregating Router

   In this document it is considered that for the initiation of the new
   RSVP aggregated Resv message by the PCN-ingress-node (Aggregator),
   the same methods can be used as the ones described in [RFC4860]
   augmented with the following rules:

Karagiannis, et al.   Expires April 12, 2013                 [Page 15]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2012

     o) At the end of each t-meas measurement interval, or less
        frequently if "optional report suppression" is activated, see
        [RFC6661], and [RFC6662], the PCN-egress-node MUST include the
        new PCN object that will be sent to the associated Decision
        Point (i.e., PCN-ingress-node). The PCN object is specified in
        this document and is used for the report of the data measured by
        the PCN-egress-node, for a particular ingress-egress-aggregate,
        see [RFC6661], and [RFC6662]. The address of the PCN-ingress-
        node is the one specified in the same ingress-egress-aggregate.

3.9.  Handling of Aggregate Resv Message by Interior Routers

   The Aggregated Resv messages traverse zero or more PCN-interior-
   nodes. The PCN-interior-nodes receive the Aggregated Resv message on
   an interior interface and forward it on another interior interface.
   The Aggregated Resv messages are simply forwarded as normal IP
   datagrams.

3.10.  Handling of E2E Resv Message by Aggregating Router

   When the e2e Resv message arrives at the interior interface of the
   Aggregating router, i.e., PCN-ingress-node, then standard RSVP
   aggregation [RFC4860] procedures are used.

3.11.  Handling of Aggregated Resv Message by Aggregating Router

   When the Aggregated Resv message arrives at the interior interface of
   the Aggregating router, i.e., PCN-ingress-node, then standard RSVP
   aggregation [RFC4860] procedures are used, augmented with the
   following rules:

     o) the Decision Point (i.e., the PCN-ingress-node) SHOULD use the
        information carried by the PCN objects as specified in
        [RFC6661], [RFC6662]. When the Aggregator (i.e.,
        PCN-ingress-node) needs to terminate an amount of traffic
        associated to one ingress-egress-aggregate (see bullet 2 in
        Section 3.3.2 of [RFC6661] and [RFC6662]), then several
        procedures of terminating e2e microflows can be deployed. The
        default procedure of terminating e2e microflows (i.e.,
        PCN-flows) is as follows, see e.g., [RFC6661]. For the same
        ingress-egress-aggregate, select a number of e2e microflows
        to be terminated in order to decrease the total incoming amount
        of bandwidth associated with one ingress-egress-aggregate by the
        amount of traffic to be terminated, see above.
        In this situation the same mechanisms for terminating an e2e
        microflow can be followed as specified in [RFC2205].
        However, based on a local policy, the Aggregator could use
        other procedures of terminating microflows.





Karagiannis, et al.   Expires April 12, 2013                 [Page 16]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2012

        For example, for the same ingress-egress-aggregate, select a
        number of e2e microflows to be terminated or to reduce their
        reserved bandwidth in order to decrease the total incoming
        amount of bandwidth associated with one ingress-egress-aggregate
        by the amount of traffic to be terminated. In this
        situation the same mechanisms for terminating an e2e microflow
        or reducing bandwidth associated with an e2e microflow can be
        followed as specified in [RFC4495].

3.12.  Removal of E2E Reservation

   In this document it is considered that for the removal of e2e
   reservations, the same methods can be used as the ones described in
   [RFC4860] and [RFC4495].

3.13.  Removal of Aggregate Reservation

   In this document it is considered that for the removal of RSVP
   generic aggregated reservations, the same methods can be used as the
   ones described in [RFC4860].

3.14.  Handling of Data On Reserved E2E Flow by Aggregating Router

   The handling of data on the reserved e2e Flow by Aggregating Router
   is using the procedures described in [RFC4860] augmented with:

   o)  Regarding, PCN marking and traffic classification the procedures
       defined in Section 2.1.1 and 2.1.3 of this document are used.

3.15.  Procedures for Multicast Sessions

   In this document no multicast sessions are considered.

4.  Protocol Elements

   The protocol elements in this document are using the protocol
   Elements defined in [RFC4860], augmented with the following rules:

   o) A PCN-egress-node (i.e., Deaggregator) SHOULD send periodically
      and at the end of each t-meas measurement interval, or less
      frequently if "optional report suppression" is activated, an
      (refresh) aggregated RSVP message to the PCN-ingress-node (i.e.
      aggregator).

   o) the DSCP value included in the SESSION object, SHOULD be set equal
      to a PCN-compatible Diffserv codepoint.

   o) An aggregated Resv message MUST carry one or more C-type PCN
      objects, see Section 4.1, to report the data measured by an
      PCN-egress-node (i.e., Deaggregator).




Karagiannis, et al.   Expires April 12, 2013                 [Page 17]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2012

   o) As described in [RFC6661], [RFC6663], PCN reports
      from the PCN-egress-node (Deaggregator) to the decision point may
      contain flow identifiers for individual flows within an
      ingress-egress-aggregate that have recently experienced
      excess-marking. Hence, the PCN report messages used by the PCN CL
      edge behavior MUST be capable of carrying sequences of octet
      strings constituting such identifiers. When the PCN CL edge
      behavior is used, the individual flow identifiers need to be
      included in specific PCN objects, see Section 4.1
      (C-Type = RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-CL-FLIDs,
              = RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-CL-FLIDs)

4.1 PCN object

   The PCN object reports data measured by an PCN-egress-node. PCN
   objects are defined for different PCN edge behavior drafts. This
   document defines several types of PCN objects.

   o) Single Marking (SM) PCN object, when IPv4 addresses are used:
      Class = PCN
      C-Type = RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-SM


        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
        |     IPv4 PCN-ingress-node Address (4 bytes)           |
        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
        |     IPv4 PCN-egress-node Address (4 bytes)            |
        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
        |       rate of not marked PCN-traffic (NM-rate)        |
        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
        |       rate of PCN-marked PCN-traffic (PM-rate)        |
        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+




















Karagiannis, et al.   Expires April 12, 2013                 [Page 18]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2012

   o) Single Marking (SM) PCN object, when IPv6 addresses are used:
      Class = PCN
      C-Type = RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-SM

        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
        |                                                       |
        +                                                       +
        |                                                       |
        +     IPv6 PCN-ingress-node Address (16 bytes)          +
        |                                                       |
        +                                                       +
        |                                                       |
        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
        |                                                       |
        +                                                       +
        |                                                       |
        +     IPv6 PCN-egress-node Address (16 bytes)           +
        |                                                       |
        +                                                       +
        |                                                       |
        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
        |       rate of not marked PCN-traffic (NM-rate)        |
        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
        |       rate of PCN-marked PCN-traffic (PM-rate)        |
        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+


   o) Controlled (CL) PCN object, IPv4 addresses are used:
      Class = PCN
      C-Type = RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-CL


        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
        |     IPv4 PCN-ingress-node Address (4 bytes)           |
        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
        |     IPv4 PCN-egress-node Address (4 bytes)            |
        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
        |       rate of not marked PCN-traffic (NM-rate)        |
        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
        |  rate of threshold-marked PCN-traffic (ThM-rate)      |
        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
        |  rate of excess-traffic-marked PCN-traffic (ETM-rate) |
        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+











Karagiannis, et al.   Expires April 12, 2013                 [Page 19]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2012

   o) Controlled (CL) PCN object, IPv6 addresses are used:
      Class = PCN
      C-Type = RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-CL

        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
        |                                                       |
        +                                                       +
        |                                                       |
        +     IPv6 PCN-ingress-node Address (16 bytes)          +
        |                                                       |
        +                                                       +
        |                                                       |
        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
        |                                                       |
        +                                                       +
        |                                                       |
        +     IPv6 PCN-egress-node Address (16 bytes)           +
        |                                                       |
        +                                                       +
        |                                                       |
        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
        |       rate of not marked PCN-traffic (NM-rate)        |
        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
        |  rate of threshold-marked PCN-traffic (ThM-rate)      |
        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
        |  rate of excess-traffic-marked PCN-traffic (ETM-rate) |
        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

   The fields carried by the PCN object are specified in
   [RFC6663], [RFC6661] and [RFC6662]:

     o the IPv4 or IPv6 address of the PCN-ingress-node and the IPv4
       or IPv6 address of the PCN-egress-node; together they specify the
       ingress-egress-aggregate to which the report refers;

     o rate of not-marked PCN-traffic (NM-rate) in octets/second; its
       format is a 32-bit IEEE floating point number;

     o rate of PCN-marked traffic (PM-rate) in octets/second; its format
       is a 32-bit IEEE floating point number;

     o rate of threshold-marked PCN traffic (ThM-rate) in
       octets/second; its format is a 32-bit IEEE floating point number;

     o rate of excess-traffic-marked traffic (ETM-rate) in
       octets/second; its format is a 32-bit IEEE floating point number;







Karagiannis, et al.   Expires April 12, 2013                 [Page 20]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2012


   o) Controlled (CL) PCN CL Flow IDs object, IPv4 addresses are used:
      Class = PCN
      C-Type = RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-CL-FLIDs


    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
                                                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                                   | Length        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Source Address                          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Destination Address                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |          Source Port          |       Destination Port        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Protocol    |      Reserved                                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   //                                                             //
   +                                                               +
   |                       Source Address                          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Destination Address                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |          Source Port          |       Destination Port        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Protocol    |      Reserved                                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      o)  Length (1 byte): the length of the
          RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-CL-FLIDs object in units of 16 bytes.
          This field is used to specify the number of IPv4 flow IDs
          carried by this object. Each flow ID is represented by the
          combination of each subsequent 5 tuple:
          Source address, Destination address, Source Port,
          Destination Port and Protocol number.
          If Length is 0 then the RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-CL-FLIDs is
          empty.

      o) Source address (4 bytes):  The IPv4 source address.

      o) Destination address (4 bytes): The IPv4 destination address.

      o) Protocol (1 byte):  The IP protocol number. It refers to the
         true upper layer protocol carried by the packets.

      o) Source Port (2 bytes): contains the source port number.

      o) Destination Port (2 bytes): contains the destination port
         number.



Karagiannis, et al.   Expires April 12, 2013                 [Page 21]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2012

   o) Controlled (CL) PCN CL Flow IDs object, IPv6 addresses are used:
      Class = PCN
      C-Type = RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-CL-FLIDs

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
                                                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                                   | Length        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                       Source Address                          |
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                      Destination Address                      |
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |          Source Port          |       Destination Port        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Protocol    |      Reserved                                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   //                                                             //
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   |                       Source Address                          |
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                       Destination Address                     |
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |          Source Port          |       Destination Port        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Protocol    |      Reserved                                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      o) Length (1 byte): the length of the
         RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-CL-FLIDs object in units of 40 bytes.
         This field is used to specify the number of flow IDs carried by
         this object. Each flow ID is represented by the combination of
         each subsequent 5 tuple fields:
         Source address, Destination address, Source Port,
         Destination Port and Protocol number.
         If Length is 0 then the RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-CL-FLIDs object
         is empty.

      o) Source address (16 bytes):  The IPv6 source address.

      o) Destination address (16 bytes): The IPv6 destination address.


Karagiannis, et al.   Expires April 12, 2013                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2012

      o) Protocol (1 byte):  The IP protocol number. It refers to the
          true upper layer protocol carried by the packets.

      o) Source Port (2 bytes): contains the source port number.

      o) Destination Port (2 bytes): contains the destination port
         number.

5.  Security Considerations

   The same security considerations specified in [RFC4860] and [RFC5559]
   apply also to this document.


6.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes the following requests to the IANA:
      o allocate a new Object Class (PCN Object), see Section 4.1.

      o allocate a "PCN-domain rejects e2e reservation" Error Code that
        may appear only in e2e PathErr messages, see Section 3.1.

7.  Acknowledgments

   We would like to thank the authors of [draft-lefaucheur-rsvp-ecn-
   01.txt], since some ideas used in this document are based on the work
   initiated in [draft-lefaucheur-rsvp-ecn-01.txt]. Moreover, we would
   like to thank Tom Taylor, Philip Eardley, Michael Menth,
   Toby Moncaster, Francois Le Faucheur and James Polk for the provided
   comments.

8.  Normative References

   [RFC6661] T. Taylor, A, Charny, F. Huang,
   G. Karagiannis, M. Menth, "PCN Boundary Node Behaviour for the
   Controlled Load (CL) Mode of Operation", July
   2012.

   [RFC6662] A. Charny, J. Zhang,
   G.  Karagiannis, M. Menth, T. Taylor, "PCN Boundary Node Behaviour
   for the Single Marking (SM) Mode of Operation",
   July 2012.

   [RFC6663] G. Karagiannis, T. Taylor,
   K. Chan, M. Menth, P. Eardley, " Requirements for Signaling of (Pre-)
   Congestion Information in a DiffServ Domain",
   July 2012.

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

   [RFC2205] Braden, R., ed., et al., "Resource ReSerVation Protocol
   (RSVP)- Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.

Karagiannis, et al.   Expires April 12, 2013                 [Page 23]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2012

   [RFC3140] Black, D., Brim, S., Carpenter, B., and F. Le
   Faucheur, "Per Hop Behavior Identification Codes",
   RFC 3140, June 2001.

   [RFC3175] Baker, F., Iturralde, C., Le Faucheur, F., and B. Davie,
   "Aggregation of RSVP for IPv4 and IPv6 Reservations", RFC 3175,
   September 2001.

   [RFC4495] Polk, J. and S. Dhesikan, "A Resource Reservation
   Protocol (RSVP) Extension for the Reduction of
   Bandwidth of a Reservation Flow", RFC 4495, May 2006.

   [RFC4860] F. Le Faucheur, B. Davie, P. Bose, C. Christou, M.
   Davenport, "Generic Aggregate Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)
   Reservations", RFC4860, May 2007.

   [RFC5670] Eardley, P., "Metering and Marking Behaviour of PCN-Nodes",
    RFC 5670, November 2009.

   [RFC6660]  Moncaster, T., Briscoe, B., and M. Menth, "Baseline
    Encoding and Transport of Pre-Congestion Information", RFC 6660,
    July 2012.

9.  Informative References

   [draft-lefaucheur-rsvp-ecn-01.txt] Le Faucheur, F., Charny, A.,
   Briscoe, B., Eardley, P., Chan, K., and J. Babiarz, "RSVP Extensions
   for Admission Control over Diffserv using Pre-congestion
   Notification (PCN) (Work in progress)", June 2006.

   [RFC1633]  Braden, R., Clark, D., and S. Shenker, "Integrated
   Services in the Internet Architecture: an Overview", RFC 1633, June
   1994.

   [RFC2211] J. Wroclawski, Specification of the Controlled-Load Network
   Element Service, September 1997

   [RFC2212] S. Shenker et al., Specification of Guaranteed Quality of
   Service, September 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, "A framework for Differentiated Services", RFC 2475,
   December 1998.

   [RFC2998] Bernet, Y., Yavatkar, R., Ford, P., Baker, F., Zhang, L.,
   Speer, M., Braden, R., Davie, B., Wroclawski, J. and E. Felstaine, "A
   Framework for Integrated Services Operation Over DiffServ Networks",
   RFC 2998, November 2000.


Karagiannis, et al.   Expires April 12, 2013                 [Page 24]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2012


   [RFC5559]  Eardley, P., "Pre-Congestion Notification (PCN)
   Architecture", RFC 5559, June 2009.

   [SIG-NESTED] Baker, F. and P. Bose, "QoS Signaling in a Nested
   Virtual Private Network", Work in Progress, February 2007.

10.  Authors' Address

   Georgios Karagiannis
   University of Twente
   P.O. Box 217
   7500 AE Enschede,
   The Netherlands
   EMail: g.karagiannis@utwente.nl

   Anurag Bhargava
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   7100-9 Kit Creek Road
   PO Box 14987
   RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27709-4987
   USA
   Email: anuragb@cisco.com






























Karagiannis, et al.   Expires April 12, 2013                 [Page 25]