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

Versions: 00                                                            
Network WG                                                   James Polk
Internet-Draft                                                    Cisco
Intended status: Informational                             July 9, 2012
Expires: January 9, 2012

                 The Problem Statement for the Standard
                Configuration of DiffServ Service Classes


   This document describes the problem statement on two recently
   proposed expansions to DiffServ. The first of these expansions
   proposes updating the informational RFC 4594 document to standards
   track status, while making the necessary changes to make it current;
   for example, creating more granular traffic treatments, some with
   new Per Hop Behaviors (PHB). The second proposal defines 6 new
   DiffServ Codepoints necessary from these new PHBs in the proposal
   within the first draft.

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 January 9, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 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.

Polk                    Expires January 9, 2012                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft    Problem Statement for DiffServ Stds         July 2012

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
   2.  Brief Overview of RFC 4594 and RFC 5127 . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.1 Brief Overview of RFC 4594  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.2 Brief Overview of RFC 5127  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3. Brief Discussion of the RFC 4594 Update Draft  . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Conclusion and What's Next  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     8.1   Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     8.2   Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9

1.  Introduction

   Differentiated Services (DiffServ) [RFC2474] creates an IP header
   marking or indicator with which intermediate nodes (i.e., routers
   and switches) can make policy decisions. These 6-bit values are
   called Differentiated Services Codepoint Point (DSCP) values. DSCP
   values are used to differentiate packet treatment within an
   intermediate node, not across a network, as the conditions affecting
   that marking are different within each node. This is called Per Hop
   Behavior (PHB). In other words, even though a packet has the same
   DSCP from source to destination, it can and often does experience
   different treatment depending on the conditions of the nodes it
   traverses on its journey.

   The DiffServ architecture allows for DSCP values within a packet to
   be changed, or remarked, any number of times. In other words, a
   packet can have its DSCP remarked at every layer-3 hop throughout
   the life of that packet. This practice actually occurs infrequently,
   but it is allowed.

   At issue is a combination of the number of networks or endpoints
   that are choosing to use DiffServ markings, and the number of
   administrative domains (called "networks" in this document) a packet
   traverses with different policies for how packet flows of a similar
   type (e.g., a voice flow, or an email flow, etc.) are to be marked.

   The community presently has RFC 4594 [RFC4594], which is an
   informational guideline on how networks can or should mark certain
   packet flows with differing traffic characteristics using DiffServ.
   There are several reasons why this informational RFC lacks the
   necessary clarity and strength to reach widespread adoption:

   o  confusion between RFC 4594 and RFC 5127 [RFC5127], the latter of
      which is for aggregating many 6-bit DSCP values into a 3-bit (8

Polk                   Expires January 9, 2012                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft    Problem Statement for DiffServ Stds         July 2012

      value) field used specifically by service provider (SP) networks.

   o  some believe both RFCs are for SPs, while others ignore RFC 5127
      and use RFC 4594 as if it were standards track or BCP.

   o  some believe RFC 5127 is for SPs only, and want RFC 4594 to
      reduce the number of DSCPs within its guidelines to recommend
      using only 3 or 4 DSCPs. This seems to stem from a manageability
      and operational perspective.

   o  some know RFC 4594 is informational and do not follow its
      guidelines specifically because it is informational.

   o  some use DSCP values that are not defined within RFC 4594, making
      mapping between different networks using similar or identical
      application flows difficult.

   o  some believe enterprise networks should not use either RFC except
      at the edge of their networks, where they directly connect to SP

   o  some argue that the services classes guidance per class is too
      broad and are therefore not sure in which service class a
      particular application is to reside.

   This document is not intended to reach RFC status. Rather, it is to
   stimulate discussion on both RFC 4594 and 5127 to lessen existing
   confusion within the community. It should be noted that RFC 4594 has
   an offered update within TSVWG [ID-4594-UPDATE]. This draft has
   created some heated discussions within that WG before and during the
   Paris IETF meeting.

   First, we'll discuss briefly RFCs 4594 and 5127 in Section 2. Then
   we will discussion what the update to RFC 4594 proposes differently
   and what we expect to happen to RFC 5127 in Section 3.

2.  Brief Overview of RFC 4594 and RFC 5127

2.1 Brief Overview of RFC 4594

   Essentially, RFC 4594 is a guideline for how to choose which DSCP to
   use based on the traffic characteristics an application flow needs
   to experience within a network for optimal performance. RFC 4594
   specifically points to several existing standards-track DiffServ
   RFCs to augment the text in each of those RFCs, without violating
   any of the rules within each of those documents. RFC 4594:

   o painstakingly lays out definitions and guidelines for each service

   o clearly indicates each service class's tolerance to delay, jitter

Polk                   Expires January 9, 2012                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft    Problem Statement for DiffServ Stds         July 2012

     and packet loss.

   o details the conditioning treatments at the Differentiated Services
     (DS) edge.

   o categorizes traffic characteristics into 12 service classes
     utilizing one or more DSCPs:

     Network Control            Broadcast Video
     Telephony                  Low-Latency Data
     Signaling                  OAM
     Multimedia Conferencing    High-throughput Data
     Realtime Interactive       Standard
     Multimedia Streaming       Low-priority Data

2.2 Brief Overview of RFC 5127

   At its barest, RFC 5127 recommends that, of the many service classes
   described within RFC 4594, each having different traffic
   characteristics, similar service classes be grouped or aggregated
   into 3, 4, or 5 markings for SP traversal. This limitation of the
   number of individual service classes is partly to reduce the number
   of separate distinctions traversing over their network because SPs
   have difficulty managing what is deemed 'too many' different
   classes. Another part for this reduction is customer expectations of
   meeting contractual Service Level Agreements (SLAs).

   To this end, and perhaps because of it, MPLS was designed with only
   8 values of priority differentiation, i.e., the 3 EXP bits.  To be
   fair, LAN based IEEE has only a 3-bit priority field as well within
   its specifications, known as the Priority Code Point (PCP), as part
   of the 802.1Q header spec. IEEE 802.1e, which defines QoS over
   Wi-Fi, also only defines 8 levels (called User Priority or UP

   The result is to have the IETF within RFC 5127 recommend the
   following (which is Figure 2 within that RFC):

Polk                   Expires January 9, 2012                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft    Problem Statement for DiffServ Stds         July 2012

   |Treatment |Treatment || DSCP                                |
   |Aggregate |Aggregate ||                                     |
   |          |Behavior  ||                                     |
   | Network  | CS       || CS6                                 |
   | Control  |(RFC 2474)||                                     |
   | Real-    | EF       || EF, CS5, AF41, AF42, AF43, CS4, CS3 |
   | Time     |(RFC 3246)||                                     |
   | Assured  | AF       || CS2, AF31, AF21, AF11               |
   | Elastic  |(RFC 2597)||-------------------------------------|
   |          |          || AF32, AF22, AF12                    |
   |          |          ||-------------------------------------|
   |          |          || AF33, AF23, AF13                    |
   | Elastic  | Default  || Default, (CS0)                      |
   |          |(RFC 2474)||-------------------------------------|
   |          |          || CS1                                 |

                  Figure 1: Treatment Aggregate Behavior

   RFC 5127 goes on to recommend the marking and treatments on either
   side of the provider edge remain the same. In other words, the DSCP
   values remain the same and are used to determine which queue to
   place the packets into within the aggregates, where the packets are
   treated the same within that tunnel until the egress provider edge.

   Many within enterprise networks do not pay attention to what RFC
   5127 says because they are sufficiently removed from dealing with
   the constraints of very few DSCP values or the need to aggregate
   DSCP values into groups.

3.  Brief Discussion of the RFC 4594 Update Draft

   The RFC 4594 update draft [ID-4594-UPDATE] proposes to update what
   has occurred since RFC 4594 was written (i.e., 2006), in which more
   granular service classes can be differentiated by application
   requirements. For example, Figure 2 within RFC 4594 identifies
   "Telephony" as having 'Fixed-size small packets'. That is not true
   for today's video flow, therefore it needs to be modified. The
   update draft currently breaks out audio and video separately to
   reflect this different, as well as the ability to treat each traffic
   type differently within a network. Another example is gaming and
   TCP. The two were believed by most, and it is still believed by many
   that gaming requires a UDP delivery due to the requirements for
   timely delivery of packets and that retransmissions would cause
   delays and bad things to happen to gaming applications. This was
   proved false within [ID-TCMTF], in which the author of that document

Polk                   Expires January 9, 2012                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft    Problem Statement for DiffServ Stds         July 2012

   had a presentation showing TCP was used and viable.

   [RFC5865] created a new Expedited Forwarding (EF) DSCP value called
   VOICE-ADMIT, the second time an application is identified within the
   DiffServ realm. The first was the service class Broadcast Video,
   which is poorly used within RFC 4594 because other types of flows
   can be 'broadcast' other than video, such as audio. From this,
   [ID-4594-UPDATE] moved in two directions:

   o it called out two service classes (audio and video), even though
     audio and video packets are not the only types of packets within
     each traffic characteristic.

   o it removed "Video" from the Broadcast service class name.

   From the resistance to this proposal within [ID-4594-UPDATE],
   perhaps other service class label names should be used.

   The draft also recognizes the differences in video traffic, even
   though it is always carried over RTP [RFC3550]. Aside from silence
   suppression, video traffic varies far more than audio traffic. For
   example, video is

   o far more variable in bandwidth utilization within the same flow.

   o far more variable in packet size.

   o at different business priorities in some networks based on a
     configuration. For example, desktop video often is of less
     important than Telepresence video on the same network. Lacking
     congestion, the two are treated the same. When congestion exists,
     one is given priority over the other.

   Consequently any service class that contains video needs to account
   for larger packet size variation than audio, which was equally true
   in 2006, but not contained in RFC 4594.

   Further, with the publication of RFC 5865, the concept of 'capacity
   admitted' traffic flows have been defined within DiffServ, and are
   being expanded with the proposal within this new draft
   [ID-NEW-DSCPS]. There are differing opinions as to whether the
   realtime Treatment Aggregate in Figure 1 above should also contain
   these capacity admitted flows, or if 'capacity admitted' traffic
   flows should have their own Treatment Aggregate containing all
   realtime capacity admitted traffic. Mixing capacity admitted traffic
   with unbounded realtime traffic seems to be trouble from a
   predictability point of view within routers believing they
   individually understand exactly how much traffic will be traversing
   each interface and at what rate.

   All this said, there is a valid argument to constrain or prevent any
   DSCP value from being assigned to a single application, mostly due

Polk                   Expires January 9, 2012                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft    Problem Statement for DiffServ Stds         July 2012

   to the limitation of the overall number of DSCP values available for
   use. [ID-4594-UPDATE] provides at least several applications per
   service class (or DSCP); a fact many have overlooked to date.

   [ID-4594-UPDATE] is not only about or because of realtime traffic.
   It is also an overall update to the ideas and guidelines within RFC
   4594, with the intent to make that document a standards track
   document for interoperability purposes.

4.  Conclusion and What's Next

   Without attempting to fundamentally change the guidelines within RFC
   5127, this effort should not be as controversial as it has been, if
   we understand that those networks that need more granular traffic
   treatments can be configured with more granularity while not
   violating the needs of other networks that do not wish to be made
   aware of the increased treatment differences.

   Everyone involved in this discussion needs to have a clear
   understanding of the difference points of view within the RFC 4594
   effort (i.e., the RFC and the update draft) as well as within RFC
   5127. One focuses on defining each service class and the other
   focuses on determining which of the existing service classes go into
   which aggregate, if present.

   We hope to form a BoF on this subject that will explicitly *not*
   form a working group or produce any documents, or even drafts, but
   will gather the community from several (if not all) areas, and not
   just within the transport area. That is the purpose of this draft:
   to stimulate discussion towards the goal of discussion within the
   community on DiffServ. If the community does not believe a BoF is
   necessary, the work will proceed, or not, in TSVWG. Knowing how many
   within the community have attended TSVWG in each meeting for the
   last 9 or so years, it is felt that a much wider audience is
   necessary, given how much impact [ID-4594-UPDATE] can potentially

5.  Acknowledgements

   The author would like to thank Gorry Fairhurst and David Black for
   their positive discussions towards the formation of a BoF in
   Vancouver IETF. The author would also like to thank Paul Jones for
   doing a valuable proof read to catch points I didn't make clear, as
   well as identify simple nits I should have caught the nth time I
   reread this.

6.  IANA Considerations

   There are no IANA considerations as a result of this document.

Polk                   Expires January 9, 2012                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft    Problem Statement for DiffServ Stds         July 2012

7.  Security Considerations

   There are no security considerations within this document because it
   will not be progressed beyond this individual contributor stage, and
   all the specifying will be done in other drafts that will wholly
   contain all the security considerations for this goal/idea.

8.  References

8.1   Normative References

   There are no normative references within this document.

8.2.  Informative References

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

 [RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
           Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
           Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.

 [RFC4594] J. Babiarz, K. Chan, F Baker, "Configuration Guidelines for
           Diffserv Service Classes", RFC 4594, August 2006

 [RFC5127] Chan, K., Babiarz, J., and F. Baker, "Aggregation of
           DiffServ Service Classes", RFC 5127, February 2008.

 [RFC5865] F. Baker, J. Polk, M. Dolly, "A Differentiated Services Code
           Point (DSCP) for Capacity-Admitted Traffic", RFC 5865,
           May 2010

 [ID-4594-UPDATE] J. Polk, "Standard Configuration of DiffServ Service
           Classes", "work in progress", March 2012

 [ID-NEW-DSCPS] J. Polk, "New Differentiated Services Code Point
           Assignments for Rich Media Traffic", "work in progress",
           March 2012

 [ID-TCMTF] J. Saldana, D. Wing, J. Fernandez Navajas, Muthu A M.
           Perumal, J. Ruiz Mas, "Tunneling Compressed Multiplexed
           Traffic Flows (TCMTF)", "work in progress", March 2012

Polk                   Expires January 9, 2012                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft    Problem Statement for DiffServ Stds         July 2012

Authors' Address

James Polk
3913 Treemont Circle
Colleyville, Texas  76034

Phone: +1.817.271.3552
Email: jmpolk@cisco.com

Polk                   Expires January 9, 2012                 [Page 9]