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

Versions: 00                                                            
Internet-Draft                                               P. Vaananen
Expiration Date: September, 1998                Nokia Telecommunications

                                                            R. Ravikanth
                                                   Nokia Research Center

                                                             March, 1998


          Framework for Traffic Management in MPLS Networks

              <draft-vaananen-mpls-tm-framework-00.txt>



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
"lid-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

It has been recognised that the success of the MPLS depends on the
ability to better support the multiservice traffic integration with
some levels of service guarantees, which are not feasible to implement
with the current destination prefix only based packet forwarding
paradigms.

The efficient support for these services throughout the network is
expected to be possible using label based forwarding paradigm in the
network.

However, the service categories and the enabling mechanisms to support
those service categories are not well addressed in the current
proposals for the MPLS working group; the effort has mostly
concentrated on the handling of the best effort traffic and associated
scalability and routing related issues.

The goal of this document is to define a framework for traffic
management in MPLS networks. We discuss the set of mechanisms that have
been proposed for enabling the implementation of the more advanced



P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                        [Page 1]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


services than pure best-effort packet forwarding, and the impact of
those mechanisms with respect to MPLS network environments and MPLS
protocol implementation.

The document describes the mechanisms and their application with the
intent to approach the level of the traffic management capabilities
that are currently available in hybrid router/ATM or frame relay
networks using the MPLS. The approach taken is that no modifications
are required in the end station protocol or application software in the
first phase of deployment, while this might be allowed later, if deemed
necessary.

This document concentrates on the issues from the public network
operators point of view, although most of the discussion applies as
well in the local network environments.

Concepts and mechanisms described in this document are based on the
previous work done in the subject on various working groups of IETF and
other standardisation bodies. It has been attempted to use applicable
concepts and terminology from previous work as much as possible.

This document concentrates on the MPLS specific issues, number of
related mechanisms and concepts are only briefly presented for sake of
completeness, and the other related work is referred, where applicable.
Reader is suggested to consult the referred material, in case he / she
wants to have more information on these areas.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The ideas presented in this in document have been based on the
information collected from a number of sources.
--- Individuals to be added ---


1. TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATUS OF THIS MEMO
ABSTRACT...............................................................1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................................2
1.      TABLE OF CONTENTS..............................................2
2.      INTRODUCTION...................................................5
3.      SERVICE CATEGORIES.............................................5
3.1     BEST EFFORT SERVICES..........................................,6
3.1.1   Enhanced best effort service...................................6
3.1.2   Enhanced best effort service with bandwidth allocation.........6
3.1.3   Enhanced best effort services in MPLS environments.............6
3.2     DIFFERENTIATED SERVICES........................................7
3.2.1   Differentiated service.........................................7
3.2.2   Differentiated services with bandwidth allocations.............8
3.2.3   Differentiated services in MPLS environments...................8
3.3     GUARANTEED SERVICES............................................8



P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                        [Page 2]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


3.3.1   Services.......................................................9
3.3.2   Guaranteed services in MPLS environments.......................9
4.      TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS...............................10
4.1     SERVICE CATEGORY SUPPORT......................................10
4.2     ADMISSION CONTROL, MONITORING AND SECURITY....................11
4.3     CONGESTION MANAGEMENT.........................................11
4.4     SCALABILITY REQUIREMENTS......................................11
4.5     ROBUSTNESS AND RELIABILITY....................................12
4.6     TOPOLOGY SUPPORT..............................................13
4.7     TOPOLOGICAL SCOPE.............................................13
4.8     COMPATIBILITY.................................................14
4.9     EXTENSIBILITY.................................................14
5.      CONTROL PLANE MECHANISMS FOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS.....15
5.1     TRIGGERS......................................................15
5.1.1   Configuration events..........................................16
5.1.2   Signaling events..............................................16
5.1.3   Topology changes..............................................16
5.1.4   Traffic pattern changes.......................................16
5.2     POLICY AND ADMISSION CONTROL..................................17
5.2.1   Routing policy................................................17
5.2.2   Classification policy.........................................17
5.2.3   Admission policy..............................................18
5.2.4   Admission control.............................................18
5.3     PATH SELECTION................................................19
5.4     ACCOUNTING....................................................19
5.5     USER AUTHENTICATION...........................................19
6.      DATA PLANE MECHANISMS FOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS........20
6.1     LABEL FORWARDING PARADIGM.....................................20
6.2     CLASSIFICATION................................................20
6.2.1   What is classification and where it should be done............20
6.2.2   Flow Classification...........................................21
6.2.3   Packet Classification.........................................22
6.2.4   Classification results for differentiated services............23
6.2.5   Classification results for guaranteed services................23
6.2.6   Problems with non end-system classifications..................23
6.2.6.1 Classification in presence of IPSEC...........................23
6.2.6.2 Classification in presence of dynamic address assignment......24
6.2.6.3 Classification in presence of dynamic port numbers............24
6.2.7   Classification state maintenance..............................24
6.3     POLICING......................................................25
6.4     MAPPING.......................................................25
6.4.1   Direct mapping................................................26
6.4.2   Indirect mapping..............................................26
6.5     AGGREGATION, MERGING AND DEAGGREGATION........................26
6.5.1   Aggregation...................................................26
6.5.2   Merging.......................................................27
6.5.3   Aggregation and merging of  traffic with service guarantees...27
6.5.4   Deaggregation.................................................28
6.6     QUEUING AND CONGESTION MANAGEMENT.............................28
6.6.1   Queue management..............................................28



P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                        [Page 3]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


6.6.2   Queuing principles............................................29
6.6.3   Congestion control............................................29
6.6.3.1 Passive congestion control schemes............................29
6.6.3.2 Active congestion control schemes.............................30
6.6.4   Packet scheduling.............................................31
6.7     TRAFFIC SHAPING...............................................31
6.8     LOAD SHARING..................................................32
7.      LABEL SWITCHED PATH GRANULARITIES AND AGGREGATION.............32
8.      LABEL SWITCHED PATH TOPOLOGIES AND ASSOCIATED TM PROCEDURES...33
8.1     POINT-TO-POINT................................................34
8.2     POINT-TO-MULTIPOINT...........................................34
8.3     MULTIPOINT-TO-POINT...........................................34
8.4     MULTIPOINT-TO-MULTIPOINT......................................35
8.5     MULTILEVEL PATHS..............................................35
9.      NETWORK FUNCTIONAL PARTITIONING...............................37
9.1     NETWORK MODELS................................................37
9.2     NETWORK ELEMENT CATEGORIES....................................38
9.2.1   Hosts.........................................................38
9.2.1.1 Enhanced best effort services.................................38
9.2.1.2 Differentiated services.......................................38
9.2.1.3 Guaranteed services...........................................39
9.2.1.4 Participation in MPLS.........................................39
9.2.2   MPLS edge nodes...............................................40
9.2.2.1 Best effort services to customer..............................42
9.2.2.2 Differentiated services to customer...........................42
9.2.2.3 Guaranteed services to customer...............................43
9.2.2.4 MPLS to customer..............................................43
9.2.3   MPLS core node................................................44
9.3     INTERFACE CATEGORIES..........................................45
9.3.1   Interface to non-MPLS networks................................45
9.3.2   Interface inside MPLS network domains.........................45
9.3.3   Interface between MPLS network domains........................45
10.     LSP MAPPINGS TO EXISTING LINK LAYER TECHNOLOGIES..............46
11.     GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LABEL ENCAPSULATIONS.................46
11.1    DIFFERENTIATED SERVICES SUPPORT...............................46
11.2    CONGESTION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT.................................47
11.2.1  Congestion indicator bit......................................47
11.2.2  Examine me bit................................................48
11.3    SUPPORT FOR MULTILEVEL LABEL SWITCHED PATHS...................48
12.     GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR DISTRIBUTION OF LABELS AND TM ATTRs..48
12.1    SETUP REQUEST.................................................49
12.2    SETUP MODIFICATION............................................49
12.3    SETUP ACKNOWLEDGE.............................................49
12.4    SETUP REJECT..................................................49
12.5    DISCUSSION OF SIGNALING PROTOCOLS.............................50
12.5.1  General.......................................................50
12.5.2  LDP...........................................................50
12.5.3  RSVP..........................................................51
13.     REFERENCES....................................................51
14.     SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS.......................................54



P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                        [Page 4]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


15.     AUTHOR'S ADDRESSES............................................58

2. INTRODUCTION

The ability of the network to support service level guarantees and
traffic engineering is becoming very important. This area has been, and
will remain as subject area addressed in various working groups of IETF
(e.g. INTSERV, RSVP, ISSLL, RAP, DIFFSERV, IPPM, QOSR), IRTF (E2E), ATM
Forum (TM), Frame Relay Forum, ITU-T, and various other organisations
and user consortiums.

We build on the ideas and previous work done in  these working groups,
and try to build a coherent set of capabilities around the label based
packet forwarding technology discussed in MPLS working group of IETF,
as described in MPLS framework document [Callon97] and MPLS
architecture document [Rosen97a].

The approach taken in this document is to look at the available pieces,
and try to fit them on to the MPLS framework in a scaleable
fashion.This document presents a requirements and implementation
framework in the context of MPLS for the services and capabilities that
needs to be built. Possible mechanisms and deployment scenarios to
actually achieve these advanced services are also described.

The document tries to take evolutionary rather than revolutionary
approach, we don't propose to change everything at once (and do not
believe it's possible), as previous attempts have quite consistently
failed to do it.

Focus is to try to answer two questions: what should be done that the
quality of the network service perceived by the end user improves, and
how to maximise the usage of the network resources, and at the same
time do it in scaleable and controlled manner.

We feel especially important that the deployment of the technologies
presented can be started on the small scale, and without changes to the
host communication and application protocols, while this framework
attempts to be flexible enough to be able to accommodate such changes
when the technology matures and the incremental deployment is
determined to be feasible and necessary.

We hope to evolve the technologies and protocols of the MPLS towards
supporting the capabilities outlined in this document, but do realise
that much more detailed discussion, research and specification work
needs to be done before the complete set of  "wishes" can be
accomplished.

3. SERVICE CATEGORIES

The advanced services requiring the use of the traffic management



P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                        [Page 5]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


mechanisms can be broadly divided into three categories on a basis of
(i) the level of assurance on service guarantees that can be achieved
and (ii) the granularity of guarantees (simple to complex) that is
provided. This division is made here to support the discussion of the
related traffic management issues.

The characteristics of the different service categories are briefly
described in the chapters 3.1. to 3.3.

3.1 Best effort services
3.1.1 Enhanced best effort service

The service remains similar to the current best effort service, but
with the higher service quality perceived by the end-user, regardless
of the applications used. Enhanced best effort service can be realised
without specific signalling protocols inside the network. This service
differs from "plain old best effort" because of the use of the
advanced congestion control mechanisms. The purpose is to provide a
more controlled and more fair behaviour during congestion period.

Passive congestion control mechanisms based on packet drop policies,
such as random early detection [Floyd93], [Braden97] can be used. In
addition to passive congestion control mechanisms, active congestion
control mechanisms based on congestion feedback and transport protocol
interactions have also been suggested [Ramakr97], [Packeteer97],
[Jagan97].

This service can be implemented in any router with the support of
appropriate traffic management mechanisms. The use of label based
forwarding paradigm does add capabilities for the network operator
traffic engineering, such as better ways to control the path selection
for the traffic.

3.1.2 Enhanced best effort service with bandwidth allocation

The enhanced best effort service augmented with bandwidth allocation
capability allows an operator to optimise network capacity usage, and
manage bandwidth usage by allocating it to individual users, networks,
or any aggregated community as desired.

These services generally require a specific signalling protocol for
communication of the related traffic management attributes through the
network.

3.1.3 Enhanced best effort services in MPLS environments

Basic enhanced best effort service does not generally require per-flow
state to be maintained in the network elements, the goal is to support
fair usage of resources inside network.




P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                        [Page 6]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


MPLS enables the carrying of congestion indication over the LSP to
allow the LSP endpoints to react to congestion. In addition, the
congestion indication can be monitored in the LSP endpoints, and
information of congestion exceeding some predetermined threshold can be
used e.g. to initiate the re-evaluation LSP path selection.

In environments where bandwidth allocations are used, any required
traffic management related attributes that are used are generally
applied on aggregated streams. The use of label based forwarding
paradigm adds easy to implement capabilities to allocate bandwidth to
aggregated best effort traffic streams and provides ways to communicate
these allocations through the network.

Generally enhanced best effort approaches rely on the interactions of
the network with end-to-end protocols (e.g. intelligent drop policies)
to reduce the load at times of congestion. Common practise at a moment
is to use FIFO type queuing.

Together with the bandwidth allocation capabilities, the path selection
mechanisms, such as explicit label switched paths provide efficient
capabilities to network traffic engineering.
3.2 Differentiated services
3.2.1 Differentiated service

Differentiated services are currently being specified in the IETF
DIFFSERV working group. Work is in an early phase, and there are
several different proposed approaches.

Differentiated services, as proposed, allow the traffic to be
classified into finite number of priority and/or delay classes. Traffic
classified as having the higher priority and/or delay class receives
some form of preferential treatment over the traffic that is classified
onto lower class. Differentiated service does not attempt to give
explicit end-to-end guarantees over the network, instead, in congested
network elements, the traffic with higher priority class has a higher
probability to get through, or in case of delay priority, scheduled for
transmission before the traffic that is not delay sensitive.

Differentiated service packet classification can be performed either in
the hosts, CPE routers or in the operator network border routers.

The information required to perform actual differentiation in the
network elements will be carried in the TOS field of the IPv4 packets,
referred as DS-byte in differentiated service operational model
document [Nichols98]. Thus, as the information required by the buffer
management and scheduling algorithms is carried inside the packet,
differentiated services do not necessarily require signalling protocols
to control the mechanisms that are used to select different treatment
for the individual packets.




P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                        [Page 7]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


Differentiated services can be implemented in any router that supports
the appropriate traffic management mechanisms.

3.2.2 Differentiated services with bandwidth allocations

In addition to the basic functionality provided by the differentiated
services, the addition of the bandwidth allocation capability allows
the network operator to allocate the desired bandwidth to the switched
paths carrying the differentiated services over the network domain.
Depending on how the differentiated service allocations are
implemented, the operator can either control the bandwidth share given
to each priority class separately, or allocate bandwidth to
differentiate service class paths as a whole, and implement
differentiation on the basis of capability of the resulting virtual
path.

3.2.3 Differentiated services in MPLS environments

Generally no per-flow state is maintained in the network elements, goal
is to support a small, fixed number of service categories.

Per stream attributes distributed using the label distribution
mechanisms can include the differentiated service category associated
with the LSP.

One or more queues with simple service policy are used. In case that
multiple queues are used to support delay prioritisation, scheduling
mechanism ensures that the low delay classes are served first. Weighted
scheduling mechanisms may be used instead of strict priority scheduling
to ensure that the lower classes cannot suffer of starvation.

The support of differentiated services in MPLS environments requires
signalling support for the association of the desired category with the
label, or alternatively each packet needs to carry the information of
the desired service category.

MPLS allows the allocation of  bandwidth for the differential services
in conjunction of the another services in controlled manner. This
allows the operator to allocate the available bandwidth between
differentiated service category and other categories, on LSP basis
depending on implementation.

3.3 Guaranteed services

These services provide hard guarantees that are explicitly specified
for different granularities, and topological scopes from network
boundary to network boundary to end-to-end. Guarantees can be given for
different kinds of the parameters, such as bandwidth and/or delay,
depending on the service class and capabilities of the network elements
on the path. Guaranteed services may be based on the contractual



P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                        [Page 8]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


guarantees or user-network signalling, such as RSVP. Signalling
protocol to communicate the service parameter information is required
inside network.

In the IETF, guaranteed services have been specified by INTSERV working
group. Integrated service framework is described in [RFC1633]. There
are currently two services that have been defined by INTSERV;
controlled load [RFC2211] and guaranteed service [RFC2212]. These
services should be supported in MPLS environments. Service parameter
mappings to different link layers specified in the ISSLL working groups
should be applicable to MPLS, augmented with the label encapsulation
procedures specified in the MPLS WG.

3.3.1 Services

Two different guaranteed services have been specified in INTSERV effort
of the IETF so far:

- Controlled load service [RFC2211]
- Guaranteed Quality of Service [RFC2212]

Other guaranteed service categories that may be applicable to certain
MPLS environments have been specified by other standardisation bodies,
such as in Frame Relay Forum and ATM Forum [ATMF96].

The service categories specified in other bodies than IETF are not
presently discussed in this document, as we attempt to build onto
present state of the work of the IETF. The service categories from the
other standardisation bodies may become important in the future, and
their use in the MPLS context and mappings between IETF services and
external categories may be specified as part of MPLS effort or other
IETF efforts, such as ISSLL.


3.3.2 Guaranteed services in MPLS environments

Per-LSP or per-flow state needs to be maintained in the edge MPLS
nodes, depending on the topological scope of the guarantees, for end-
to-end, flow state is required, and internally, per-LSP state for
aggregated guarantees needs to be maintained. Aggregated state
information is needed in the core network elements.

The implementation of guaranteed services requires the use of the
advanced queuing mechanisms in the network elements. Signalling support
for communication of changes of the individual or aggregated state
information associated with the LSP will be required.

For scalability, the aggregation of the guarantees to form guaranteed
aggregated label switched paths is desirable. For the implementation of
the end-to-end reservations, the information of the parameters of the



P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                        [Page 9]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


aggregated entities are required in the de-aggregation points of the
network. This can be realised in MPLS by using the multilevel LSPs.
This requires signalling of the individual constituents of aggregated
flows from the aggregation to de-aggregation point.

The current methods for QoS on IP seem to have scalability issues, when
the number of connections requesting such services grows. Thus, an
issue that is not MPLS specific, is that of making it scalable through
a combination of aggregation and provisioning. Such aggregation
techniques may place some requirements on MPLS, to the extent that the
labels may have to be associated specific kinds of parameters, which
pertain to the aggregation. Thus the label assignment and distribution
mechanisms should provide ways for distributing such attributes.

MPLS benefits the implementation of the guaranteed services, as the
association can be made in the border nodes of the network onto LSPs,
and the intermediate nodes need only use the label information to
retrieve the attributes them require to provide the desired guarantee
for the associated LSP. The use of labels to retrieve the state
information provides great benefit compared to the model where each
node in the path would require to keep state of each guaranteed flow,
and find the flow by matching a filter to each packet to retrieve the
traffic parameters of the flow.

4. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS

Requirements presented in this chapter are a superset of requirements
of those expressed in numerous sources. Some of the requirement sources
these requirements are based on are [Smith97], [Bradner97], and
[RFC1633].

4.1 Service category support

- Support for services described in the previous chapter

MPLS shall support the implementation of the services described in
previous chapter, in such way that the desired set of services can be
implemented in same node and same link. The implementation of all
services should not be mandatory, but considered as a differentiator
between the products. However, the MPLS standardisation effort should
describe the set of mechanisms to support all of the above services to
ensure the interoperable implementation of these services.

- Support for controlled link sharing

Network operators shall be able to allocate maximum shares of link
bandwidth to different service categories, in a such way that the
minimum amount of bandwidth is guaranteed for each service class. This
allows the operator to guarantee that the lower priority services
cannot suffer from the starvation because of the higher priority



P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 10]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


services use all available bandwidth. These setting shall be enforced
by the policy and admission control together with the policing, queue
management and scheduling mechanisms. In the absence of the traffic in
higher priority service classes, the bandwidth should be available for
use by the lower priority traffic.

4.2 Admission control, monitoring and security

- Support for authentication

Authentication of the users and/or equipment needs to be performed at
domain borders to determine that the service user is who he claims to
be. Authentication is required to support admission and accounting.

- Support for admission policies and control

Operator shall be able to apply admission policies in the operational
network boundary, to enforce the service agreements between the users
and/or other operator network domains.

- Support for accounting

When the enhanced service levels are used, the incentive for the
network operator to provide such services is to get more revenue of the
consumers of such services. Accounting is required to keep track of the
services used, and to be able to provide usage sensitive pricing
policies for enhanced level services.

- Service management

When the enhanced services are provided for the end-user, inside the
operator's network, or between the domains, it is important for both
the operator and end-user to be able to monitor that the performance of
the provided services fulfil their specifications. The required
measurement and management features shall be implemented on network
elements and management systems to support these requirements.


4.3 Congestion management

- Congestion control

Congestion control is important even for the best effort services, but
becomes more complicated when the different levels of services are
supported over same interfaces. Characteristics of mechanisms and
guidelines for use of these congestion control mechanisms in multi-
service environments shall be specified.

4.4 Scalability requirements




P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 11]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


- Minimisation of the label space requirements

The label space may become a limitation of the applicability of the
label switching scheme, unless the attention for the constraining the
label space in architecture design phase is given. Increased label
space makes the management of the label space more difficult, it
involves more state keeping in network elements, and implies higher
dynamics of change in the label assignments or attributes. Adding
advanced services to pure best-effort delivery will inevitably increase
the label space requirements, and an attempt should be made in the
specification phase to minimise the overhead. Aggregation and merging
are examples of the mechanisms to help in the label space containment.

- Minimisation of the state in the network elements

Flow specific state shall be maintained only on the network elements
that are required to handle the individual flows, such as edge network
elements. The design goal is that the core network elements do not
require to maintain flow specific state information. This enhances the
applicability of the MPLS in large networks and high-speed backbone
links.

- Support of the different granularities of control, single flow to
highly aggregated streams

It is important that the multiple control levels are supported,
depending on the level in the network where the services are provided.
General guideline is that the amount of the state information that is
required to be maintained decreases from network edge towards the core
of the network.

- Minimisation of the signalling requirements

The state maintenance associated with the control of the path traffic
management attributes implies the use of the signalling mechanism to
convey this information. It is important that the signalling traffic
required by the traffic management support be minimised.

4.5 Robustness and reliability

- Soft state protocol

The protocol(s) resulting from the MPLS work should use soft state
approach as much as possible, i.e. to have the state associated with
the LSPs required to "expire", if not periodically refreshed. Hard
state should only be associated with the administratively configured
LSPs (explicit routes, policies, etc.). Care should be taken that the
overhead of the state refreshments required to maintain the soft state
components does not grow excessive, e.g. due to requirement to refresh
the state of associated with each LSP individually.



P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 12]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998



- Security considerations

The basic idea of supporting the any kind of service level
differentiation opens up the possibilities for the user's to try to
gain access to more valuable services without paying the appropriate
compensation. In addition, the new kinds of denial of service attacks
may become possible. Security considerations have to be taken in
account when designing the architecture and protocols for the traffic
management aspects.

- Reliability

The service level agreed upon with the customer have to be monitored,
and the means for alerting the network operator of failures, and
mechanisms (to possibly automatic) reconfiguring of the switched path
arrangement inside the network to quickly remedy the failure have to be
considered.

4.6 Topology support

- Support for point-to-point topology

Point-to-point topology is conceivably the simplest of the topologies
that needs to be supported. The basic topology, between the network
elements is point-to-point path, which can have it's associated
parameters. More complex topologies can be supported by merging the
ingress paths to single egress paths with different characteristics
(aggregation). It shall be possible to support point-to-point LSP's
with the associated resource allocations and priorities.

- Support for point-to-multipoint topology (multicast)

Point to multipoint topology is useful for the support of the multicast
data delivery. Point to multipoint topology support shall include means
for managing the joins and withdrawals of leafs, affecting only the
associated part of the multicast distribution tree. Also, it shall be
possible to support heterogeneous receivers in the multicast groups.

- Support for multipoint-to-point topology

Multipoint-to-point topologies are attractive for scalability reasons.
Single destination based tree can be constructed for traffic that can
be treated similarly. It shall be possible to support different traffic
reservations in different parts of the tree, with higher resource
allocations towards the egress points of the multipoint-to-point
delivery tree (each merge point adds it's traffic volume to the tree).

4.7 Topological scope
- Support for different topological scopes (inside domain, between



P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 13]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


domains, end-to-end)

MPLS shall consider the different requirements and scalability aspects
imposed by the different topological scope, and the functional
partitioning inside MPLS domain and between the MPLS domain and other
MPLS or non-MPLS domain.

4.8 Compatibility

- Support of current applications without modifications

There have been numerous proposals in the past to provide the enhanced
services, that involve the modification of the end-user application
software. Examples of such proposals are end-to-end ATM deployment, use
of RSVP by the end-user applications to request service guarantees, and
use of the applications to classify their traffic onto differentiated
service categories. While such end-to-end guarantees may become
important later, it shall be possible to initially implement service
contracts without modifications to applications and end-to-end
protocols. This can be accomplished by classifying the traffic on the
network edge's instead of the end-to-end basis, and providing required
transmission capacity (e.g. dedicated switched Ethernet port) to end-
user's computer system. Additional advantage is the centralised nature
of the management of these services.

- Interoperability

MPLS should consider the interworking and interoperability of the MPLS
based network with the currently available networking technologies, and
also describe the advanced service mappings between the other
networking technologies and MPLS where applicable.

- Support for different link layer technologies

Mapping of the label switching paths to different link layer
technologies shall be specified taking into account the traffic
management capabilities provided by the underlying link layer
technology, and the desired properties of the supported service set.
Candidates for the link layers suitable for carrying labelled traffic
in public network environments include ATM, Frame Relay and MPLS over
SONET.

4.9 Extensibility

- Extensibility

Traffic management framework and associated architecture and protocols
shall be extensible to support new attributes for supporting new
services without the changes to initial concepts and mechanisms.




P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 14]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


- Mechanism independence

The traffic management mechanisms shall be loosely specified, rather in
the way of specifying the characteristics of the mechanisms required to
support different parts of traffic management functionality. Mechanisms
like queue management and scheduling are local in the  network element,
and thus do not need to be strictly standardised. Suggestions of the
applicable mechanism should be given, but vendors should have the
freedom to implement whatever mechanisms they feel appropriate to
achieving the desired functionality. Additionally, this allows for
improvements in the individual mechanisms via active research in the
area. Thus it is important to standardise on the semantics of
information carried in the signalling protocol (LDP) or that associated
with individual packets, as applicable.


5. CONTROL PLANE MECHANISMS FOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS

This chapter describes the mechanisms required in the various parts of
the network to control the data plane traffic management functions
described in the next chapter. These mechanisms include policy and
signalling aspects required to set up, and to maintain the LSPs.

Note that the location of these mechanisms in the networks is not
discussed in this chapter, a discussion of the location of mechanisms
in different network environments is given in chapter 9.

5.1 Triggers

Triggers are events that cause the changes in the LSP configuration.
These changes may be LSP establishment, reconfiguration, deletion or
attribute modification. The triggers either require going through full
or partial LSP establishment process depending on the type of the
trigger.

Triggers typically result from events  related to changes of some
information relevant to LSP set-up, such as:

- configuration event
- signalling event
- topology change
- traffic pattern change

The scope of the change initiated by trigger can be either local (i.e.
inside of the network element), regional (i.e. affects the
configuration of the peer MPLS nodes) or global (i.e. affects all
network elements that compose the LSP).

The frequency of the regional and global changes should be minimised.
As the finer granularity of control of the LSP attributes is required



P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 15]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


(e.g. explicit reservations), this becomes increasingly hard to
achieve.

Properties associated with different kinds of triggers are discussed in
sections 5.1.1 to 5.1.3.

5.1.1 Configuration events


A configuration event can affect either policy or LSP configuration
parameters. Policy changes affect the admission or classification
policy being used in the node. LSP parameter change affects the
attributes associated with the statically configured label switched
path.

The policy related changes can either force the re-evaluation of the
current classifications or be taken into use gradually, as new paths
are used. Although the immediate re-evaluation would be desirable, it
may have negative effects on the performance and the handling of the
current traffic.

Parameter changes may require the communication of the change to peer
LSRs that compose the LSP (signalling initiated by the 'root' node of
the LSP), or be configured onto each LSR along the path individually
(management initiated change). In either case, these changes should be
taken into effect immediately.

5.1.2 Signaling events

Signalling event is an externally received trigger that explicitly
affects the way LSPs are set, and depending on the signalling event
type, may results either in setting-up, tearing down or modifying
attributes of the LSPs.

It can be foreseen that different kinds of signalling protocols will
need to be supported, depending on the interface the event is received
from. There will likely be different signalling mechanisms used for
users, inside a network domain and between domains (e.g. RSVP and LDP).

5.1.3 Topology changes

Topology changes are events that are associated with the changes in
network topology, and may potentially result in the requirement for
large number of reconfiguration of a large number of LSPs. Topology
changes are brought to the attention of the label distribution
subsystem by the routing protocols and the monitoring of the status of
the established LSPs.

5.1.4 Traffic pattern changes

Traffic pattern change is an event triggered by the user activity that


P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 16]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


is observed by the network element resulting in the change of the
traffic characteristics received over interface. Examples include the
appearance of the new traffic flow, or timeout of the existing flow.
These changes may affect how the LSPs are set up or attributes of the
LSPs. Traffic pattern related changes should be attempted to be kept as
local.

5.2 Policy and admission control

Policies and admission control form a set of processes that directly or
indirectly control the set-up of the label switched paths through the
network element.

5.2.1 Routing policy

For the new LDP requests, routing policies applied on the Internetwork
are the first controlling policy that controls the potential routes the
LDP paths can take through the network.

Routing policies are thus not directly involved in  the topological
control of the LDP establishments, but them control the establishment
basis of the information (routing information base) that the LDP uses
to determine available routes.

It shall be noted that the current routing protocols use the topology
and metric information to select the "best" route to use of the
multiple options, and do not generally know anything about the path
characteristics or services supported on the path available in the
routing database.

5.2.2 Classification policy

Classification is based on two categories of information, specifically
information in the headers of the received packets and the control and
policy information provided by the configuration (management plane),
routing and signalling protocols.

IPv4 Header information useable in the classification process:
- Destination address
- Source address
- IP protocol field
- TOS

TCP/UDP header information useable in the classification process:
- Source port number
- Destination port number

Additional header fields may be parts of the classification, if
desired.




P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 17]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


The classifier makes a decision on the basis of the preconfigured
classification policy information, which specifies the kind of
treatment the packets belonging to flow would like to receive. Note
that the classification policy alone does not guarantee that the
desired behaviour will be achieved, this is further refined by the
admission policy, admission control and policing functions.

For IP packets, the classification process can be generally
accomplished by applying the filter template of the form {DA prefix, SA
prefix, PRO, TOS, SPN, DPN} to each individual packet. Any of the
fields can be a wildcard, so for example all traffic destined to web
server would be specified using filter {*,*,6,*,*,80}. In some cases,
there may be several different filters that may match the same packet,
and the results of the match for the most specific filter should be
used in such cases.

In addition to packet header information, local information may be
added to the classification process. One example of such local
information type is the interface the packet was received from.

The classification policy determines how the individual flow should be
treated, including attributes such as the reservation type and
granularity, differentiated service class, etc. On the basis of the
filtering result, the packet may be associated with the LSP, or flow
identifier.

5.2.3 Admission policy

Admission policy is the process to determine if the new request for the
LDP set-up or attribute modification with some set of reservations is
administratively acceptable. This is administratively configured, and
is associated with the given granularity entity, such as individual
user, user community, or peer AS.

The type and the granularity of the information that will be taken into
account by the admission policy depends on the interface type, local
policy and trigger type (e.g. signalling versus configuration event).

When reservation requests of coarse granularity are considered (e.g.
individual LDP set-up on public network interface supporting a large
corporation), the admission policies are typically applied against the
parameters associated with the aggregate set of all reservations
currently associated with the community, reservation parameters and the
administratively configured maximum resources allocated to that
community.

5.2.4 Admission control

Admission control is the process that is used to determine the resource
availability to support a new request or the modification of attributes



P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 18]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


associated with existing label switched paths. Admission control is
invoked as a final step, after it has been determined that the route to
the destination is available, and the permission to process the request
is granted by admission policy.

Admission control gets more complex when the granularity of the
reservations increases, being not invoked at all for best-effort
traffic, and being most complex for the guaranteed traffic.

5.3 Path selection

The primary mechanism to control path establishments and deletions in
MPLS networks is the routing protocol. In addition, paths through the
network can be established using the explicit routing. Static LSPs can
be configured through management interface.

For the MPLS network elements to be able to automatically locate
alternate paths with the sufficient resources available, routing
protocols that are able to take in the account additional path
attributes instead of just topological connectivity and preconfigured
metrics of the available paths is needed.

The draft framework for QoS routing work effort have been developed in
QOSR working group of the IETF [Crawley98]. However, the routing
protocols with suitable metrics to be used in the environments with
fine-granularity service guarantees inside or between the domains need
to be developed.

5.4 Accounting

Accounting mechanism is required by the service operators to be able to
bill users in accordance with the services used. If the accounting
mechanisms are not in place, there is no incentive for the users to use
anything but best offered service classes.

MPLS accounting mechanisms shall be able to collect usage data with
desired granularity (single user to peer operator), together with
traffic management attributes associated with the LSP, and transfer
this data to operator's billing system. Protocols used for transferring
accounting data to billing systems and billing procedures are outside
of the scope of the MPLS work. Suitable protocols may include e.g.
RADIUS and TACACS+.

5.5 User authentication

At the moment, these services need to be implemented on the basis of
the interface, protocol and network address information, but as the
users are mobile (even within a corporate network), and also because of
the increasing use of the dynamic address allocation mechanisms, such
as DHCP and NAT's the ultimate goal should be to base the service



P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 19]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


policies on the user information.

One possible implementation may be based on the use of directory
services, such as LDAP to store the user profile information, but the
approach needs to be standardised to be usable in the large scale.

6. DATA PLANE MECHANISMS FOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS

This chapter describes the mechanisms required in the various parts of
the network to provide support for the transport of the traffic with
the service parameters through the network. These mechanisms include
all the mechanisms that are involved in per packet decisions that are
performed in the intermediate network nodes. The parameters for
controlling these mechanisms are determined by the control plane
mechanisms described in the previous chapter.

Note that the location of these mechanisms in the networks is not
discussed in this chapter, discussion of the location of mechanisms in
different network environments is given in chapter 9.

6.1 Label forwarding paradigm

In the best-effort label based forwarding, MPLS nodes use the simple
exact match lookup to determine the egress link where the packet should
be sent. When the services that require the support for service level
differentiation are implemented, MPLS node uses the same exact match
label lookup to determine not only where the packet should be destined,
but also the additional state information associated with label,
related to queuing and scheduling of the packet.


6.2 Classification
6.2.1 What is classification and where it should be done

The purpose of the classification process is to determine the queuing /
scheduling treatment that the packets should get as they traverse
through the network.

The result of the classification determine the following attributes:

- service class the packet should be carried on,
- for differentiated services the drop priority and / or delay
priority for the packet
- for guaranteed services the parameters determining the desired
service guarantees

Packets may be classified as belonging to different service categories
in the various places of the end-to-end path traversed.

Likely places where the packet classification may occur are:



P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 20]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998



- Operator's domain ingress router
- CPE router
- Host

When the hosts performs the classification, it may base the
classification decisions either on the protocol used (part of the host
protocol stack), or the attributes communicated from the application.
Guaranteed service parameters will likely be based on the parameters
communicated by applications.

When the classification is performed by the routers (either CPE router
or operator's border router), the classification decisions have to be
based on the protocol information carried on the packet.

Initial deployment is likely to be based on the classification on the
routers, as there is no support for performing the classifications in
the host protocol stacks. When the classification is performed in
router's, modifications to host protocols and applications are not
required. Additionally, it is easier to set up administrative
classification policies when the classification is performed in
routers.

The stand-alone and integrated equipment for performing the
classification for controlling the traffic are available at a moment,
but there are not standard ways to manage these, neither standard ways
on how the classification results are used to control the data stream.
One common characteristic of current solutions is that they are usually
decoupled from the other network equipment.

Depending on the place where the classification is performed, the
procedures performed on subsequent nodes do vary.

6.2.2 Flow Classification

Flow classification is the process of associating a label to individual
traffic flows. This process needs the consideration of the
classification policy to be able the associate the label with the flow.
Depending on the aggregation environment, the label may be associated
with single flow, or if the flow aggregation is supported and suitable
label already exists, flows may be aggregated to stream on the existing
label.

The purpose of the flow classification process is to reduce the
processing load associated on making the decision of which label to
associate with arriving packets. If the full classification can be
performed for each packet without performance penalty and the suitable
label exists, the flow classification is not required.

Flow classification needs to be performed at least once for each new



P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 21]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


flow. Flow classification is performed on the edge MPLS nodes, where
the packets from non-MPLS network domain enter onto MPLS network
domain. This process can also produce the simple key, such as  the
entry in the hash table to be subsequently used by the packet
classifier for the faster determination of the label that needs to be
associated with individual packets.
As more fine-grained control becomes necessary, flow classification
becomes mandatory, because the accomplishment of fine-grained
guarantees involve the setting up the new LSP or modifying the
parameters of the existing LSP.

In some cases, if it is determined that the suitable label for carrying
the flow does not exist, a new LSP needs to be set up or the attributes
of the existing LSP needs to be changed. The applications that are
allowed to do this should be subject to careful consideration, as it is
preferable to have the LSPs set up beforehand, otherwise the LDP
modifications done on a per flow basis consume too much resources and
become the performance / scalability bottleneck. However, this is
useful for some applications whose characteristics are known beforehand
to require relatively long lasting flow with service level
requirements, such as e.g. videoconferencing.

Classification mechanisms that require the edge routers to maintain
per-flow state information are susceptible to  denial of service
attracts by malicious users. One can foresee the attack based on
sending the packets with various destination address / port
combinations in rapid sequence, causing the per flow state to be
established for each packet. This can lead to exceeding of the per-flow
state maintenance and flow establishment handling capacities of the
routers performing the classification. There is no easy cure against
such an attack, except administratively limiting the amount of the per-
flow state that is associated with the interface. Together with the
source address validation, this at least can provide information of
where the attack originated from.

Note that the flow switching as discussed here is nothing new, this has
been used in routers and firewalls for long time. For more information
of flow measurements and classification, see [Claffy95], [RFC2063],
[RFC1954], [Cisco97].

6.2.3 Packet Classification

Packet classification performs the mapping of the individual packets
onto desired LSPs. Packet classification process essentially assigns
each arriving non-labelled packet onto suitable label switched path,
which has to be available before the packet classifier can perform it's
function.

Prior to the packet classification, the LSP has to have been set up
using either the flow classification process or other mechanisms, such



P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 22]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


as setting up the LSP on basis of information provided by management,
topology (e.g. routing protocol) or signalling protocol.

As discussed in the above chapter, flow classification process may help
packet classification by producing the keys to increase the packet
classifier performance.

6.2.4 Classification results for differentiated services

For the differentiated services, classification determines the
differential service attributes, such as drop precedence bit values and
delay precedence bit values. In cases where these attributes differ
from those carried in the received IP packet header, the received
header bits may be overwritten or depending on the implementation of
the diffserv support in MPLS, left alone.

If the differentiated services attributes are allocated on per LSP
basis, then the attributes are associated with the label switched path,
and the result of the classification process should be the label to
that path.

6.2.5 Classification results for guaranteed services
For the guaranteed services, the label for the LSP that has the
associated reservation attributes may be the result of the
classification process.

Alternatively, in fine-grained flow based systems, the flow identifier
which can be used to determine it's individual traffic characteristics
may be the result of the classification process. In this case, these
are mapped to aggregated LSP by mapping function following the
classification function.

6.2.6 Problems with non end-system classifications

There are some known problems in performing the classifications in
intermediate network elements, which are discussed below.

Whether these present a problem, and if so, the extent of the problem
depends on the environment the classification function is performed,
and needs to be addressed in case-by-case basis.

6.2.6.1 Classification in presence of IPSEC

When the transport protocol headers are encrypted, as described in
IPSEC document "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)" [RFC1827],
the transport layer (UDP/TCP) header information, such as port numbers
cannot be used as parameters for determining onto which flow the packet
belongs to.

This implies that the classification has to be performed before the
encryption is applied, in the customer customer device (typically host,


P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 23]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


router or firewall) that performs the encryption process.

Also, as the per flow information is not available in the public
network, it is possible to run MPLS all way to subscriber and use the
label to identify IPSEC encrypted flow encapsulated onto one label.
This way, it would be possible for the operator to enforce the
requested parameters on per encrypted flow basis.

It is also possible to achieve this using the RSVP signalling to the
user, using the IPSEC extensions specified in [RFC2207], which
basically uses SPI instead of the destination port number to identify
the flow.

6.2.6.2 Classification in presence of dynamic address assignment

The increasing use of the dynamic assignment of the IP addresses make
it hard to determine the end-system the packets originated from.
Dynamic address assignments are common in the environments that employ
DHCP, or NATs.

If the end-system address is important part of the classification
policy, then the means to communicate the address - physical system
mappings to classifier needs to be arranged. One possible way to
achieve this in DHCP environments might be to have DHCP/DNS mapping in
use, and resolve IP addresses on basis of DNS bindings.

In environments, where the classification is based more on the protocol
information carried in the packets, dynamic address assignment is not
problem. This is due to the fact that the dynamically assigned
addresses are expected to be same for the duration of the session, and
the flow classifier can still use these addresses for identifying
individual sessions.

6.2.6.3 Classification in presence of dynamic port numbers

Some applications assign the port numbers they use dynamically, and it
is very difficult or even impossible to make the correct classification
on basis of such assignments. For such environments, it appears that
the easiest way to achieve the correct classification is to let host
determine the desired classification.

6.2.7 Classification state maintenance

Classification state maintenance process is related to the deletion of
the per flow state and associated LSP bindings that are not required
anymore. Examples that lead to the removal of classification state are
flow time-out, ending of the individual flow recognised by other means
(e.g. TCP FIN) or signalling event to signify the end of reservation
request.




P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 24]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


Classification state maintenance activities ensure that the non-used
flow state information is deleted with appropriate intervals to free up
the resources in network elements. Classification state maintenance
activity shall be mostly local to the MPLS node. Only when the
reservations are made on individual flow basis, this affects the LSP
bindings between peer MPLS nodes.

If the reservation type for the flow was guaranteed reservation, and
the flow was aggregated on the LSP with other guaranteed flows, state
maintenance activity triggers the modification of the reservation
attributes of the LSP the flow was mapped onto, but does not result in
teardown of the LSP.

6.3 Policing

In the environments, where the packet classification is performed by
the end-user's router or user's computer, it is important for the
network operator to be able to enforce the traffic contract to disallow
the users to exceed their contractual limits for the advanced services.

This is performed using mechanism called traffic policing, which
monitors the user's traffic. The policing function can, depending on
the service used, either drop packets, or move the packets to lower
priority or best effort delivery class.

An alternative for the using policing is to allow users send whatever
they want, and meter the usage of different services and bill the user
based on what enters the public network.

However, one likely alternative is to use a combination of these
mechanisms, so that the user can send up to some maximum value
specified by the traffic contract per class / service, and get billed
on basis of combination of basic fee and usage.

In cases where the classification is performed by the operator, the
traffic contract can be enforced as part of the classification process.

Policing actions can be taken at several granularity levels. Policing
can be made for individual flows, when the per-flow reservations are in
effect. Operator likely wants to police on basis of aggregated traffic
contract on customers interface, and on MPLS network boundaries
policing can be based on the individual LSP parameters.

6.4 Mapping

On the basis of the flow identification performed by the classifier,
the mapping process maps the packets to appropriate label switched
path. This process is configured taking into account the traffic class,
attributes associated with the flow and the topology information.




P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 25]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


The mapping function is responsible for achieving the aggregation.
Depending on the traffic class, two styles of  mappings can exist;
direct and indirect mapping.

6.4.1 Direct mapping

Direct mapping can be used when the reservation does not have explicit
guarantees, like bandwidth associated with it. Traffic classes suitable
for direct mapping are best effort and differentiated services without
bandwidth allocations.

In direct mapping, the association is done directly from the packet
classifier outcome to the desired LSP.

6.4.2 Indirect mapping

Indirect mapping needs to be used when the reservation does have
explicit guarantees, like bandwidth associated with it, and the
aggregation of these is desired.

The need for the indirect mapping arises from the requirement to
maintain per reservation state so that the individual reservation and
its associated resources can be removed from the aggregate LSP. The
reservation state deletion shall commence immediately after the end of
reservation is detected, either through timeout, determined by
observing transport header bits, or as result of signalling event.

The associated parameter changes in the LSP configuration may be made
more infrequently, especially when the frequency of the individual
reservation establishments and deletions associated with given
aggregated LSP is high and the reservations are relatively homogenous.
This reduces the signalling load between the MPLS nodes the along the
LSP.

6.5 Aggregation, merging and deaggregation
6.5.1 Aggregation

Aggregation means that multiple flows that are treated similarly in the
network are associated onto same label. Depending on the supported
service type, the effort to support aggregation ranges from
straightforward to very complicated.

General guidelines for the aggregation to meet the scalability
requirements suggest that the all flows that can be aggregated onto
same label should be aggregated.

Aggregation is the process that is performed at the first place the
packet classification is performed, and involves the association of the
different packets that belong to same forwarding equivalence class the
same label.



P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 26]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998



Aggregation conserves label space, as the labels do not have to be
associated with the individual traffic flows.



Figure 6.5.1. Aggregation

Consider the node depicted in the figure 6.5.1. Traffic arrives from
non MPLS network interfaces (not labeled) and is mapped onto LSPs.
Because of the aggregation, the number of outgoing LSPs is reduced.

6.5.2 Merging

Merging is also a form of traffic aggregation, but is performed to
label switched paths, instead of the individual packets. In merge
capable node, packets coming from multiple ingress LSPs belonging to
same forwarding equivalence class are sent out on the single label
switched path.

The merging process helps to conserve the label space, and also reduces
the amount of the connection state that needs to be maintained in the
intermediate network elements.



Figure 6.5.2. Merging


6.5.3 Aggregation and merging of  traffic with service guarantees

Aggregation of the traffic with service guarantees itself is not a
problem, the problem is to come up with the associated service
parameters for the aggregated path, in such way that the minimum amount
of the resources are reserved, and the guarantees of individual
reservations are maintained through the aggregated path.

Aggregation of the traffic with just bandwidth guarantees is relatively
straightforward; the attributes of the resulting aggregated label
switched paths can be computed on basis of the guarantees given for the
individual paths or flows that are aggregated.

The computation of the aggregate path parameters can be based on simply
a sum of the attributes of flows or paths that the aggregate is
composed of, or can take in the account additional factors like
oversubscription factor.

When explicit guarantees for both delay and bandwidth are given,
aggregation becomes much harder, especially if the delay requirements
are tight. Several aggregation strategies for traffic both with and



P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 27]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


without delay guarantees are considered in references[Schwantag97],
[Guerin97], [Berson97] [Rampal97], and [Li98].


6.5.4 Deaggregation

Deaggregation is the opposite to aggregation and merging, in the sense
that it terminates the label switched path and performs layer three
lookup for the individual packets to determine their next destination.

Deaggregation can associate the packets either with new label switched
path, or to the interface to non-MPLS network.

Note that the service class related information associated with the
labeled packets is not lost in the deaggregation, because the
attributes of the LSP the packet arrived on are available at the
deaggregation point.

If the LSPs are constructed through the MPLS domain, from a set of
domain ingress interfaces to a single domain egress interface, and
packets not associated with this egress interface are not merged or
aggregated to same LSP, deaggregation process is not needed. In such
cases, if the interface is to a non-MPLS domain, the MPLS header is
simply removed.



Figure 6.5.4. Deaggregation

6.6 Queuing and congestion management

6.6.1 Queue management

Queue management mechanisms manage the available queue space, and also
determine the appropriate handling of the arriving packet, on the basis
of the label switched path the packet is received on and the status of
the desired queue.

Queue management is closely related to congestion control, as
congestion can be loosely defined as a condition where the queuing
point on the network element has exceeded or is about to exceed its
allocated queue space, forcing the packets be dropped instead of queued
for resource.

Packet handling decisions include which queue packet should be queued
on, and also whether the packet should be approved onto that queue,
moved to lower priority queue or dropped.

Note that the moving of the individual packets between the different
queues is not necessarily a good course of action, unless all packets



P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 28]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


of same flow are put to same queue. This is because the moving of the
individual packets of the flow to lower priority queue is likely cause
the packet re-ordering.

Since the queuing mechanisms vary on the basis of the supported
services and are local onto network element, they need not be subject
to standardisation efforts.

6.6.2 Queuing principles

Various queuing principles can be used for achieving the support of the
required traffic classes. Properties of some possible principles in
order of increasing complexity are discussed below.

All of these queuing principles can be implemented for both cell and
packet switching fabrics.

- Single FIFO queue

All traffic is queued onto single queue. Packets are queued together
with their associated labels. Packets are admitted in the queue on the
basis of a combination of parameters, such as packet class, queue
occupancy level, LSP reservation parameters and measured throughput per
LSP. Packets are scheduled for transmission in the order them arrived.
Property of this queuing scheme is that the delay cannot be minimised
for the packets that require that.

- Multiple FIFO queues

Traffic is queued in multiple queues (minimum of 2) on the basis of
delay priority. Packets are scheduled in priority order, possible along
with guarantee for the minimum service rate specified on per-queue
basis. Packet admission onto queues is as before.

- Shared queuing on per label basis

Traffic is queued different logical queues on basis of the arriving
label. Packet admission to queues is based on the occupancy level of
each logical queue and possibly overall queue space. Requires complex
queue space management algorithms as well as advanced scheduling
mechanisms. This is functionally equivalent to per-VC queuing in ATM
switches.

It is unclear whether the per-label queuing has enough benefits over
multiple FIFO queues with admission control to warrant the extra
implementation complexity.

6.6.3 Congestion control
6.6.3.1 Passive congestion control schemes




P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 29]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


Passive congestion control schemes are based on dropping of the packets
when they arrive at the congestion point. Passive schemes rely on the
end-to-end protocols to find out that the packet loss has occurred and
retransmit the dropped traffic with reduced traffic.

Most of the Internet at a moment relies exclusively on the use of the
passive congestion control schemes. TCP congestion control algorithms
have been designed to act exclusively on the basis of packet loss
information.

Over time, numerous algorithms for the more intelligent drop policies
have been developed, examples include RED [Floyd93], W-RED, and CBQ.
These algorithms attempt to increase fairness of the usage of congested
resource, to provide preferential treatment (typically more likely to
get accepted onto queue) for some portion of the flows or to increase
the end-to-end throughput in congestion conditions..

6.6.3.2 Active congestion control schemes

While passive congestion control algorithms do certainly work, one of
their characteristics is that they waste network resources, as the
traffic first is transmitted onto the congestion point, where it is
dropped, and then retransmitted later. Dropped packets thus introduce
extra overhead in the network portion before the congestion point.

To avoid these disadvantages, there have been proposals to make the
congestion control more active. The goal of the active congestion
control approaches is to reduce or eliminate the packet loss due to the
congestion, or to push the drop point towards the point originating the
traffic.

By active congestion control, we mean that the network more directly
informs the traffic sources of the congestion situations, and more
importantly even before the congestion actually occurs.

These mechanisms are based on the explicit monitoring and notification
of congestion state along the path the traffic is traversing. The
notification can be either direct using explicit semantics to tell the
end-station to slow down, or indirect, using the congestion information
to influence congestion management mechanisms of the transport
protocols to control the rate of the sender.

The direct mechanisms have been attempted in the real networks, but
with little success so far, because the lack of the support of the end-
station transport protocols. It has been shown that these schemes work
reasonably well, when implemented end-to-end.

Examples of the direct congestion control mechanisms include frame
relay congestion notification mechanism [I370], ATM binary and explicit
feedback mechanisms [ATMF96], and proposal for inclusion of the



P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 30]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


explicit congestion notification for IPv4 and IPv6 [Ramakr97].

The natural place to carry the congestion notification information in
MPLS networks would be as part of the label encapsulation header (when
MPLS is mapped to Frame Relay and ATM environments the existing
mechanisms to carry congestion information could be used).

However, as the huge installed base of the existing applications is
built on top of TCP and UDP, more attractive way is to provide direct
feedback inside the network, and indirect feedback in the network
interworking point, taking advantage of the characteristics of the
current transport protocols. Examples of schemes that could be used to
achieve indirect control are [Packeteer97] and [Jagan97].

The advantage of having the direct control inside network is that when
the transport mechanisms evolve to be better able to take advantage of
this functionality, the direct control can be extended to the end-
stations.

6.6.4 Packet scheduling

Scheduling algorithms determine the order in which traffic waiting in
the queues are scheduled for transmission. Scheduling decisions are
based on the queue specific information e.g. queue priority, weight,
state, etc.

The need of complex scheduling mechanisms depends on the capabilities
provided in the network element, such as shaping, multiple service
class queues, and complex queuing policy.

In FIFO based queuing systems scheduling is trivial (transmit when you
have the opportunity).

6.7 Traffic shaping

Traffic shaping is the process of modifying the traffic characteristics
to conform to desired traffic profile.

Shaping can be used in various parts of the network to make sure that
the resulting traffic conforms to the traffic contract, and thus has a
better chance not to get discarded by the policing or congestion
control mechanisms in the network.

Traffic characteristics tends to get modified by the network, as the
multiple traffic streams interact, and traffic goes through buffer and
scheduling algorithms. The process of shaping inside the network to
make traffic to better conform to its original profile is called
reshaping.

Examples of the possible shaping points are end-station, MPLS edge



P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 31]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


node, or MPLS core node.

Shaping can be associated with any granularity, which has defined
traffic characteristics, from application flow to aggregated label
switched path.

Shaping may be achieved as part of scheduling functionality.

6.8 Load sharing

Load sharing can be implemented with MPLS routers using the path
selection based on the load on the available links, and splitting the
aggregated streams that are associated with different LSPs to different
available links.

The load sharing is especially important because of emergence of the
Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) systems, because these
essentially divide the same fiber to up to tens of different channels
going to the same destination node. Efficient load sharing allows the
tight integration of the routed traffic and the transmission
capabilities. Some of the issues related onto integration of optical
networks and Internet are discussed in [Touch97].

MPLS based load sharing has advantage over the conventional router
based load sharing, because it can take in the account also where the
packets originated from, unlike the typical conventional routers.
Without the knowledge where the traffic came from, it is not possible
in the receiving node to easily guarantee that the packets are sent in
the same order as they were sent in the previous node. Packet
reordering causes performance degradation problems with TCP and some
other transport protocols.

The concept of the individual flows in the network ingress and/or
egress points also allows to implement the load sharing for example to
web server farms in such a way that the packets of the same session are
always directed to same server.

7. LABEL SWITCHED PATH GRANULARITIES AND AGGREGATION

The subset of the flow granularities defined in the section 2.2.2 of
the MPLS Framework document [Callon97] appears below, with discussion
of their applicability on context of traffic management mechanisms
discussed in this document.

- PQ (Port Quadruples)

Same IP source address prefix, destination address prefix, TTL, IP
protocol and TCP/UDP source/destination ports.

This defines a single communication session between two hosts, and is
generally referred as "flow".


P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 32]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998



While the recognition of existence of individual flows can be important
at the network boundaries and hosts, per flow state should not be
required at the core network elements, as it quickly yields to
unmanageable amount of state information to be maintained in high-speed
backbone links. This is the reason for the need of aggregation.

- PQT (Port Quadruples with TOS) same IP source address prefix,
destination address prefix, TTL, IP protocol and TCP/UDP
source/destination ports and same IP header TOS field (including
Precedence and TOS bits).

This augments the definition of the flow to take into account the TOS
byte of the IPv4 packet. It is basically possible for the current
applications to use different TOS values for different packets,
although the practise is not likely to yield to any predictable
results, as the TOS byte is not widely supported as part of forwarding
process in current routers.

The differentiated services working group will define the standard
semantics for this byte, but if the single session uses different
values it is likely to yield to packet re-ordering problems in the
network.

For the coarser granularity paths, the aggregation rules should take
into account the topological scope and the traffic types. MPLS nodes
should attempt to aggregate the same type of traffic onto same LSP.

It should be noted that the support of the managed paths and different
services is going to increase the label space consumption, but the
aggregation should be used to minimise this increase.

See chapter 8.5., "Multilevel paths" on discussion on how the use of
multilevel paths can help on the aggregation of traffic with explicit
guarantees.

8. LABEL SWITCHED PATH TOPOLOGIES AND ASSOCIATED TM PROCEDURES

Services are implemented by assigning attributes to label switched
paths. The path is composed of point-to-point segments between adjacent
MPLS nodes.

In complex topologies (excluding point-to-point) each individual
segment may have different values for its attributes, depending on the
location of the segment along the path and the topology of entire path.
This is also true when the flows with resource allocations are
aggregated to stream that is associated with the same LSP.

Properties of the different LSP topologies and related traffic
management issues are discussed in the following chapters.



P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 33]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998



8.1 Point-to-point

Point-to-point LSP is the simplest of the label switched path
topologies, and this is the basic building block of all LSPs.

In this document, point-to-point LSPs that have their own labels and
attributes, and both the label and its associated attributes have local
significance between the MPLS network elements. These local LSPs are
called segments in this document.

In the simplest case, where the end-to-end LSP with the attributes is
built by concatenating a set of these segments, all segments have the
same attributes, while the label has only the local significance
between neighbour MPLS nodes.

More complex topologies can be constructed by concatenating the
segments and using traffic merge (mpt-pt) and copy operations (pt-mpt)
in the network elements to achieve the desired topological LSP
constructs.

8.2 Point-to-multipoint

Point to multipoint topologies can be constructed using the packet copy
function at  the ingress point-to-point LSP segment on the MPLS network
element. The incoming packets are duplicated for each outgoing label
switched path.

Point to multipoint topologies are important for supporting of the
multicast packet delivery.


8.3 Multipoint-to-point

Point to multipoint topologies are important for scalability reasons.

Multipoint to point topologies can be constructed using the packet
merge function at the MPLS network element. The incoming packets from
multiple ingress label switched paths are merged onto same outgoing
label switched path.

In addition to aggregating the traffic destined onto single
destination, in the presence of traffic with explicit guarantees,
aggregation of the traffic parameters to get the attributes for each of
the LSP segment composing the multipoint to point tree is required for
supporting aggregation of the traffic with explicit guarantees. Note
that this can yield for the different segment to get different
attributes as the traffic is merged onto the shared multipoint-to-point
tree.




P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 34]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


8.4 Multipoint-to-multipoint

Multipoint to multipoint topologies cannot be directly constructed
using the same labels, but these can be constructed using desired
combination of point-to-point, multipoint-to-point and point-to-
multipoint LSPs. Exact decomposition to simpler topologies depends on
the desired connectivity in multipoint to multipoint topology. Traffic
management requirements of such simpler topologies can be treated as
for the simpler topologies used.

For example, full mesh connectivity between set of endpoints can be
achieved using multipoint-to-point LSPs, with each endpoint acting as a
receiver of separate multipoint to-point tree.

8.5 Multilevel paths

Multilevel paths can be constructed using multiple labels on stack, or
alternatively partitioning the label space to represent different
levels (like VPI/VCI in ATM networks).

The operations associated with label stacks are described in the MPLS
framework document [Callon97] and label stack encoding proposal is
described in [Rosen97b].

The routing and scheduling decisions of the packets encapsulated on the
on multilevel label switched path are performed on the basis of the top
level label.

Termination of the multilevel LSP is performed in deaggregation point,
where the top level label is removed (referred as label pop in
[Callon97]). Second level label is then available for use as the basis
for routing and scheduling mechanisms.

Multilevel paths are useful when the several paths with similar, but
different service guarantees are aggregated onto same path. At the
deaggregation point, the path characteristics of the individual
aggregated paths that the higher level path is composed of can be
determined on the basis of second level label.



Figure 8.5. Multilevel path example

Consider the simple MPLS network composed of four nodes A-D depicted on
Figure 8.5.

There are two traffic sources with reservations entering node A, from
non-MPLS domains. These two sources are aggregated and leave node A on
LSPx.




P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 35]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


At node B, the additional LSP (LSPy) that is destined towards same node
is merged to  same LSP, and the combination leaves node B as LSPz.
Original labels are pushed to the label stack, and traffic leaves node
B with top level label LSPz.

At node C, no traffic is either merged or removed from the LSPz, LSP
label just gets replaced and traffic leaves the node C with new label
LSP z'.

The traffic arrives at node D, which deaggregates the traffic to it's
constituents LSP's, denoted as LSP y' and LSP X'.

Now consider that all of the traffic entering and leaving the network
has reservations. The capacity of LSPx is thus function of RES1_in and
RES2_in. The capacity of aggregated LSPz is function of LSPx and LSPy,
which at least LSPx is aggregate.

As the node C does not modify the aggregate in any way, it does not
need to know the parameters of the individual components the aggregate
LSPz  is composed of.

Node D, which acts as deaggregation point for LSPy' and LSPx' needs to
know the traffic attributes of both original LSPy and LSPx, but it does
not need to know anything about the parameters of RES1_in and RES2_in.

Compared to the model where each path requires the individual LSP
through the network, the use of aggregation and multilevel paths can
save significant amount of state information and signalling overhead in
the network The use of the multilevel labels enables the de-aggregation
point still distinguish between different sources received in the
aggregated LSP and to treat the traffic according to their original
reservations.

For this to be possible, there needs to be signalling mechanism between
the aggregation point and deaggregation point to communicate the
traffic attributes of the second level labels that are deaggregated.
Note that this does not mean that the deaggregation point does need to
know attributes of all individual LSPs, that are aggregated,
deaggregated LSP may still be aggregate on other level.

Also, if there are large number of aggregated flows on single LSP, and
there is deaggregation point that needs to split the traffic to number
of the aggregated egress LSPs, the deaggregation point only needs to
know which of the second level flows should be associated with which
egress aggregate LSP, and the total aggregate value of  each egress
aggregated LSP.

Large benefits can be achieved at the backbone level, by aggregating
all the traffic with reservations with similar characteristics onto
same LSP.



P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 36]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998



The backbone nodes need only know the reservation parameters of the
aggregated traffic, not the parameters of individual second level LSPs
that compose the aggregate. Signalling protocol needs to be run between
the sending and receiving domain to be able sort out the individuals in
the receiving end, but the backbone does not need to be participating
in this signalling other than carrying the signalling messages.

The attributes of the aggregated LSP can either be modified on basis of
changes of the constituents of aggregate, but up to single message per
change is required to achieve this.  Additionally, if this results in
rapid changes to aggregate attributes, this can be dampened e.g. by
having the threshold of the minimum change to aggregate attributes that
needs to happen before the aggregate parameters are signalled to be
changed

9. NETWORK FUNCTIONAL PARTITIONING

For the purposes of this document, we divide the network elements into
four categories, hosts, CPE routers, operator border MPLS nodes and
core MPLS nodes. Note that this is just simple model to facilitate the
discussion in this document, there is no any reason that the roles of
these network elements cannot be combined.

Edge MPLS nodes are the nodes that connect the MPLS aware network
domain to non-MPLS aware domain. Example of such element would be
border router connecting the users attached with Ethernet to the MPLS
aware core network domain.

Both CPE routers and domain border nodes are discussed as MPLS edge
nodes, as their characteristics can be quite same, depending on the
protocols and extent of the MPLS reaches to.

Domain border MPLS nodes are the special cases of the edge MPLS node
that connect the two MPLS aware domains together.

Core MPLS nodes are the MPLS nodes in the core of the network, that are
connected only to the other MPLS nodes; to the edge MPLS nodes and / or
to other core MPLS nodes.

9.1 Network models

Figure 9.1-1. Public MPLS network domain interface

Figure 9.1.-1 depicts the interface between the MPLS network operator
and operator's subscriber network. Subscriber is connected on the MPLS
border node, and depending of the environment can support different
service categories and run different protocols towards the subscriber's
domain. The partitioning of functionality of CPE router and operator
border router in different situations is discussed in section 9.2.2.



P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 37]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998



9.2 Network element categories

This chapter defines the roles of the different MPLS nodes in the
network, and identifies some basic functionality that these nodes need
to perform to be able to support the traffic management.

For the purposes of this discussion, functionality is divided between
hosts, edge MPLS nodes and core MPLS nodes.

The basic assumption is that instead of using the label information
just to make a forwarding decision, MPLS nodes capable of supporting
differentiated services will use label information also as a part of
the scheduling decision.

9.2.1 Hosts
Hosts are initially likely to be just as they are at a moment, i.e. not
supporting anything more than the best effort application. In the
future, hosts may participate in diffserv packet classification or
support signalling mechanism, such as RSVP to request explicit service
guarantees.

It is also possible that at the some point, hosts participate on the
label distribution protocol.

All of the above functions for the hosts, except the best effort
communication capabilities shall remain optional.

For the different service categories, the functions that the hosts can
implement in the future are detailed in the chapters 9.2.1.1 to
9.2.1.4.

9.2.1.1 Enhanced best effort services
To be able to take advantage of the enhanced best effort service
provided by the network, the modifications to current host TCP/UDP
protocols are not necessarily required.

If the explicit congestion indication information is provided by the
network, modifications to the host transport protocol stack allow the
host to react to the congestion feedback information received from the
network.

9.2.1.2 Differentiated services
To be able to take advantage of the differentiated services provided by
the network, the modifications to current host TCP/UDP protocols are
not necessarily required. Host may optionally participate on the
differentiated services process by performing the packet classification
for the traffic originated from the host.

This is not necessary however, as the flow / packet classification to



P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 38]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


differentiated service classes can be also performed on the router.

Hosts that actively participate on the differentiated services
processing have to support the following mechanisms:

- Classification policy (Mandatory)
- Packet Classification (Mandatory)
- Classification state maintenance (Mandatory)

Hosts that actively participate on the differentiated services
processing may additionally support some of the following mechanisms:

- Flow Classification (Optional)
- Traffic shaping (Optional)
- Scheduling (Optional)

9.2.1.3 Guaranteed services
To be able to take advantage of the guaranteed services provided by the
network, the modifications to current host TCP/UDP protocols are not
necessarily required. Host may optionally participate on the guaranteed
services environment by running the signalling protocol to request the
explicit guarantees from the network.

This is not required, as the flow / packet classification process run
on the router can also make the appropriate requests to the network on
the basis of the header information of the packets received by the
host.

Hosts that actively participate in the guaranteed services processing
have to support the following mechanisms:

- Signalling protocol to request the service (Mandatory)

Hosts that actively participate on the guaranteed services processing
may additionally support some of the following mechanisms:

- Traffic shaping (Optional)
- Scheduling (Optional)
- Flow Classification (Optional)

9.2.1.4 Participation in MPLS
Host may desire to participate on MPLS domain by running the LDP
protocol to request and terminate the paths through the network,
possibly with some attributes associated with the requested paths.

The additional advantage of the host participation may be that, high-
performance hosts may use the flow labeled LSPs to cache the state
information inside the host protocol stack to increase performance by
speeding up or bypassing some of the multilayer protocol stack
processing. The unwanted effects of multilayer multiplexing are



P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 39]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


discussed in [Tennenh89].

Because the hosts have limited information of the overall network
topology and the aggregation strategies used by the network, hosts
should only participate by originating and terminating the LSPs with
the fine granularity. Aggregation and deaggregation functions should
thus be left to the network.

Host that actively participates in the MPLS have to support the
following mechanisms depending on the services used:

- LDP processing (Mandatory)
- Classification policy (Mandatory)
- Packet Classification (Mandatory)
- Classification state maintenance (Mandatory)

Hosts that actively participate on the MPLS may additionally support
some of the following mechanisms:

- Traffic shaping (Optional)
- Active congestion control (Optional)
- Scheduling (Optional)
- Flow Classification (Optional)

In addition, hosts may choose to participate in the Intserv environment
that is also MPLS capable, and use the RSVP to carry labels with the
reservations.

Note that there are important security considerations that generally
make it infeasible for the untrusted hosts directly participate on the
operator's LDP domain in any way, discussed in more detail in section
9.2.2.4.

However, for the operator owned "trusted" servers, such as web
hosting facilities, etc. host participation may have some performance
advantages.

9.2.2 MPLS edge nodes

In this context we include both CPE router and operator's MPLS domain
in discussion as edge nodes, as the traffic management functionality is
somehow divided between these two nodes, and the mechanisms described
in sections 5 and 6 of this document apply to both.

An MPLS domain edge node contains interfaces to non-MPLS networks, as
well as to MPLS network domain. There are different scenarios that
determine how the functionality between the public operator's MPLS
border node and the CPE node needs to be divided.





P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 40]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998



Figure 9.2.2. Implementation framework for MPLS edge node TM
functionality, ingress

The functionality and the implementation framework of the MPLS domain
edge node is depicted in Figure 9.2.2.

As a summary of the functionality that needs to be performed at the
ingress point of the MPLS domain, the following list applies:

Mandatory functions for operator border router:

- Admission policy
- Admission control
- Direct mapping
- Indirect mapping
- Either of two: flow policing or LSP policing
- Aggregation
- Deaggregation
- Queue management
- Queuing
- Scheduling
- Label distribution

Mandatory functions in either CPE equipment or operator's border
router:

- Classification policy
- Packet classification
- Classification state maintenance

Remaining functions, that are optional, may be performed in hosts, CPE
router, operator MPLS border router, or not implemented at all:

- Flow classification
- Flow policing
- Merging
- Congestion marking
- Shaping

An MPLS network ingress point, as viewed from the MPLS domains side has
to classify the traffic according to the desired service categories and
allocate the traffic to the LSPs.

This association between the packets at the domain ingress point and
the label switched path with path attributes determines how the packet
will be treated in all subsequent network elements in the LSP
associated with the label. In addition, ingress MPLS node has to
enforce the traffic contract between the subscriber and the public MPLS
domain operator and participate on the label distribution process. More



P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 41]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


detailed descriptions of the above listed functions are given in
sections 5 and 6 of this document.

Note that from the direction of the operator's MPLS domain towards the
customer domain, the following functions are not mandatory:

- Flow classifier
- Packet classifier
- Classification policy
- Indirect mapping
- Direct mapping
- Flow policing

The partitioning of the edge functionality is dependent on the services
offered to the customer, and who is responsible for performing the
traffic classification.

The services that can be offered to customer by the public MPLS domain
operator are:

- Best effort services
- Differentiated services
- Guaranteed services
- MPLS

The network boundary between the user's and operators network can
support any number of the above services. Depending on the
implementation model, the support for some of these services may
require signalling support between the MPLS domain and subscriber
interface.

The different cases are described in more detail in the following
sections, from the operator border node's functionality standpoint.

9.2.2.1 Best effort services to customer

If the best effort service is provided to the customer, edge node would
just map the traffic onto suitable LSP, according to procedures defined
for best effort traffic in the [Callon97] and [Rosen97a].

If there are service guarantees (e.g. bandwidth) for the some portion
of the user's traffic (e.g. for all traffic destined to network x),
these can be honoured by applying the suitable filter to the traffic
and assigning it to the designated LSP.

9.2.2.2 Differentiated services to customer

In the differentiated service model, the packets need to be marked on
basis of some policy, and the packets receive the different treatment
on basis of the values carried in the DS byte (encapsulated on TOS



P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 42]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


field of IPv4 packet). This labelling can be performed by the customer
equipment, such as CPE router or customer's hosts.

In the case that the marking is performed by the subscriber, the
operator's border router needs to police the traffic according to the
service contract between the operator and the customer. Operator may
also need to measure the traffic for accounting purposes, depending on
the contract.

Another alternative is that the operator performs this marking on the
basis of the policy agreed with the customer in the access nodes.

9.2.2.3 Guaranteed services to customer

For security reasons stated in the next chapter, the use of the
guaranteed services towards the customer on based on the MPLS labelling
is not advisable.

If the guaranteed services are supported, the signalling protocol, such
as RSVP needs to be terminated on the operator's border node and the
filter to achieve the classification needs to be applied to each
packet.

If signalling based guaranteed services is used towards the public
network, the network operator may assign the resulting traffic onto
it's own LSP or aggregate it to the LSP with suitable service
guarantees towards the public network. Note that the operator's border
router does not necessarily have to perform the aggregation, as it may
be unlikely that there will be the suitable LSP towards the destination
available.

Alternatively, if signalling is not used, operator can just apply the
set of pre-specified filters according to some policy agreed between
the customer and the operator.

9.2.2.4 MPLS to customer

Operator can run MPLS towards the customer premises, but there are some
important considerations that need to be taken in the account on such
environments.

Since the customer is a non-trusted entity from the operator's
standpoint, and the MPLS allows the establishment of the switched paths
towards the destination, there is no possible way for the operator to
control what enters onto LSP the subscriber's traffic enters onto. This
opens the possibility of denial of service attacks, and other kinds of
malicious uses that could possibly be prevented by the ingress
filtering on the operator's ingress node. When the traffic enters on
the LSP, it is impossible to determine where the traffic originated
from after it is merged with the other traffic, assuming that the bogus



P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 43]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


source addresses are used. The only way to prevent this would be to
terminate the LSPs originated from customer premises on the operator's
border node, but in such case there is no reason to run MPLS to the
customer for this type of traffic at all.

Additionally, as the customer does not have the information of the
operator's traffic aggregation policies and access to the routing
information, customer will not be able to perform traffic aggregation.
This would, in practice, mean that the MPLS sessions between operator
and subscriber would have to be based on individual flows, and operator
would be responsible for appropriate aggregation.

An environment, where the use of the MPLS to customer premises makes
sense is when the MPLS is used to create VPNs for the customer. The
customer could then assign the traffic that is destined on the LSP
that's part of the VPN to appropriate VPN. Even in these environments,
it would make sense to use ordinary routing for other traffic. This
assumes that the VPN LSP endpoint(s) trusts the sending entity to some
extent, as the traffic would be carried quite transparently through the
operator's network.

In any case, all traffic that is entering onto operator's network that
is destined to public the network should be validated for the source
address before encapsulating to any label switched path.

So, as a summary, MPLS to the customer's premises does not make much
sense in typical environments.

9.2.3 MPLS core node


Figure 9.2.3 Implementation framework for MPLS core node TM
functionality

MPLS core nodes are high capacity switching elements, that contain only
MPLS interfaces.

Core nodes need to forward packets at high speed and differentiate the
queuing treatment on basis of the label they are received with. These
nodes also participate in routing and label distribution protocols, and
have to support admission control for the traffic that has reservation
requests.

The important thing to note is that the associated state information
for the treatment of the arriving packets can be determined on basis of
label, there is no need for the knowledge or reapplication of the
admission policies or traffic filtering.

The following is a list of the traffic management functions typically
performed by core node:



P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 44]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998



Mandatory functions:

- Admission policy
- Admission control
- Aggregation
- Queue management
- Passive congestion control
- Queuing
- Scheduling
- Label distribution

Optional mechanisms:

- Deaggregation
- Congestion marking
- LSP policing

Above mechanisms are described in more detail in sections 5 and 6 of
this document.


9.3 Interface categories
9.3.1 Interface to non-MPLS networks

This interface is the point where the MPLS domain connects to existing
network infrastructure, and the first point in the ingress direction,
where packet labelling is performed. Also, in the egress side of the
interface, labels are removed and packets are encapsulated according to
the corresponding data link layer encapsulation.

9.3.2 Interface inside MPLS network domains

This interface is the interconnection point between the different MPLS
network elements inside the domain. This is characterised by the fact
that the packets are received and transmitted labelled, and the
forwarding and scheduling decisions are performed on basis of the label
associated with the received packet.

9.3.3 Interface between MPLS network domains

This interface is the interconnection point between two operationally
different MPLS network domains.

Such an interface applies the policies related to admission of the
labelled path set-ups through the operator's network, and meters the
usage, especially for advanced service categories to be able to monitor
/ create inter-operator settlement agreements. The policing functions
in this interface are applied at the LSP level.




P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 45]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


The deaggregation of the arriving traffic aggregated to incoming LSPs
to determine the appropriate LSPs inside domain traffic can be done
either immediately on this interface point, or somewhere else in the
network. This is generally required, as it is advantageous for the
external domain's operator to aggregate the traffic as much as
possible, and also since the internal topology (and corresponding LDP
paths) is not known to external domain.


10. LSP MAPPINGS TO EXISTING LINK LAYER TECHNOLOGIES

The discussion of the mappings of the traffic of different service
guarantees to specific data link layers, and what of the requirements
outlined in chapter 4 can be achieved goes here.

Concentrate on ATM and Frame Relay environments, and what is missing
from the current best effort mapping proposals.

--- This section to be added later ---


11. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LABEL ENCAPSULATIONS
11.1 Differentiated services support

Proposals for the "differentiated services", require some priority
bits to be carried in the packets to be used for providing additional
information to help to select appropriate queuing and scheduling
actions in the intermediate routers. These mechanisms generally rely on
the use of the IPv4 TOS field.

At first look, it appears that the making the determination for the
scheduling action should be based on both label and these
differentiated service bits. There are however some reasons, which make
the determination of all associated parameters strictly on basis of the
information contained in the label:

1.) Straightforward mapping to hardware implementation

Since it is expected that the MPLS nodes may be based on the high-
capacity hardware implementation of the forwarding process, it is
expected that the lookup result can directly be mapped onto hardware
implementation of the particular product. Since the internal
implementations of the supporting mechanisms are not subject to
standardisation, it may be possible that even if the some header bits
are used to indicate e.g. priority, some, possibly complex mapping
needs to be performed to resolve the appropriate information to control
HW based scheduling decisions. When the information is distributed with
the LDP, the network element can perform necessary internal mappings,
and then use the HW lookup table for determining the associated
parameters that control scheduling hardware.



P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 46]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998



2.) Support for fine grained service guarantees

For the support of the fine grained service guarantees, such as INTSERV
controlled load or guaranteed service, it is impractical to carry the
required amount of the state information in every packet. Also, because
implementations vary, the information cannot be subject to
standardisation. In addition, reasons given in 1.) also apply here.

3.) Requires MPLS node to look only onto fixed portion of the header

Even if the information for the providing the differential services
could be carried in the packet, the system becomes specific for the
header formats of the given protocol, such as IPv4. When  the protocol
is changed, the position where the information resides inside the
header changes also. This implies that the hardware should be either
able to identify the protocol on the fly to determine where to look for
information, or this be statically configured for the entity doing the
lookup function, which means that the simultaneous support of multiple
protocols is not feasible. When the information is retrieved just on
basis of label, these problems do not exist. It would be possible e.g.
provide exactly same services for the IPv4 and IPv6 without any
problems using the same label based forwarding entity.

4.)  Legacy HW support

Since much of the effort is currently concentrated on how the label
switching should be supported in the legacy hardware with as little
modifications as possible, it would make more sense to use the mapping
on basis of the label. For example in ATM current ATM environments,
there is no support for the differentiated services concept as being
discussed, but there are some quite straightforward mappings that can
be realised by using the currently defined ATM service categories.

5.) Single, standard forwarding paradigm

If the lookup is kept strictly as label only based, it means that same
kinds of services can be provided for completely different applications
and protocols using same network elements. Also, this means that the
new services can be introduced by developing extensions to the LDP, and
implementing the appropriate improvements in the network elements by
keeping the same basic concept intact.

Note that the using different labels for different service class
encodings increases the required label space, but on the environments
that support only best effort or guaranteed traffic, these bits can be
used by different LSPs.

11.2 Congestion management support

11.2.1 Congestion indicator bit


P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 47]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


For the purposes of the congestion management, it is desirable to have
one bit of the label to indicate that the LSP is experiencing
congestion.

If the label encapsulation header is protected by checksum that goes
over the label, it is desirable that this bit is excluded from the
checksum calculation so that the hardware can modify the bit directly,
or that the checksum modification mechanism is specified that allows
easy recalculation of the checksum when the bit is modified.

In the frame relay environments, FECN and BECN bits shall be used for
the congestion notification bits. In ATM environments the CI bit of the
header shall be used for congestion notification.

When the multilevel labelling is used, the value of the CI bit shall be
copied to CI bit of second level label in deaggregation point, where
the top level label is removed.

11.2.2 Examine me bit
For the more advanced traffic management mechanism support, it may be
useful to have one bit of the label to indicate that the packet carries
information that intermediate network element need either copy or
modify.

The advantage of having this bit encoded in the label instead than
using dedicated LSP between nodes is that the associated operations can
be made on per LSP basis, possibly in the hardware.

The requirement for the support of this bit requires further study. It
may be advisable to reserve one bit for this (or other) purposes from
the beginning, even if the use has not been defined.

This cannot be easily supported in standard ATM switching hardware, but
ATM provides similar mechanisms in cell level with OAM and RM cells.

11.3 Support for multilevel label switched paths

The multilevel label support is essential for the purposes of scaleable
support of the label switched paths with explicit guarantees. The
mechanisms for supporting this shall be included in the label
encapsulation protocol.

Two levels of the multi-level labels are generally sufficient for the
traffic management purposes and in ATM environments this may be
realised using VPI/VCI partitioning to support first and second level
label encodings.

12. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR DISTRIBUTION OF LABELS AND TM ATTRIBUTES

To be able to realise the basic set of TM functionality, the following



P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 48]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


functions shall be available in the protocol used to distribute labels
and the associated traffic management attributes.

12.1 Setup request

This function is used to request the set up of the label switched path
of desired topological scope, granularity and attributes. The traffic
management related attributes need to be specified and available in the
LSP set-up request.

Some of the traffic management related attributes that shall be
available for set-up request function:

- Bandwidth (bits/s)
- Discard priority class (1-Ndisc)  (as specified by differentiated
services WG)
- Delay priority class (1-Ndel) (as specified by differentiated
services WG)

It shall be possible to add other possible attributes that may be
required, depending on the desired services and/or signalling protocols
that are to be used in MPLS context.

12.2 Setup modification

LSP set-up modification function will be used to modify the attributes
of the LSPs that have already been set up. Modification can be, e.g.
addition or reduction of the bandwidth of the associated label switched
path.

Same attributes as for the set-up request shall be available for set-up
modification function.

12.3 Setup Acknowledge

LSP set-up acknowledge is received when the LSP with desired attributes
has been set up. Set-up acknowledge can result of either set-up request
or set-up modification functions.

12.4 Setup reject

LSP set-up is rejected when the LSP with desired attributes can not be
supported by the network. Set-up reject can result of either set-up
request or set-up modification functions. Set-up reject shall
communicate the reason why the request or modification was rejected.

Traffic management related parameters that shall be returned in error
conditions that shall be available:

- Reason for rejection: no support for service, no LDP available, no



P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 49]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


resources
- Information, such as: available bandwidth, highest available
priority, etc.

12.5 Discussion of signaling protocols

12.5.1 General

There have been proposals to use RSVP for implementing all services
that require more than best effort traffic category support in MPLS
environment.

Also, there is other proposal for implementing limited set of services
for supporting limited set of traffic management functionality, mainly
suitable for the network operator's traffic engineering  needs in the
LDP protocol, which does not require the use of the LDP.

The approaches have similar characteristics, and it is quite possible
to achieve the desired functionality in either way. Either method is
not obviously better than the other, and it is unclear whether these
proposals are complementary or competitive.

In addition, operator driven network traffic engineering purposes does
not have as strict requirements for the dynamics and the granularity of
control required. It might be feasible to implement the attributes
required for the traffic engineered LSPs directly in the LDP, without
mandating the use of the RSVP in networks that do not support
differentiated services.

To determine the suitability of the signalling mechanisms for TM
support the proposals should be evaluated and decided against the
requirements for supporting the traffic management related requirements
and their applicability to different topologies, topological scopes and
reservation models.

12.5.2 LDP

Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) has been proposed for the
communication of the bindings between the routes and the LSPs between
the MPLS nodes.

Current proposal of the LDP [Andersson97] does not include objects to
carry any traffic management related attributes for the LSPs, except
the placeholder for the Class-of-service objects.

COS object semantics have not been specified in the current version of
the document, and them will likely be based on the work done in the
IETF DIFFSERV working group.

It has been proposed to extend the current LDP proposal to include the



P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 50]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


basic set of the traffic management related attributes as part of the
LDP. Reasoning behind this is that in the environments that are not
otherwise using the RSVP, and do not need all the features provided by
RSVP, the additional complexity inherited with the RSVP may be too
expensive to implement, and the use of single protocol (LDP) should be
sufficient.


12.5.3 RSVP

RSVP [RFC2205] was originally developed for the establishment of the
communication of the reservation parameters of the unicast traffic and
reservation parameters for heterogeneous receivers for the multicast
traffic.

RSVP has scalability issues for the large scale deployment, that are
discussed in the [RFC2208] and [Schwantag97].

MPLS can be used to address some of the scalability problems of the
RSVP, by using the RSVP signalling at the edges of the network and
either RSVP tunnels inside networks, or by mapping the reservations to
some other signalling protocol, used to carry reservation information
inside the operator's network and possible across domain boundaries.

MPLS networks have the ability, in the core network elements, to make
forwarding decisions using simple label based lookup instead of
applying the flow specific filter to each packet, as required by the
conventional RSVP implementation. Also, because of the aggregation of
the reservations, the core routers can forward the traffic without
keeping track of per-flow state.

MPLS has also been proposed as signalling protocol to be used in MPLS
context for communicating the reservation attributes of the label
switched paths inside the network [Li97]. This operation model can be
coupled to user-to-network RSVP signalling, or operate independently
inside the network, between the network elements.

There are also proposals for setting up explicit paths with
reservations inside MPLS domain using extended RSVP and assigning
labels for such paths [Gan97], [Guerin97] [Davie97a] and [Davie97b].

13. REFERENCES

[Andersson97] "LDP Specification", L. Andersson, P. Doolan, N.
Feldman, Andre Fredette, work in progress, draft-mplsdt-ldp-spec-
00.txt, November 1997

[ATMF96], "Traffic Management Specification, Version 4.0", ATM Forum,
April 1996




P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 51]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


 [Berson97] "Aggregation of Integrated Services State", S. Berson, S.
Vincent, work in progress, draft-berson-classy-approach-01.ps, November
1997

[Braden97] "Recommendations on Queue Management and Congestion
Avoidance in the Internet", B. Braden, D. Clarck, J. Crowcroft, B.
Davie, S. Deering, D. Esterin, S. Floyd, V. Jacobson, G. Minshall, G.
Partridge, L. Pettersson, K. Ramakrishnan, S. Schenker, J. Wroclawski
and L. Zang, work in progress, draft-irtf-e2e-queue-mgt-00.ps, March
1997

[Bradner97] "Internet Protocol Quality of Service Problem Statement",
S. Bradner, work in progress, draft-bradner-qos-problem-00.txt,
September 1997

[Callon97] "A Framework for Multiprotocol Label Switching", R.
Callon,P. Doolan, N. Feldman, A. Fredette, G. Swallow, and A.
Wiswanathan, work in progress, draft-ietf-mpls-framework-02.txt,
November 19, 1997

[Claffy95] "A parameterizable methodology for Internet traffic flow
profiling", K.C. Claffy, H-W. Braun, G. C. Polyzos, IEEE Journal on
Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 1481-1494,
October 1995.

[Cisco97] "Netflow", White Paper, Cisco Systems, 1997

[Crawley98] "A Framework for QoS-based Routing in the Internet", E.
Crawley, R. Nair,B. Rajagopalan , H. Sandick, work in progress, draft-
ietf-qosr-framework-03.txt,                March, 2, 1998

[Davie97a]      "Use of Label Switching With RSVP ", B. Davie, Y.
Rekhter, E. Rosen, A. Viswanathan, V. Srinivasan, work in progress,
draft-davie-mpls-rsvp-01.txt, November 1997

[Davie97b] "Explicit Route Support in MPLS", B. Davie, T. Li, E.
Rosen, Y. Rekhter,work in progress, draft-davie-mpls-explicit-routes-
00.txt, November 1997

[Ferguson98] "Simple Differential Services: IP TOS and Precedence,
Delay Indication, and Drop Preference", P. Ferguson, work in progress,
draft-ferguson-delay-drop-01.txt, March 10, 1998

[Floyd93] "Random Early Detection gateways for Congestion Avoidance",
S. Floyd, V. Jacobsen, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, volume 1
number 4, August 1993, Pages 397-413

[Fredette97] "Stream Aggregation", A. Fredette, C. White, L.
Andersson, P. Doolan , work in progress, <draft-fredette-mpls-
aggregation-00.txt>, November 1997



P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 52]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998



[Gan97] "Setting up Reservations on Explicit Paths using RSVP", D.-H.
Gan, R. Guerin, S. Kamat, T. Li, E. Rosen, work in progress, draft-
guerin-expl-path-rsvp-01.txt, 21 November 1997

[Guerin97] "Aggregating RSVP-based QoS Requests" R. Guerin, S. Blake,
S. Herzog, work in progress, draft-guerin-aggreg-rsvp-00.txt, 21 Nov
1997

[I370] "Congestion Management for the ISDN Frame Relaying Bearer
Service", Recommendation  I.370, ITU-T, 1991

[Jagan97] "End-to-End Traffic Management in IP/ATM Internetworks", S.
Jagannath, N. Yin, work in progress, draft-jagan-e2e-traf-mgmt-00.txt,
August 1997

[Li98] "Provider Architecture for Differentiated Services and Traffic
Engineering (PASTE)", T. Li, Y. Rekhter, work in progress, draft-li-
paste-00.txt, January 1998

[Nichols98] "Differentiated Services Operational Model and
Definitions", K. Nichols, S. Blake, work in progress, draft-nichols-
dsopdef-00.txt, February, 1998

[Packeteer97] "Controlling TCP/IP bandwidth", TCP/IP bandwidth
Management Series, Vol 1 Number 1, The Packeteer technical Journal,
1997

[Ramakr97] "A Proposal to add Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)
to IPv6 and to TCP", K. K. Ramakrishnan, S. Floyd, work in progress,
draft-kksjf-ecn-00.txt,
November 1997

[Rampal97] "Flow Grouping For Reducing Reservation Requirements for
Guaranteed Delay Service",S. Rampal, R. Guerin, work in progress,
draft-rampal-flow-delay-service-01.txt, July 15th, 1997.

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

[RFC1827] "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", R. Atkinson,
RFC-1827, August 1995

[RFC1954] "Transmission of Flow Labelled IPv4 on ATM Data Links", P.
Newman, W. L. Edwards, R. Hinden, E. Hoffman, F. Ching Liaw, T. Lyon,
G. Minshall, ,RFC-1954, May 1996

[RFC2063] "Traffic Flow Measurement:  Architecture", N. Brownlee, C.
Mills, G. Ruth, RFC-2063, January 1997




P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 53]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


[RFC2205] "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) - Version 1 Functional
Specification", R. Braden, L. Zhang, S. Berson, S. Herzog, S. Jamin,
RFC-2205, September 1997

[RFC2208] "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) Version 1
Applicability Statement: Some Guidelines on Deployment", A. Mankin, F.
Baker, B. Braden, S. Bradner, M. O`Dell, A. Romanow, A. Weinrib, L.
Zhang, September 1997

[RFC2211] "Specification of the Controlled-Load Network Element
Service", J. Wroclawski, RFC-2211, September 1997

[RFC2212] "Specification of the Guaranteed-Quality of Service", S.
Shenker, C. Partridge, R. Guerin, RFC-2212, September 1997

[Rosen97a] " A proposed architecture for MPLS", E. Rosen, A.
Wiswanathan and R. Callon, work in progress, draft-ietf-mpls-arch-
00.txt, July 1997

[Rosen97b] "Label Switching: Label Stack Encodings", E.C. Rosen,Y.
Rekhter, D. Tappan, D. Farinacci, G. Fedorkow, T. Li, A. Conta, work in
progress, draft-rosen-tag-stack-03.txt, July 1997

[Schwantag97] "An Analysis of the Applicability of RSVP", Ursula
Schwantag, Diploma Thesis, Universitat Karlsruhe, July 15, 1997

[Smith97] "Research Challenges for the Next Generation Internet",
J.E. Smith, F. W. Weingarten, Computing Research Association, May 12-
14, 1997

[Tennenh89] "Layered Multiplexing Considered Harmful", D.
Tennenhouse, Protocols for High-Speed Networks, Rudin and Williamson
(Editors), North Holland, Amsterdam, 1989.

[Touch97] "Bridging the Gap Between Optical Networks and the Internet:
Summary of a Mini-Workshop", DRAFT, Oct. 1-2, 1997, Arlington, VA, Joe
Touch,  Ken Young, Joe Berthold

14. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS

As the support for the different levels of services, together with the
different pricing structures comes in the effect, the mechanisms to
monitor the service usage, enforce the service contract between
parties, authorisation and billing will become important.

It is essential to develop the associated protocols in a such way, that
the different forms of service abuse, such as different forms of theft
of service are not easily possible.

Since this document is not protocol specification, the specifics of the



P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 54]


Internet-Draft  Framework for TM in MPLS Networks             March 1998


implementation alternatives are not discussed here.

15. AUTHOR'S ADDRESSES

Pasi Vaananen
Nokia Telecommunications, Inc.
3 Burlington Woods Drive, Suite 250
Burlington, MA 01803
USA
Phone: (781) 238-4981
Fax: (781) 238-4949
Email: pasi.vaananen@ntc.nokia.com

Rayadurgam Ravikanth
Nokia Research Center
3 Burlington Woods Drive, Suite 260
Burlington, MA 01803
USA
Phone: (781) 238-4905
Fax (781) 238-4949
Email: ravikanth.rayadurgam@research.nokia.com
































P.Vaananen, R. Ravikanth                                       [Page 55]