[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-moncaster-pcn-3-state-encoding) 00 01 02

Congestion and Pre Congestion                               T. Moncaster
Internet-Draft                                   University of Cambridge
Intended status: Historic                                     B. Briscoe
Expires: September 13, 2012                                           BT
                                                                M. Menth
                                                 University of Tuebingen
                                                          March 12, 2012


        A PCN encoding using 2 DSCPs to provide 3 or more states
                   draft-ietf-pcn-3-state-encoding-02

Abstract

   Pre-congestion notification (PCN) is a mechanism designed to protect
   the Quality of Service of inelastic flows within a controlled domain.
   It does this by marking packets when traffic load on a link is
   approaching or has exceeded a threshold below the physical link rate.
   This experimental encoding scheme specifies how three encoding states
   can be carried in the IP header using a combination of two DSCPs and
   the ECN bits.  The Basic scheme only allows for three encoding
   states.  The Full scheme provides 6 states, enough for limited end-
   to-end support for ECN as well.

Status

   Since its original publication, the baseline encoding (RFC5696) on
   which this document depends has become obsolete.  The PCN working
   Group has chosen to publish this as a historical document to preserve
   the details of the encoding and to allow it to be cited in other
   documents.

Status of this Memo

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 13, 2012.



Moncaster, et al.      Expires September 13, 2012               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft            3 State PCN Encoding                March 2012


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

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

























Moncaster, et al.      Expires September 13, 2012               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft            3 State PCN Encoding                March 2012


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1.  Changes from Previous Drafts (to be removed by the RFC
           Editor)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.  Requirements notation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  The Requirement for Three PCN Encoding States  . . . . . . . .  6
   5.  Adding Limited End-to-End ECN Support to PCN . . . . . . . . .  7
   6.  Encoding Three PCN States in IP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     6.1.  Basic Three State Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     6.2.  Full Three State Encoding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     6.3.  Common Diffserv Per-Hop Behaviour  . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     6.4.  Valid and invalid codepoint transitions at
           PCN-ingress-nodes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     6.5.  Valid and invalid codepoint transitions at
           PCN-interior-nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     6.6.  Forwarding traffic out of the PCN-domain . . . . . . . . . 10
   7.  PCN-domain support for the PCN extension encoding  . . . . . . 11
     7.1.  End-to-End transport behaviour compliant with the PCN
           extension encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   9.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   10. Conclusions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   12. Comments Solicited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14





















Moncaster, et al.      Expires September 13, 2012               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft            3 State PCN Encoding                March 2012


1.  Introduction

   The objective of Pre-Congestion Notification (PCN) [RFC5559] is to
   protect the quality of service (QoS) of inelastic flows within a
   Diffserv domain, in a simple, scalable and robust fashion.  The
   overall rate of the PCN-traffic is metered on every link in the PCN-
   domain, and PCN-packets are appropriately marked when certain
   configured rates are exceeded.  These configured rates are below the
   rate of the link thus providing notification before any congestion
   occurs (hence "pre-congestion notification").  The level of marking
   allows the boundary nodes to make decisions about whether to admit or
   block a new flow request, and (in abnormal circumstances) whether to
   terminate some of the existing flows, thereby protecting the QoS of
   previously admitted flows.

   The baseline encoding described in [RFC5696] provides for deployment
   scenarios that only require two PCN encoding states.  This document
   describes an experimental extension to the base-encoding in the IP
   header that adds two capabilities:

   o  the addition of a third PCN encoding state in the IP header

   o  preservation of the end-to-end semantics of the ECN field even
      though PCN uses the field within a PCN-region that interrupts the
      end-to-end path

   The second of these capabilities is optional and the reasons for
   doing it are discussed in Section 5.

   As in the baseline encoding, this extension encoding re-uses the ECN
   bits within the IP header within a controlled PCN-domain.  This
   extension requires the use of two DSCPs as described later in this
   document.  This experimental scheme is one of three that are being
   proposed within the PCN working group.  The aim is to allow
   implementors to decide which scheme is most suitable for possible
   future standardisation.

   Following the publication of new rules relating to the tunnelling of
   ECN marks [RFC6040], the PCN workign group decided to obsolete
   [RFC5696] in favour of the 3-in-1 encoding
   [I-D.ietf-pcn-3-in-1-encoding].  A side-effect of this decision was
   to make the encoding described in this document obsolete.  However
   the PCN working group feels it is useful to have a formal historical
   record of this encoding.  This ensures details of the encoding are
   not lost and also allows it to be cited in other documents.






Moncaster, et al.      Expires September 13, 2012               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft            3 State PCN Encoding                March 2012


1.1.  Changes from Previous Drafts (to be removed by the RFC Editor)

   From draft-ietf-pcn-3-state-encoding-01 to 02:

   o  Changed the document from teh experimental to the historic track

   o  Added notes to the Introduciton and Abstract explaining the change
      to historical

   o  Updated refs

   From draft-ietf-pcn-3-state-encoding-00 to 01:

   o  Removed text implying the two DSCPs have different priority and
      added Section 6.3 specifying they must both have the same PHB.

   o  Made IANA considerations text more precise.

   o  Changed variable names for DSCP 1 & DSCP 2 to DSCP n & DSCP m to
      be consistent with baseline encoding.

   o  Updated refs

   From draft-moncaster-pcn-3-state-encoding-01 to
   draft-ietf-pcn-3-state-encoding-00:

   o  Changed to WG draft.  Title changed from "A three state extended
      PCN encoding scheme"

   o  Imposed new structure on document.  This structure is intended to
      be followed by all extensions to the baseline PCN encoding scheme.

   o  Extensive changes throughout to ensure consistency with the
      baseline PCN encoding scheme.

   From draft-moncaster-pcn-3-state-encoding-00 to 01:

   o  Checked terminology for consistency with [RFC5696]

   o  Minor editorial changes.


2.  Requirements notation

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].




Moncaster, et al.      Expires September 13, 2012               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft            3 State PCN Encoding                March 2012


3.  Terminology

   Most of the terminology used in this document is defined either in
   [RFC5559] or in [RFC5696].  The following additional terms are
   defined in this document:

   o  PCN-flow - a flow covered by a reservation but which hasn't
      signalled that it requires end-to-end ECN support.

   o  PCN-enabled-ECN-flow - a flow covered by reservation and for which
      the end-to-end transport has explicitly negotiated ECN support
      from the PCN-boundary-nodes.

   o  Not-marked (xxx), where xxx represents a standard ECN codepoint -
      packets that are PCN capable but carry no PCN mark.  Abbreviated
      as NM(xxx).  The (xxx) represents the ECN codepoint that the
      packet arrived with at the PCN-ingress-node e.g.  NM(CE)
      represents a PCN capable packet that has no PCN marking but which
      arrived with the ECN bits set to congestion experienced.


4.  The Requirement for Three PCN Encoding States

   The PCN Marking Behaviours document [RFC5670] describes proposed PCN
   schemes that require traffic to be metered and marked using both
   Threshold and Excess Traffic schemes.  In order to achieve this it is
   necessary to allow for three PCN encoding states.  The constraints
   imposed by the way tunnels process the ECN field severely limit how
   to encode these states as explained in [RFC5696] and [RFC6040].  The
   obvious way to provide one more encoding state than the base encoding
   is through the use of an additional PCN-compatible DiffServ
   codepoint.

   One aim of this document is to allow for experiments to show whether
   such schemes are better than those that only employ two PCN encoding
   states.  As such, the additional DSCP will be taken from the EXP/LU
   pools defined in [RFC2474].  If the experiments demonstrate that PCN
   schemes employing three encoding states are significantly better than
   those only employing two, then at a later date IANA might be asked to
   assign a new PCN enabled DSCP from pool 1.  Note that there are other
   experimental encoding schemes being considered which only use one
   DSCP but require either alternative tunnel semantics
   ([I-D.ietf-pcn-3-in-1-encoding]) or additional signalling
   ([I-D.ietf-pcn-psdm-encoding])in order to work.







Moncaster, et al.      Expires September 13, 2012               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft            3 State PCN Encoding                March 2012


5.  Adding Limited End-to-End ECN Support to PCN

   There are a number of use-cases where explicit preservation of end-
   to-end ECN semantics might be needed across a PCN domain.  One of the
   use-cases suggests that the end-nodes might be running rate-adaptive
   codecs that would respond to ECN marks by reducing their transmission
   rate.  If the sending transport sets the ECT codepoint, the setting
   of the ECN field as it arrives at the PCN ingress node will need to
   be re-instated as it leaves the PCN egress node.

   If a PCN region is starting to suffer pre-congestion then it may make
   sense to expose marks generated within the PCN region by forwarding
   CE marks from the PCN egress to such a rate-adaptive endpoint.  They
   would be in addition to any CE marks generated elsewhere on the end-
   to-end path.  This would allow the endpoints to reduce the traffic
   rate.  This will in turn help to alleviate the pre-congestion,
   potentially averting any need for call blocking or termination.
   However, the 'leaking' of CE marks out of the PCN region is
   potentially dangerous and could violate [RFC4774] if the end hosts
   don't understand ECN (see section 18.1.4 of [RFC3168]).

   Therefore, a PCN region can only support end-to-end ECN if the PCN-
   boundary-nodes are sure that the end-to-end transport is ECN-capable.
   That way the PCN-egress-nodes can ensure that they only expose CE
   marks to those receivers that will correctly interpret them as a
   notification of congestion.  The end-points may indicate they are
   ECN-capable through some higher-layer signalling process that sets up
   their reservation with the PCN boundary nodes.  The exact process of
   negotiation is beyond the scope of this document but is likely to
   involve explicit two way signalling between the end-host and the PCN-
   domain.

   In the absence of such signalling the default behaviour of the PCN
   egress node will be to clear the ECN field to 00 as in the baseline
   PCN encoding [RFC5696].


6.  Encoding Three PCN States in IP

   The three state PCN encoding scheme is based closely on that defined
   in [RFC5696] so that there will be no compatibility issues if a PCN-
   domain changes from using the baseline encoding scheme to the
   experimental scheme described here.  There are two versions of the
   scheme.  The basic three state scheme allows for carrying both
   Threshold-marked (ThM) and Excess-traffic-marked (ETM) traffic.  The
   full scheme additionally allows end-to-end ECN to be carried across
   the PCN-domain.




Moncaster, et al.      Expires September 13, 2012               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft            3 State PCN Encoding                March 2012


6.1.  Basic Three State Encoding

   Table 1 below shows how to encode the three PCN states in IP.

      +--------+--------------+-------------+-------------+---------+
      |  DSCP  | Not-ECT (00) | ECT(0) (10) | ECT(1) (01) | CE (11) |
      +--------+--------------+-------------+-------------+---------+
      | DSCP n |    Not-PCN   |      NM     |      CU     |   ThM   |
      | DSCP m |    Not-PCN   |      CU     |      CU     |   ETM   |
      +--------+--------------+-------------+-------------+---------+

   (where DSCP n is a PCN-compatible DiffServ codepoint (see [RFC5696])
   and DSCP m is a PCN-compatible DSCP from the EXP/LU pools as defined
                               in [RFC2474])

                 Table 1: Encoding three PCN states in IP

6.2.  Full Three State Encoding

   Table 2 shows how to additionally carry the end-to-end ECN state in
   the IP header.

      +--------+--------------+-------------+-------------+---------+
      |  DSCP  | Not-ECT (00) | ECT(0) (10) | ECT(1) (01) | CE (11) |
      +--------+--------------+-------------+-------------+---------+
      | DSCP n |    Not-PCN   | NM(Not-ECT) |    NM(CE)   |   ThM   |
      | DSCP m |    Not-PCN   |  NM(ECT(0)) |  NM(ECT(1)) |   ETM   |
      +--------+--------------+-------------+-------------+---------+

   (where DSCP n is a PCN-compatible DiffServ codepoint (see [RFC5696])
   and DSCP m is a PCN-compatible DSCP from the EXP/LU pools as defined
                               in [RFC2474])

                 Table 2: Encoding three PCN states in IP

   The four different Not-marked (NM) states allow for the addition of
   limited end-to-end ECN support as explained in the previous section.

   WARNING:  In order to comply with this encoding all the nodes within
      the PCN-domain MUST be configured with this encoding scheme.
      However there may be operators who choose not to be fully
      compliant with the scheme.  If an operator chooses to leave some
      PCN-interior-nodes that only support two marking states (the
      baseline encoding [RFC5696]), then they must be aware of the
      following: Ideally such nodes would be configured to indicate pre-
      congestion or congestion using the ETM state since this would
      ensure they could notify worst-case congestion, however this is
      not possible since it requires the packets to be re-marked to DSCP



Moncaster, et al.      Expires September 13, 2012               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft            3 State PCN Encoding                March 2012


      m (hence altering the baseline encoding).  This means that such
      nodes will only be able to indicate ThM traffic.

6.3.  Common Diffserv Per-Hop Behaviour

   Packets carrying Diffserv codepoint 'DSCP n' or 'DSCP m' MUST all be
   treated with the same Diffserv PHB [RFC2474].  The choice of PHB is
   discussed in [RFC5559] and [RFC5696].

   Two DSCPs are merely used to provide sufficient PCN encoding states,
   there is no need or intention to provide different scheduling or drop
   preference for each row in the table of PCN codepoints.
   Specifically:

   o  Both DSCPs MUST be served in the same queue to prevent reordering
      within an application flow.

   o  Both DSCPs MUST be assigned the same drop preference.  Note that
      [RFC5670] already provides for preferential drop of excess-rate-
      marked packets, so assigning additional drop preference at the
      coarser granularity of each DSCP would be incorrect.

6.4.  Valid and invalid codepoint transitions at PCN-ingress-nodes

   A PCN-ingress-node operating the Basic version of the 3-State
   Encoding scheme MUST set the Not-marked codepoint on any arriving
   packet that belongs to a PCN-flow.  It MUST set the not-PCN codepoint
   on any other packet.

   A PCN-ingress-node operating the Full version of the 3-State Encoding
   scheme MUST establish whether a packet is a member of a PCN-enabled-
   ECN-flow.  If it is, the PCN-ingress-node MUST set the appropriate
   NM(xxx) codepoint depending on the value carried in the ECN field of
   that packet.  To be clear:

   o  A packet carrying the not-ECT codepoint in the ECN field MUST be
      assigned the NM(not-ECT) codepoint

   o  A packet carrying the ECT(0) codepoint in the ECN field MUST be
      assigned the NM(ECT(0)) codepoint

   o  A packet carrying the ECT(1) codepoint in the ECN field MUST be
      assigned the NM(ECT(1)) codepoint

   o  A packet carrying the CE codepoint in the ECN field MUST be
      assigned the NM(CE) codepoint

   If it is not a member of such a flow then the behaviour MUST be the



Moncaster, et al.      Expires September 13, 2012               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft            3 State PCN Encoding                March 2012


   same as for the Basic version of the Encoding scheme.

6.5.  Valid and invalid codepoint transitions at PCN-interior-nodes

   A PCN-interior-node MUST obey the following rules:

   o  It MUST NOT change the not-PCN codepoint to any other codepoint.

   o  It MAY change any Not-marked codepoint to either the Threshold-
      marked or Excess-traffic-marked codepoints.

   o  It MUST NOT change a Not-marked codepoint to the not-PCN
      codepoint.

   o  A Not-marked codepoint MUST NOT be changed to any other Not-marked
      codepoint.

   o  It MAY change the ThM codepoint to the ETM codepoint but it MUST
      NOT change the ThM codepoint to any other codepoint.

   o  It MUST NOT change the ETM codepoint to any other codepoint.

   Obviously in every case a codepoint can remain unchanged.  The
   precise rules governing which valid transition to use are set out in
   [RFC5670]

6.6.  Forwarding traffic out of the PCN-domain

   As each packet exits the PCN-domain, the PCN-egress-node MUST check
   whether it belongs to a PCN-enabled-ECN-flow.  If it belongs to such
   a flow then the following rules dictate how the ECN field should be
   reset:

   o  A packet carrying the not-PCN codepoint MUST be given the not-ECT
      codepoint.

   o  A packet carrying the NM(not-ECT) codepoint MUST be assigned the
      not-ECT codepoint.

   o  A packet carrying the NM(ECT(0)) codepoint MUST be assigned the
      ECT(0) codepoint.

   o  A packet carrying the NM(ECT(1)) codepoint MUST be assigned the
      ECT(1) codepoint.

   o  A packet carrying the NM(CE) codepoint MUST be assigned the CE
      codepoint.




Moncaster, et al.      Expires September 13, 2012              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft            3 State PCN Encoding                March 2012


   o  A packet carrying the ThM codepoint MUST be assigned CE codepoint.

   o  A packet carrying the ETM codepoint MUST be assigned CE codepoint.

   If the packet is part of a PCN-flow then it MUST be assigned the not-
   ECT codepoint regardless of which PCN-codepoint it carried.

   In addition all packets should have their DSCP reset to the
   appropriate DSCP for the next hop.  If the next hop is not another
   PCN region this will not be a PCN-compatible DSCP, and by default
   will be the best-efforts DSCP.  Alterntively, higher layer signalling
   mechanisms may allow the DSCP that packets entered the PCN-domain
   with to be reinstated.


7.  PCN-domain support for the PCN extension encoding

   PCN traffic MUST be marked with a DiffServ codepoint that indicates
   PCN is enabled.  To comply with the PCN extension encoding, codepoint
   'DSCP n' MUST be a PCN-compatible DSCP assigned by IANA for use with
   the baseline PCN encoding [RFC5696] while 'DSCP m' can be a DSCP from
   pools 2 or 3 for experimental and local use [RFC2474].  The exact
   choice of DSCP may vary between PCN-domains but MUST be fixed within
   each PCN-domain.

7.1.  End-to-End transport behaviour compliant with the PCN extension
      encoding

   Transports wishing to use both PCN and end-to-end ECN MUST establish
   that their path supports this combination.  Support of end-to-end ECN
   by PCN-boundary-nodes is OPTIONAL.  Therefore transports MUST check
   with both the PCN-ingress-node and PCN-egress-node for each flow.
   The sending of such a request MUST NOT be taken to mean the request
   has been granted.  The PCN-boundary-nodes MAY choose to inform the
   end-node of a successful request.  The exact mechanism for such
   negotiation is beyond the scope of this document.  A transport that
   receives no response or a negative response to a request to support
   end-to-end ECN within a flow reservation MUST set the ECN field of
   all subsequent packets in that flow to Not-ECT if it wishes to
   guarantee that the flow will receive PCN treatment.

   If a domain wishes to use the full scheme described in Table 2 all
   nodes in that domain MUST be configured to understand the full
   scheme.

   If either of a PCN ingress-egress pair does not support end-to-end
   ECN or if the end-to-end transport does not request support for end-
   to-end ECN then the PCN-boundary-nodes MUST assume the packet belongs



Moncaster, et al.      Expires September 13, 2012              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft            3 State PCN Encoding                March 2012


   to a PCN-flow.


8.  IANA Considerations

   This document asks IANA to assign one DiffServ codepoint from Pool 2
   or Pool 3 (for experimental/local use)[RFC2474].  Should this
   experimental PCN scheme prove sufficiently successful then IANA will
   be requested in a later document to assign a dedicated DiffServ
   codepoint from pool 1 for standards use and the experimental
   codepoint will be returned to its IANA pool.


9.  Security Considerations

   The security concerns relating to this extended PCN encoding are
   essentially the same as those in [RFC5696].

   This extension coding gives end-to-end support for the ECN nonce
   [RFC3540], which is intended to protect the sender against the
   receiver or against network elements concealing a congestion
   experienced marking or a lost packet.  PCN-based reservations
   combined with end-to-end ECN are intended for partially inelastic
   traffic using rate-adaptive codecs.  Therefore the end-to-end
   transport is unlikely to be TCP, but at this time the nonce has only
   been defined for TCP transports.


10.  Conclusions

   This document describes an extended encoding scheme for PCN that
   provides for three encoding states as well as optional support for
   end-to-end ECN.  The encoding scheme builds on the baseline encoding
   described in [RFC5696].  Using this encoding scheme it is possible
   for operators to conduct experiments to check whether the addition of
   an extra encoding state will significantly improve the performance of
   PCN.  It will also allow experiments to determine whether there is a
   need for end-to-end ECN support within the PCN-domain (as against
   end-to-end ECN support through the use of IP-in-IP tunnelling or by
   downgrading the traffic to a lower service class).


11.  Acknowledgements

   This document builds extensively on work done in the PCN working
   group by Kwok Ho Chan, Georgios Karagiannis, Philip Eardley, Joe
   Babiarz and others.  Full details of alternative schemes that were
   considered for adoption can be found in the document



Moncaster, et al.      Expires September 13, 2012              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft            3 State PCN Encoding                March 2012


   [I-D.ietf-pcn-encoding-comparison].


12.  Comments Solicited

   (Section to be removed by RFC_Editor) Comments and questions are
   encouraged and very welcome.  They can be addressed to the IETF
   Transport Area working group mailing list <tsvwg@ietf.org>, and/or to
   the authors.


13.  References

13.1.  Normative References

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

   [RFC4774]  Floyd, S., "Specifying Alternate Semantics for the
              Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Field", BCP 124,
              RFC 4774, November 2006.

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

   [RFC5696]  Moncaster, T., Briscoe, B., and M. Menth, "Baseline
              Encoding and Transport of Pre-Congestion Information",
              RFC 5696, November 2009.

13.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-pcn-3-in-1-encoding]
              Briscoe, B., Moncaster, T., and M. Menth, "Encoding 3 PCN-
              States in the IP header using a single DSCP",
              draft-ietf-pcn-3-in-1-encoding-09 (work in progress),
              March 2012.

   [I-D.ietf-pcn-encoding-comparison]
              Karagiannis, G., Chan, K., Moncaster, T., Menth, M.,
              Eardley, P., and B. Briscoe, "Overview of Pre-Congestion
              Notification Encoding",
              draft-ietf-pcn-encoding-comparison-09 (work in progress),
              March 2012.

   [I-D.ietf-pcn-psdm-encoding]
              Menth, M., Babiarz, J., Moncaster, T., and B. Briscoe,
              "PCN Encoding for Packet-Specific Dual Marking (PSDM
              Encoding)", draft-ietf-pcn-psdm-encoding-01 (work in



Moncaster, et al.      Expires September 13, 2012              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft            3 State PCN Encoding                March 2012


              progress), March 2010.

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

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

   [RFC3540]  Spring, N., Wetherall, D., and D. Ely, "Robust Explicit
              Congestion Notification (ECN) Signaling with Nonces",
              RFC 3540, June 2003.

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

   [RFC6040]  Briscoe, B., "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion
              Notification", RFC 6040, November 2010.


Authors' Addresses

   Toby Moncaster
   University of Cambridge
   Computer Laboratory
   JJ Thomson Avenue
   Cambridge  CB3 0FD
   UK

   Phone: +44 1223 763654
   Email: toby@moncaster.com


   Bob Briscoe
   BT
   B54/77, Adastral Park
   Martlesham Heath
   Ipswich  IP5 3RE
   UK

   Phone: +44 1473 645196
   Email: bob.briscoe@bt.com
   URI:   http://www.bobbriscoe.net






Moncaster, et al.      Expires September 13, 2012              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft            3 State PCN Encoding                March 2012


   Michael Menth
   University of Tuebingen
   Department of Computer Science
   Sand 13
   Tuebingen  D-72076
   Germany

   Phone: +49 07071 29 70505
   Email: menth@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de
   URI:   http://www.kn.inf.uni-tuebingen.de









































Moncaster, et al.      Expires September 13, 2012              [Page 15]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/