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

Versions: (draft-taylor-pcn-cl-edge-behaviour) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 RFC 6661

Internet Engineering Task Force                                A. Charny
Internet-Draft                                             Cisco Systems
Intended status: Informational                                  F. Huang
Expires: December 24, 2010                           Huawei Technologies
                                                          G. Karagiannis
                                                               U. Twente
                                                                M. Menth
                                                 University of Wuerzburg
                                                          T. Taylor, Ed.
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                           June 22, 2010


    PCN Boundary Node Behaviour for the Controlled Load (CL) Mode of
                               Operation
                  draft-ietf-pcn-cl-edge-behaviour-03

Abstract

   Precongestion notification (PCN) is a means for protecting quality of
   service for inelastic traffic admitted to a Diffserv domain.  The
   overall PCN architecture is described in RFC 5559.  This memo is one
   of a series describing possible boundary node behaviours for a PCN
   domain.  The behaviour described here is that for a form of
   measurement-based load control using three PCN marking states, not
   PCN-marked, threshold-marked, and excess-traffic-marked.  This
   behaviour is known informally as the Controlled Load (CL) PCN edge
   behaviour.

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 December 24, 2010.

Copyright Notice




Charny, et al.          Expires December 24, 2010               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft       PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour            June 2010


   Copyright (c) 2010 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.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Assumed Core Network Behaviour for CL  . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Node Behaviours  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.1.  Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.2.  Behaviour of the PCN-Egress-Node   . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       3.2.1.  Data Collection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       3.2.2.  Reporting the PCN Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
         3.2.2.1.  Reporting of Rates Without Congestion Level
                   Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
         3.2.2.2.  Reporting of Calculated Rates and Congestion
                   Level Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.3.  Behaviour of the Ingress Node  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.4.  Behaviour at the Decision Point  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       3.4.1.  Flow Admission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       3.4.2.  Flow Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       3.4.3.  Decision Point Action For Missing Egress Node
               Reports  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     3.5.  Summary of Timers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   4.  Identifying Ingress and Egress Nodes for PCN Traffic . . . . . 11
   5.  Specification of Diffserv Per-Domain Behaviour   . . . . . . . 11
     5.1.  Applicability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.2.  Technical Specification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.3.  Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.4.  Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.5.  Assumptions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.6.  Example Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.7.  Environmental Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     5.8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   8.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14



Charny, et al.          Expires December 24, 2010               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft       PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour            June 2010


   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16















































Charny, et al.          Expires December 24, 2010               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft       PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour            June 2010


1.  Introduction

   The objective of Pre-Congestion Notification (PCN) is to protect the
   quality of service (QoS) of inelastic flows within a Diffserv domain,
   in a simple, scalable, and robust fashion.  Two mechanisms are used:
   admission control, to decide whether to admit or block a new flow
   request, and (in abnormal circumstances) flow termination to decide
   whether to terminate some of the existing flows.  To achieve this,
   the overall rate of PCN-traffic is metered on every link in the
   domain, and PCN-packets are appropriately marked when certain
   configured rates are exceeded.  These configured rates are below the
   rate of the link thus providing notification to boundary nodes about
   overloads before any congestion occurs (hence the "pre" part of pre-
   congestion notification).  The level of marking allows decisions to
   be made on whether to admit or terminate individual flows.  For more
   details see [RFC5559].

   Boundary node behaviours specify a detailed set of algorithms and
   edge node behaviours used to implement the PCN mechanisms.  Since the
   algorithms depend on specific metering and marking behaviour at the
   interior nodes, it is also necessary to specify the assumptions made
   about interior node behaviour.  Finally, because PCN uses DSCP values
   to carry its markings, a specification of boundary node behaviour
   must include the per domain behaviour (PDB) template specified in
   [RFC3086], filled out with the appropriate content.  The present
   document accomplishes these tasks for the controlled load (CL) mode
   of operation.

1.1.  Terminology

   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 [RFC2119].

   In addition to the terms defined in [RFC5559], this document uses the
   following terms:

   decision point
      The node that makes the decision about which flows to admit and to
      terminate.  In a given network deployment, this may be the ingress
      node or a centralized control node.  Regardless of the location of
      the decision point, the ingress node is the point where the
      decisions are enforced.

   PCN-admission-state
      The state ("admit" or "block") derived by the decision point for a
      given ingress-egress-aggregate based on PCN packet marking
      statistics.  The decision point decides to admit or block new



Charny, et al.          Expires December 24, 2010               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft       PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour            June 2010


      flows offered to the aggregate based on the current value of the
      PCN-admission-state.  For further details see Section 3.4.1.

   Congestion level estimate (CLE)
      A value derived from the measurement of PCN packets received at a
      PCN-egress-node for a given ingress-egress-aggregate, representing
      the ratio of marked to total PCN traffic (measured in octets) over
      a short period.  For further details see Section 3.2.

   Admission decision threshold
      A fractional value to which the decision point compares the CLE to
      determine the PCN-admission-state for a given ingress-egress
      aggregate.  If the CLE is below the admission decision threshold
      the PCN-admission-state is set to "admit".  If the CLE is above
      the admission decision threshold the PCN-admission-state is set to
      "block".  For further details see Section 3.4.1.


2.  Assumed Core Network Behaviour for CL

   This section describes the assumed behaviour for nodes of the PCN-
   domain when acting in their role as PCN-interior-nodes.  The CL mode
   of operation assumes that:

   o  encoding of PCN status within individual packets is based on
      [RFC5696], extended to provide a third PCN encoding state.
      Possible extensions for this purpose are documented in
      [ID.PCN3state] or alternatively [ID.PCN3in1];

   o  the domain satisfies the conditions specified in the applicable
      encoding extension document;

   o  on each link the reference rate for the threshold meter is
      configured to be equal to the PCN-admissible-rate for the link;

   o  on each link the reference rate for the excess traffic meter is
      configured to be equal to the PCN-supportable-rate for the link;

   o  PCN-interior-nodes perform threshold-marking and excess-traffic-
      marking of packets according to the rules specified in [RFC5670],
      and any additional rules specified in the applicable encoding
      extension document;

   According to [RFC5696], the encoding extension documents should
   specify the allowable transitions between marking states.  However,
   to be absolutely clear, these allowable transitions are specified
   here.  At any interior node, the only permitted transitions are
   these:



Charny, et al.          Expires December 24, 2010               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft       PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour            June 2010


   o  a PCN packet which is not-marked (NM) MAY be threshold-marked
      (ThM) or excess-traffic-marked (ETM);

   o  a PCN packet which is threshold-marked (ThM) MAY be excess-
      traffic-marked (ETM).

   An interior node MUST NOT re-mark a packet from PCN to non-PCN, or
   vice versa.


3.  Node Behaviours

3.1.  Overview

   This section describes the behaviour of the PCN ingress and egress
   nodes and the decision point (which may be collocated with the
   ingress node).  The PCN egress node collects and reports the rates of
   not-marked, threshold-marked, and excess-traffic-marked PCN traffic
   to the decision point.  It may also identify individual flows that
   have experienced excess-traffic-marking.  For a detailed description,
   see Section 3.2.

   The PCN ingress node reports the rate of PCN traffic admitted to a
   given ingress-egress aggregate when requested by the decision point.
   It also enforces flow admission and termination decisions.  For
   details, see Section 3.3.

   Finally, the decision point makes flow admission decisions and
   selects flows to terminate based on the information provided by the
   ingress and egress nodes for a given ingress-egress-aggregate.  For
   details, see Section 3.4.

3.2.  Behaviour of the PCN-Egress-Node

3.2.1.  Data Collection

   The PCN-egress-node MUST meter received PCN traffic in order to
   derive periodically the following rates for each ingress-egress-
   aggregate passing through it:

   o  NM-rate: octets per second of PCN traffic in packets which are not
      PCN-marked;

   o  ThM-rate: octets per second of PCN traffic in PCN-threshold-
      marked packets;

   o  ETM-rate: octets per second of PCN traffic in PCN-excess-marked
      packets.



Charny, et al.          Expires December 24, 2010               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft       PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour            June 2010


   It is RECOMMENDED that the interval Tcalc between calculation of
   these quantities be in the range of 100 to 500 ms to provide a
   reasonable tradeoff between signalling demands on the network and the
   time taken to react to impending congestion.

   The PCN-traffic SHOULD be metered continuously and the intervals
   themselves SHOULD be of equal length, to minimize the statistical
   variance introduced by the measurement process itself.

   In networks with multipath routing, the PCN-egress-node SHOULD record
   flow identifiers of the individual flows for which excess-traffic-
   marked packets have been observed.  These can be used by the decision
   point when it selects flows for termination.

3.2.2.  Reporting the PCN Data

   Depending on configuration, the PCN-egress-node MUST adopt one of the
   two alternative reporting strategies described in the next two sub-
   sections.  Both reporting behaviours require that a report be sent at
   least once per configurable interval Tmax to demonstrate liveness,
   even if all of the calculated values are zero.

      Depending on the transport used for reporting, the operator may
      choose to set Tmax to an effectively infinite value.  For example,
      the transport may include its own keep-alive signalling at a
      sufficiently frequent interval that liveness is not a concern for
      PCN.

   For either strategy, if so configured and if excess-traffic-marked
   packets were observed during the measurement interval, the PCN-
   egress-node MUST also report the set of flow identifiers of flows
   experiencing excess-traffic-marking.

3.2.2.1.  Reporting of Rates Without Congestion Level Estimate

   According to this alternative, after calculating the rates listed
   above, the PCN-egress-node SHOULD report the latest calculated rates
   to the decision point.  To reduce the volume of signalling, the PCN-
   egress node MAY choose not to send a report for a given ingress-
   egress aggregate if the following conditions are all satisfied:

   o  No PCN traffic was observed for the given aggregate in the latest
      interval.

   o  No PCN traffic was observed for the given aggregate in the next-
      to-latest interval.





Charny, et al.          Expires December 24, 2010               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft       PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour            June 2010


   o  Less than time Tmax has elapsed since the last time the PCN-
      egress-node sent a report to the decision point for the given
      aggregate.

3.2.2.2.  Reporting of Calculated Rates and Congestion Level Estimate

   According to this alternative, after calculating the rates listed
   above, the PCN-egress-node also calculates a congestion level
   estimate (CLE) for the measurement interval, for each ingress-egress-
   aggregate.  The CLE is equal to the ratio:

      (ThM-Rate + ETM-Rate) / (NM-rate + ThM-rate + ETM-rate)

   if any PCN traffic was observed, or zero otherwise.

   The PCN-egress-node SHOULD report the latest calculated rates and the
   CLE to the decision point.  To reduce the volume of signalling, the
   PCN-egress node MAY choose not to send a report for a given ingress-
   egress aggregate if the following conditions are all satisfied:

   o  The CLE calculated for the given aggregate in the latest interval
      is less than a configurable reporting threshold CLErep.

   o  The CLE calculated for the given aggregate in the next-to-latest
      interval is also less than CLErep.

   o  No excess-traffic-marked packets were observed during the latest
      interval.

   o  Less than time Tmax has elapsed since the last time the PCN-
      egress-node sent a report to the decision point for the given
      aggregate.

3.3.  Behaviour of the Ingress Node

   The PCN-ingress-node MUST provide the estimated current rate of
   admitted PCN traffic (octets per second) for a specific ingress-
   egress-aggregate when the decision point requests it.  The way this
   rate estimate is derived is a matter of implementation.

      For example, the rate that the PCN-ingress-node supplies MAY be
      based on a quick sample taken at the time the information is
      required.  It is RECOMMENDED that such a sample be based on
      observation of at least 30 PCN packets to achieve reasonable
      statistical reliability.






Charny, et al.          Expires December 24, 2010               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft       PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour            June 2010


3.4.  Behaviour at the Decision Point

   Operators may choose to deploy just flow admission, or just flow
   termination.  The decision point MUST implement both mechanisms, but
   configurable options MUST be provided to activate or deactivate PCN-
   based flow admission and flow termination independently of each other
   at a given decision point.

3.4.1.  Flow Admission

   When the decision point receives a report from the egress node for a
   given ingress-egress-aggregate that contains non-zero rates, it
   calculates the CLE as described in Section 3.2.2.2 if the CLE is not
   present in the report.  The decision point MUST compare the CLE to an
   admission decision threshold CLElimit.  If the CLE is less than the
   threshold, the PCN-admission-state for that aggregate MUST be set
   to "admit"; otherwise it MUST be set to "block".

      The outcome of the comparison is not very sensitive to the value
      of the admission decision threshold in practice, because when
      marking occurs it tends to persist long enough that marked traffic
      becomes a large proportion of the received traffic in a given
      interval.

   If the PCN-admission-state for a given ingress-egress-aggregate is
   "admit", the decision point SHOULD allow new flows to be admitted to
   that aggregate.  If the PCN-admission-state for a given ingress-
   egress-aggregate is "block", the decision point SHOULD NOT allow new
   flows to be admitted to that aggregate.  These actions MAY be
   modified by policy in specific cases.

3.4.2.  Flow Termination

   When the report from the egress node includes a non-zero value of the
   ETM-Rate for the given ingress-egress-aggregate, the decision point
   MUST request the PCN-ingress-node to provide an estimate of the rate
   (Admit-Rate) at which PCN-traffic is being admitted to the aggregate.

      If the decision point is collocated with the ingress node, the
      request and response are internal operations.

   The decision point MUST then wait, both for the requested rate from
   the ingress node and for the next report from the egress node.  If
   this next egress node report also includes a non-zero value for the
   ETM-Rate, the decision point MUST determine an amount of flow to
   terminate in the following steps:





Charny, et al.          Expires December 24, 2010               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft       PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour            June 2010


   1.  The sustainable aggregate rate (SAR) for the given ingress-
       egress-aggregate is estimated by the sum:

          SAR = NM-Rate + ThM-Rate

       for the latest reported interval.

   2.  The amount of traffic that should be terminated is the
       difference:

          Admit-Rate - SAR,

       where Admit-Rate is the value provided by the ingress node.

   If the difference calculated in the second step is positive, the
   decision point SHOULD select flows to terminate using its knowledge
   of the bandwidth required by individual flows gained, e.g., from
   resource signalling, until it determines that the PCN traffic
   admission rate will no longer be greater than the estimated
   sustainable aggregate rate.

      Flow termination MAY be spread out over multiple rounds to avoid
      over-termination.  If this is done, it is RECOMMENDED that enough
      time elapse between successive rounds of termination to allow the
      effects of previous rounds to be reflected in the measurements
      upon which the termination decisions are based (see
      [I-D.satoh-pcn-performance-termination] and sections 4.2 and 4.3
      of [Menth08-sub-9]).

   If the egress node has supplied a list of flow identifiers
   (Section 3.2), the decision point SHOULD first look to terminate
   flows from that list.  In general, the selection of flows for
   termination MAY be guided by policy.

3.4.3.  Decision Point Action For Missing Egress Node Reports

   As mentioned in Section 3.2.2, the egress node MAY choose not to send
   reports for a configurable interval Tmax while the CLE for a given
   ingress-egress-aggregate is below the reporting threshold.  However,
   if the decision point fails to receive reports for a given ingress-
   egress-aggregate for a configurable interval Tfail (of the order of 3
   * Tmax), it SHOULD cease to admit flows to that aggregate and raise
   an alarm to management.  This provides some protection against the
   case where congestion is preventing the transfer of reports from the
   egress node to the decision point.






Charny, et al.          Expires December 24, 2010              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft       PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour            June 2010


3.5.  Summary of Timers

   This section has referred to three timers:

   o  Tcalc: a timer which SHOULD be configurable, specifying the
      frequency with which the PCN-egress-node calculates NM-Rate, ThM-
      Rate, and ETM-Rate and reports them to the decision point.  This
      timer is RECOMMENDED to be of the order of 100 to 500 ms.

   o  Tmax: a configurable timer, specifying the maximum amount of time
      between successive reports from the PCN-egress-node for a given
      ingress-egress-aggregate.  The appropriate value depends on the
      transport used to carry the egress node reports.  For unreliable
      transport, Tmax is RECOMMENDED to be of the order of one second.

   o  Tfail: a configurable timer, specifying the maximum amount of time
      between successive reports for a given ingress-egress-aggregate
      received at the decision point, after which the latter SHOULD
      cease to admit flows to the aggregate concerned and raise an alarm
      to management.  This is RECOMMENDED to be of the order of 3 *
      Tmax.


4.  Identifying Ingress and Egress Nodes for PCN Traffic

   The operation of PCN depends on the ability of the ingress node to
   identify the ingress-egress-aggregate to which each new flow belongs
   and the ability of the egress node to identify the aggregate to which
   each received PCN packet belongs.  If the decision point is
   collocated with the ingress node, the egress node also needs to
   associate each aggregate with the address of the ingress node to
   which it must send its reports.

   The means by which this is done depends on the packet routing
   technology in use in the network.  In general, classification of
   individual packets at the ingress node (for enforcement and metering
   of admission rates) and at the egress node must use the content of
   the outer packet header.  The process may well require configuration
   of routing information in the ingress and egress nodes.


5.  Specification of Diffserv Per-Domain Behaviour

   This section provides the specification required by [RFC3086] for a
   per-domain behaviour.






Charny, et al.          Expires December 24, 2010              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft       PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour            June 2010


5.1.  Applicability

   This section draws heavily upon points made in the PCN architecture
   document, [RFC5559].

   The PCN CL boundary node behaviour specified in this document is
   applicable to inelastic traffic (particularly video and voice) where
   quality of service for admitted flows is protected primarily by
   admission control at the ingress to the domain.  In exceptional
   circumstances (e.g. due to network failures) already-admitted flows
   may be terminated to protect the quality of service of the remaining
   flows.  The CL boundary node behaviour is less likely to terminate
   too many flows under such circumstances than the SM boundary node
   behaviour ([I-D.SM-edge-behaviour]).

5.2.  Technical Specification

   The technical specification of the PCN CL per domain behaviour is
   provided by the contents of [RFC5559], [RFC5696], [RFC5670], the
   specification of the encoding extension (e.g.  [ID.PCN3state],
   [ID.PCN3in1]), and the present document.

5.3.  Attributes

   The purpose of this per-domain behaviour is to achieve low loss and
   jitter for the target class of traffic.  Recovery from overloads
   through the use of flow termination should happen within 1-3 seconds.

5.4.  Parameters

   In the list that follows, note that most PCN-ingress-nodes are also
   egress nodes, and vice versa.  Furthermore, the ingress nodes may be
   collocated with decision points.

   Parameters at the PCN-ingress-node:

   o  Filters for distinguishing PCN from non-PCN inbound traffic.

   o  The DSCP(s) to be used to mark PCN traffic.

   o  Reference rates on each inward link for the PCN-threshold-rate and
      PCN-excess-rate; see Section 2.

   o  The information needed to distinguish PCN traffic belonging to a
      given ingress-egress-aggregate.

   Parameters at the PCN-egress-node:




Charny, et al.          Expires December 24, 2010              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft       PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour            June 2010


   o  The calculation interval Tcalc and the maximum interval between
      reports, Tmax.

   o  The choice between reporting rates without CLE or rates with CLE.

   o  The choice between reporting every interval or omitting reports
      when the conditions specified in the relevant sub-section of
      Section 3.2.2 are satisfied.

   o  In the case of rate reporting with CLE and omitting reports when
      CLE is below a reporting threshold, the value CLErep of that
      threshold.

   o  The information needed to distinguish PCN traffic belonging to a
      given ingress-egress-aggregate.

   o  The marking rules for re-marking PCN traffic leaving the PCN
      domain.

   Parameters at each interior node:

   o  Reference rates on each link for the PCN-threshold-rate and PCN-
      excess-rate; see Section 2.

   Parameters at the decision point:

   o  Activation/deactivation of PCN-based flow admission.

   o  Activation/deactivation of PCN-based flow termination.

   o  The admission decision threshold CLElimit.

   o  The timer Tfail for detecting failure of communications with the
      egress node.

   o  The information needed to map between each ingress-egress-
      aggregate and its edgepoints, particularly the corresponding
      ingress node.

5.5.  Assumptions

   Assumed that a specific portion of link capacity has been reserved
   for PCN traffic.

5.6.  Example Uses

   The PCN CL behaviour may be used to carry real-time traffic,
   particularly voice and video.



Charny, et al.          Expires December 24, 2010              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft       PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour            June 2010


5.7.  Environmental Concerns

   The PCN CL per-domain behaviour may interfere with the use of end-
   to-end ECN due to reuse of ECN bits for PCN marking.  See the
   applicable PCN marking specifications for details.

5.8.  Security Considerations

   Please see the security considerations in Section 6 as well as those
   in [RFC2474] and [RFC2475].


6.  Security Considerations

   [RFC5559] provides a general description of the security
   considerations for PCN.  This memo introduces no new considerations.


7.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.


8.  Acknowledgements

   The content of this memo bears a family resemblance to
   [ID.briscoe-CL].  The authors of that document were Bob Briscoe,
   Philip Eardley, and Dave Songhurst of BT, Anna Charny and Francois Le
   Faucheur of Cisco, Jozef Babiarz, Kwok Ho Chan, and Stephen Dudley of
   Nortel, Giorgios Karagiannis of U. Twente and Ericsson, and Attila
   Bader and Lars Westberg of Ericsson.

   Ruediger Geib, Philip Eardley, and Bob Briscoe have helped to shape
   the present document with their comments.


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

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

   [RFC2475]  Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
              and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
              Services", RFC 2475, December 1998.



Charny, et al.          Expires December 24, 2010              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft       PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour            June 2010


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

   [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.

9.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.SM-edge-behaviour]
              Charny, A., Zhang, J., Karagiannis, G., Menth, M., and T.
              Taylor, "PCN Boundary Node Behaviour for the Single
              Marking (SM) Mode of Operation (Work in progress)",
              June 2010.

   [I-D.babiarz-pcn-explicit-marking]
              Liu, X. and J. Babiarz, "Simulations Results for 3sM
              (expired Internet Draft)", July 2007.

   [I-D.satoh-pcn-performance-termination]
              Satoh, D., Ueno, H., and M. Menth, "Performance Evaluation
              of Termination in CL-Algorithm (Work in progress)",
              July 2009.

   [I-D.zhang-pcn-performance-evaluation]
              Zhang, X., "Performance Evaluation of CL-PHB Admission and
              Termination Algorithms (expired Internet Draft)",
              July 2007.

   [ID.PCN3in1]
              Briscoe, B., "PCN 3-State Encoding Extension in a single
              DSCP (Work in progress)", February 2010.

   [ID.PCN3state]
              Moncaster, T., Briscoe, B., and M. Menth, "A PCN encoding
              using 2 DSCPs to provide 3 or more states (Work in
              progress)", February 2010.

   [ID.briscoe-CL]
              Briscoe, B., "An edge-to-edge Deployment Model for Pre-
              Congestion Notification:  Admission Control over a
              DiffServ Region (expired Internet Draft)", 2006.

   [Menth08-sub-9]
              Menth, M. and F. Lehrieder, "PCN-Based Measured Rate



Charny, et al.          Expires December 24, 2010              [Page 15]

Internet-Draft       PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour            June 2010


              Termination", July 2009, <http://www3.informatik.uni-
              wuerzburg.de/~menth/Publications/papers/
              Menth08-Sub-9.pdf>.

   [Menth08f]
              Menth, M. and F. Lehrieder, "Performance Evaluation of
              PCN-Based Admission Control", in Proceedings of the 16th
              International Workshop on Quality of Service (IWQoS)",
              June 2008, <http://www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/
              ~menth/Publications/papers/Menth08f.pdf>.

   [RFC3086]  Nichols, K. and B. Carpenter, "Definition of
              Differentiated Services Per Domain Behaviors and Rules for
              their Specification", RFC 3086, April 2001.


Authors' Addresses

   Anna Charny
   Cisco Systems
   300 Apollo Drive
   Chelmsford, MA  01824
   USA

   Email: acharny@cisco.com


   Fortune Huang
   Huawei Technologies
   Section F, Huawei Industrial Base,
   Bantian Longgang, Shenzhen  518129
   P.R. China

   Phone: +86 15013838060
   Email: fqhuang@huawei.com


   Georgios Karagiannis
   U. Twente


   Phone:
   Email: karagian@cs.utwente.nl








Charny, et al.          Expires December 24, 2010              [Page 16]

Internet-Draft       PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour            June 2010


   Michael Menth
   University of Wuerzburg
   Am Hubland
   Wuerzburg  D-97074
   Germany

   Phone: +49-931-888-6644
   Email: menth@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de


   Tom Taylor (editor)
   Huawei Technologies
   1852 Lorraine Ave
   Ottawa, Ontario  K1H 6Z8
   Canada

   Phone: +1 613 680 2675
   Email: tom111.taylor@bell.net

































Charny, et al.          Expires December 24, 2010              [Page 17]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/