[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [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: March 8, 2011                               Huawei Technologies
                                                          G. Karagiannis
                                                               U. Twente
                                                                M. Menth
                                                 University of Wuerzburg
                                                          T. Taylor, Ed.
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                       September 4, 2010


    PCN Boundary Node Behaviour for the Controlled Load (CL) Mode of
                               Operation
                  draft-ietf-pcn-cl-edge-behaviour-07

Abstract

   Pre-congestion notification (PCN) is a means for protecting the
   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-
   marked, threshold-marked, and excess-traffic-marked.  This behaviour
   is known informally as the Controlled Load (CL) PCN-boundary-node
   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 March 8, 2011.

Copyright Notice




Charny, et al.            Expires March 8, 2011                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft       PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour       September 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  . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.  Node Behaviours  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.1.  Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.2.  Behaviour of the PCN-Egress-Node . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       3.2.1.  Data Collection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       3.2.2.  Reporting the PCN Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       3.2.3.  Optional Report Suppression  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.3.  Behaviour at the Decision Point  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       3.3.1.  Flow Admission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       3.3.2.  Flow Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       3.3.3.  Decision Point Action For Missing
               PCN-Boundary-Node Reports  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     3.4.  Behaviour of the Ingress Node  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     3.5.  Summary of Timers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   4.  Identifying Ingress and Egress Nodes for PCN Traffic . . . . . 14
   5.  Specification of Diffserv Per-Domain Behaviour . . . . . . . . 14
     5.1.  Applicability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     5.2.  Technical Specification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     5.3.  Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     5.4.  Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     5.5.  Assumptions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     5.6.  Example Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     5.7.  Environmental Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     5.8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   8.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18



Charny, et al.            Expires March 8, 2011                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft       PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour       September 2010


   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19


















































Charny, et al.            Expires March 8, 2011                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft       PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour       September 2010


1.  Introduction

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

   PCN-boundary-node behaviours specify a detailed set of algorithms and
   procedures 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 PCN-interior-node behaviour.  Finally, because PCN uses DSCP
   values to carry its markings, a specification of PCN-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 PCN-
      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.

   NM-rate
      The rate of not-marked PCN-traffic received at a PCN-egress-node
      for a given ingress-egress-aggregate in octets per second.  For
      further details see Section 3.2.1.



Charny, et al.            Expires March 8, 2011                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft       PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour       September 2010


   ThM-rate
      The rate of threshold-marked PCN-traffic received at a PCN-egress-
      node for a given ingress-egress-aggregate in octets per second.
      For further details see Section 3.2.1.

   ETM-rate
      The rate of excess-traffic-marked PCN-traffic received at a PCN-
      egress-node for a given ingress-egress-aggregate in octets per
      second.  For further details see Section 3.2.1.

   PCN-sent-rate
      The rate of PCN-traffic received at a PCN-ingress-node and
      destined for a given ingress-egress-aggregate in octets per
      second.  For further details see Section 3.4.

   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.  The CLE is used to derive the PCN-admission-state
      (Section 3.3.1) and also by the report suppression procedure
      (Section 3.2.3) if report suppression is activated.

   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
      flows offered to the aggregate based on the current value of the
      PCN-admission-state.  For further details see Section 3.3.1.

   Sustainable aggregate rate (SAR)
      The estimated maximum rate of PCN-traffic that can be admitted to
      a given ingress-egress-aggregate at a given moment without risking
      degradation of quality of service for the admitted flows.  The
      intention is that if the PCN-sent-rate of every ingress-egress-
      aggregate passing through a given link is limited to its
      sustainable aggregate rate, the total rate of PCN-traffic flowing
      through the link will be limited to the PCN-supportable-rate for
      that link.  An estimate of the sustainable aggregate rate for a
      given ingress-egress-aggregate is derived as part of the flow
      termination procedure, and is used to determine how much PCN-
      traffic must be terminated.  For further details see
      Section 3.3.2.

   CLE-reporting-threshold
      A configurable value against which the CLE is compared as part of
      the report suppression procedure.  For further details, see
      Section 3.2.3.



Charny, et al.            Expires March 8, 2011                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft       PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour       September 2010


   CLE-limit
      A configurable value against which the CLE is compared in order to
      derive the PCN-admission-state for a given ingress-egress-
      aggregate.  For further details, see Section 3.3.1.

   T-meas
      An interval, the value of which is configurable, defining the
      measurement period at the PCN-egress-node during which statistics
      relating to PCN-traffic marking are collected.  At the end of the
      interval the values NM-rate, ThM-rate, and ETM-rate as defined
      above are calculated and a report is sent to the Decision Point,
      subject to the operation of the report suppression feature.  For
      further details see Section 3.2.

   T-maxsuppress
      An interval, the value of which is configurable, after which the
      PCN-egress-node must send a report to the Decision Point for a
      given ingress-egress-aggregate regardless of the most recent
      values of the CLE.  This is used as a keep-alive mechanism for
      signalling between the PCN-egress-node and the Decision Point when
      report suppression is activated.  For further details, see
      Section 3.2.3.

   T-fail
      An interval, the value of which is configurable, after which the
      Decision Point concludes that communication from a given PCN-
      egress-node has failed if it has received no reports from the PCN-
      egress-node during that interval.  For further details see
      Section 3.3.3.


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  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;

   o  encoding of PCN status within individual packets is based on
      [RFC5696], extended to provide a third PCN encoding state.  A
      possible extension is documented in [ID.PCN3in1];

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



Charny, et al.            Expires March 8, 2011                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft       PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour       September 2010


   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;

   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:

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

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

   An interior node MUST NOT perform any of the following:

   o  re-mark a packet from PCN to non-PCN, or from non-PCN to PCN;

   o  re-mark a PCN-packet from threshold-marked (ThM) to not-marked
      (NM);

   o  re-mark a PCN-packet from excess-traffic-marked (ETM) to not-
      marked (NM) or threshold-marked (ThM).


3.  Node Behaviours

3.1.  Overview

   This section describes the behaviour of the PCN-ingress-node, PCN-
   egress-node, and the Decision Point (which may be collocated with the
   PCN-ingress-node).

   The PCN-egress-node collects the rates of not-marked, threshold-
   marked, and excess-traffic-marked PCN-traffic for each ingress-
   egress-aggregate and reports them to the Decision Point.  It may also
   identify PCN-flows that have experienced excess-traffic-marking.  For
   a detailed description, see Section 3.2.

   The PCN-ingress-node enforces flow admission and termination
   decisions.  It also reports the rate of PCN-traffic sent to a given
   ingress-egress-aggregate when requested by the Decision Point.  For
   details, see Section 3.4.




Charny, et al.            Expires March 8, 2011                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft       PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour       September 2010


   Finally, the Decision Point makes flow admission decisions and
   selects flows to terminate based on the information provided by the
   PCN-ingress-node and PCN-egress-node for a given ingress-egress-
   aggregate.  For details, see Section 3.3.

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 PCN-packets that are
      not-marked;

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

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

   It is RECOMMENDED that the measurement interval, T-meas, between
   successive calculations 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.  The starting
   and ending times of the measurement intervals for different ingress-
   egress-aggregates MAY be the same or MAY be different.

   As a configurable option, the PCN-egress-node MAY record flow
   identifiers of the PCN-flows for which excess-traffic-marked packets
   have been observed.  These can be used by the Decision Point when it
   selects flows for termination.

      In networks using multipath routing it is possible that congestion
      is not occurring on all paths carrying a given ingress-egress-
      aggregate.  Assuming that specific PCN-flows are routed via
      specific paths, identifying the PCN-flows that are experiencing
      excess-traffic-marking helps to avoid termination of PCN-flows not
      contributing to congestion.







Charny, et al.            Expires March 8, 2011                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft       PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour       September 2010


3.2.2.  Reporting the PCN Data

   If the report suppression option described in the next sub-section is
   not activated, the PCN-egress-node MUST report the latest values of
   NM-rate, ThM-rate, and ETM-rate to the Decision Point each time that
   it calculates them.

   If so configured (e.g., because multipath routing is being used, as
   explained in the previous section), the PCN-egress-node MUST also
   report the set of flow identifiers of PCN-flows for which excess-
   traffic-marking was observed in the most recent measurement interval.
   If this set is large, the PCN-egress-node MAY report only the most
   recently excess-traffic-marked PCN-flows rather than the complete
   set.

3.2.3.  Optional Report Suppression

   Report suppression MUST be provided as a configurable option, along
   with two configurable parameters, the CLE-reporting-threshold and the
   maximum report suppression interval T-maxsuppress.  The default value
   of the CLE-reporting-threshold is zero.  T-maxsuppress is discussed
   further at the end of this sub-section, but functions as a keep-alive
   mechanism for signalling between the PCN-egress-node and the Decision
   Point.

   If the report suppression option is enabled, the PCN-egress-node MUST
   apply the following procedure to decide whether to send a report to
   the Decision Point, rather than sending a report automatically at the
   end of each measurement interval.

   1.  As well as the quantities NM-rate, ThM-rate, and ETM-rate, the
       PCN-egress-node MUST calculate the congestion level estimate
       (CLE) for each measurement interval.  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.

   2.  If the calculated CLE for the latest measurement interval or for
       the immediately previous interval is greater than the CLE-
       reporting-threshold, then the PCN-egress-node MUST send a report
       to the Decision Point.  The contents of the report are described
       below.

   3.  If an interval T-maxsuppress has elapsed since the last report
       was sent to the Decision Point, then the PCN-egress-node MUST
       send a report to the Decision Point regardless of the CLE value.



Charny, et al.            Expires March 8, 2011                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft       PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour       September 2010


   4.  If neither of the preceding conditions holds, the PCN-egress-node
       MUST NOT send a report for the latest measurement interval.

   Each report sent to the Decision Point when report suppression has
   been activated MUST contain the values of NM-rate, ThM-rate, ETM-
   rate, and CLE that were calculated for the most recent measurement
   interval.  If so configured, the PCN-egress-node MUST also report the
   set of flow identifiers of PCN-flows for which excess-traffic-marking
   was observed in the most recent measurement interval.

   The above procedure ensures that at least one report is sent per
   interval (T-maxsuppress + T-meas).  This provides some protection
   against loss of egress reports and also demonstrates to the Decision
   Point that both the PCN-egress-node and the communication path
   between the two nodes are in operation.  However, depending on the
   transport used for reporting, the operator may choose to set
   T-maxsuppress to an effectively infinite value.  For example, the
   transport may include its own keep-alive signalling at a frequency
   such that PCN keep-alive signalling is redundant.

3.3.  Behaviour at the Decision Point

   Operators may choose to use PCN procedures just for flow admission,
   or just for flow termination, or for both.  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.

   If PCN-based flow termination is enabled but PCN-based flow admission
   is not, flow termination operates as specified in this document.
   Logically, some other system of flow admission control must be in
   operation, but the description of such a system is out of scope of
   this document and depends on local arrangements.

3.3.1.  Flow Admission

   The Decision Point determines the PCN-admission-state for a given
   ingress-egress-aggregate each time it receives a report from the
   egress node.  It makes this determination on the basis of the
   congestion level estimate (CLE).  If the CLE is provided in the
   egress node report, the Decision Point SHOULD use the reported value.
   If the CLE was not provided in the report, the Decision Point MUST
   calculate it based on the other values provided in the report, using
   the formula

      CLE = (ThM-rate + ETM-rate) / (NM-rate + ThM-rate + ETM-rate)

   if any PCN-traffic was observed, or CLE = 0 if all the rates are



Charny, et al.            Expires March 8, 2011                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft       PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour       September 2010


   zero.

   The Decision Point MUST compare the reported or calculated CLE to a
   configurable value, the CLE-limit.  If the CLE is less than the CLE-
   limit, 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 CLE-limit in practice, because when threshold-marking
      occurs it tends to persist long enough that threshold-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, but such policy intervention
   risks defeating the purpose of using PCN.

3.3.2.  Flow Termination

   When the report from the PCN-egress-node includes a non-zero value of
   the ETM-rate for some ingress-egress-aggregate, the Decision Point
   MUST request the PCN-ingress-node to provide an estimate of the rate
   (PCN-sent-rate) at which the PCN-ingress-node is receiving PCN-
   traffic that is destined for the given ingress-egress-aggregate.

      If the Decision Point is collocated with the PCN-ingress-node, the
      request and response are internal operations.

   The Decision Point MUST then wait for both the requested rate from
   the PCN-ingress-node and the next report from the PCN-egress-node for
   the ingress-egress-aggregate concerned.  If the 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 using the
   following steps:

   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:



Charny, et al.            Expires March 8, 2011                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft       PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour       September 2010


          PCN-sent-rate - SAR,

       where PCN-sent-rate is the value provided by the PCN-ingress-
       node.

   If the difference calculated in the second step is positive, the
   Decision Point SHOULD select PCN-flows to terminate, until it
   determines that the PCN-traffic admission rate will no longer be
   greater than the estimated sustainable aggregate rate.  If the
   Decision Point knows the bandwidth required by individual PCN-flows
   (e.g., from resource signalling used to establish the flows), it MAY
   choose to complete its selection of PCN-flows to terminate in a
   single round of decisions.

   Alternatively, the Decision Point MAY spread flow termination 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 [IEEE-Satoh] and sections 4.2 and 4.3 of [Menth08-sub-9]).

   If the egress node has supplied a list of PCN-flow identifiers
   (Section 3.2), the Decision Point SHOULD first consider terminating
   PCN-flows in that list.  In general, the selection of flows for
   termination MAY be guided by policy.

3.3.3.  Decision Point Action For Missing  PCN-Boundary-Node Reports

   If the Decision Point fails to receive any report from a given PCN-
   egress-node for a configurable interval T-fail, it SHOULD raise an
   alarm to management.  A Decision Point collocated with a PCN-ingress-
   node SHOULD cease to admit PCN-flows to the ingress-egress-aggregate
   passing from the PCN-ingress-node to the given PCN-egress-node, until
   it again receives a report from that node.  A centralized Decision
   Point MAY cease to admit PCN-flows to all ingress-egress-aggregates
   destined to the PCN-egress-node concerned, until it again receives a
   report from that node.

   If a centralized Decision Point fails to receive a reply within a
   reasonable period of time to a request for a PCN-sent-rate value sent
   to a given PCN-ingress-node, it SHOULD raise an alarm to management.

3.4.  Behaviour of the Ingress Node

   The PCN-ingress-node MUST provide the estimated rate of PCN-traffic
   received at that node and destined for a given ingress-egress-
   aggregate in octets per second (the PCN-sent-rate) when the Decision
   Point requests it.  The way this rate estimate is derived is a matter



Charny, et al.            Expires March 8, 2011                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft       PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour       September 2010


   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.

3.5.  Summary of Timers

   Table 1 summarizes the timers implied by the preceding procedures.
   The three limits T-meas, T-maxsuppress, and T-fail apply to the three
   timers t-meas, t-maxsuppress, and t-fail respectively. t-meas and
   t-maxsuppress are reset upon expiry. t-fail is reset by management
   action or by receipt of a report from the PCN-egress-node concerned.

   +-------------+---------+-------------+--------------+--------------+
   | Timer       | Locatio | Incidence   | Limit        | Action on    |
   |             | n       |             |              | Expiry       |
   +-------------+---------+-------------+--------------+--------------+
   | t-meas      | Egress  | One per     | T-meas       | Calculate    |
   |             | node    | node        |              | and possibly |
   |             |         |             |              | report       |
   |             |         |             |              | NM-rate,     |
   |             |         |             |              | ThM-rate,    |
   |             |         |             |              | ETM-rate and |
   |             |         |             |              | conditionall |
   |             |         |             |              | yCLE for eac |
   |             |         |             |              | hIEA.        |
   | -           | -       | -           | -            | -            |
   | t-maxsuppre | Egress  | One per IEA | T-maxsuppres | Send a       |
   | ss          | node    | if report   | s            | report for   |
   |             |         | suppression |              | that IEA at  |
   |             |         | is enabled. |              | the next     |
   |             |         |             |              | expiry of    |
   |             |         |             |              | T-meas.      |
   | -           | -       | -           | -            | -            |
   | t-fail      | Decisio | One per     | T-fail       | Assume       |
   |             | npoint  | egress node |              | failure and  |
   |             |         |             |              | cease to     |
   |             |         |             |              | admit flows  |
   |             |         |             |              | passing      |
   |             |         |             |              | through that |
   |             |         |             |              | egress node. |
   +-------------+---------+-------------+--------------+--------------+

                      IEA = ingress-egress-aggregate




Charny, et al.            Expires March 8, 2011                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft       PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour       September 2010


          Table 1: Timers Used For the CL Boundary Node Behaviour

   The value of T-meas SHOULD be configurable, and is RECOMMENDED to be
   of the order of 100 to 500 ms.

   t-maxsuppress is active only when report suppression is enabled.  The
   value of T-maxsuppress SHOULD be configurable.  The appropriate value
   depends on the transport used to carry the egress node reports.  For
   unreliable transport, T-maxsuppress is RECOMMENDED to be of the order
   of one second.

   The value of T-fail MUST be configurable.  When unreliable transport
   is used, the value of T-fail is RECOMMENDED to be of the order of 3 *
   T-maxsuppress if report suppression is enabled, and of the order of 3
   * T-meas if report suppression is not enabled.  When reliable
   transport is used, the operator may choose to provide similar values
   for T-fail or may choose to disable report timing by setting an
   effectively infinite value for T-fail.


4.  Identifying Ingress and Egress Nodes for PCN Traffic

   The operation of PCN depends on the ability of the PCN-ingress-node
   to identify the ingress-egress-aggregate to which each new PCN-flow
   belongs and the ability of the egress node to identify the ingress-
   egress-aggregate to which each received PCN-packet belongs.  If the
   Decision Point is collocated with the PCN-ingress-node, the PCN-
   egress-node also needs to associate each ingress-egress-aggregate
   with the address of the PCN-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.  The procedure to provide the
   required information is out of the scope of this document.


5.  Specification of Diffserv Per-Domain Behaviour

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

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



Charny, et al.            Expires March 8, 2011                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft       PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour       September 2010


   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.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.  The design requirement for
   PCN was that recovery from overloads through the use of flow
   termination should happen within 1-3 seconds.  PCN probably performs
   better than that.

5.4.  Parameters

   In the list that follows, note that most PCN-ingress-nodes are also
   PCN-egress-nodes, and vice versa.  Furthermore, the PCN-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 markings to be applied to 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:
   ----------------------------------

   o  The measurement interval T-meas.





Charny, et al.            Expires March 8, 2011                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft       PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour       September 2010


   o  Whether report suppression is enabled and, if so, the values of
      the CLE-reporting-threshold and T-maxsuppress.

   o  Whether individual flow identifiers must be reported for excess-
      traffic-marked PCN-traffic.

   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.

   o  The markings to be applied to PCN-traffic, including the
      identification of PCN-packets and the encodings to indicate
      threshold-marking and excess-traffic-marking..

   Parameters at the Decision Point:
   ---------------------------------

   o  Activation/deactivation of PCN-based flow admission.

   o  Activation/deactivation of PCN-based flow termination.

   o  The value of CLE-limit.

   o  The maximum interval T-fail between reports from a given PCN-
      egress-node, for detecting failure of communications with that
      node.

   o  The information needed to map between each ingress-egress-
      aggregate and the corresponding PCN-ingress-node and PCN-egress-
      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 March 8, 2011                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft       PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour       September 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.  Toby Moncaster gave a
   careful review to get it into shape for Working Group Last Call.

   Amongst the authors, Michael Menth deserves special mention for his
   constant and careful attention to both the technical content of this
   document and the manner in which it was expressed.


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

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




Charny, et al.            Expires March 8, 2011                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft       PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour       September 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.

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

   [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.

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

   [IEEE-Satoh]
              Satoh, D. and H. Ueno, ""Cause and Countermeasure of
              Overtermination for PCN-Based Flow Termination",
              Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Computers and
              Communications (ISCC '10), pp. 155-161, Riccione, Italy",
              June 2010.

   [Menth08-sub-9]
              Menth, M. and F. Lehrieder, "PCN-Based Measured Rate
              Termination", July 2009,
              <http://www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/ ~menth/
              Publications/papers/Menth08-Sub-9.pdf>.



Charny, et al.            Expires March 8, 2011                [Page 18]

Internet-Draft       PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour       September 2010


   [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


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

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









Charny, et al.            Expires March 8, 2011                [Page 19]

Internet-Draft       PCN CL Boundary Node Behaviour       September 2010


   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 March 8, 2011                [Page 20]


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