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

Versions: (draft-menth-pcn-psdm-encoding) 00 01 02

Congestion and Pre Congestion                                   M. Menth
Internet-Draft                                   University of Tuebingen
Intended status: Historic                                     J. Babiarz
Expires: September 13, 2012                          3inova Networks Inc
                                                            T. Moncaster
                                                 University of Cambridge
                                                              B. Briscoe
                                                                      BT
                                                          March 12, 2012


     PCN Encoding for Packet-Specific Dual Marking (PSDM Encoding)
                    draft-ietf-pcn-psdm-encoding-02

Abstract

   Pre-congestion notification (PCN) is a link-specific and load-
   dependent packet re-marking mechanism and provides in Differentiated
   Services networks feedback to egress nodes about load conditions
   within the domain.  It is used to support admission control and flow
   termination decision in a simple way.  This document proposes how PCN
   marks can be encoded into the IP header for packet-specific dual
   marking (PSDM).  PSDM encoding provides three different codepoints:
   not-ETM, not-ThM, and PM.  Excess-traffic-marking may re-mark not-
   ETM-packets to PM and threshold-marking may re-mark not-ThM-packets
   to PM.

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   GRoup has chosen to publish this as a historical document to preserve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



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

Internet-Draft      PCN packet specific dual marking          March 2012


   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 13, 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.

































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

Internet-Draft      PCN packet specific dual marking          March 2012


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1.  Requirements notation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Encoding for Packet-Specific Dual Marking  . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.1.  Proposed Encoding and Expected Node Behavior . . . . . . .  6
       3.1.1.  PCN Codepoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       3.1.2.  Codepoint Handling by PCN Ingress Nodes  . . . . . . .  6
       3.1.3.  Codepoint Handling by PCN Interfaces . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.1.4.  Codepoint Handling by PCN Egress Nodes . . . . . . . .  7
     3.2.  Reasons for the Proposed Encoding  . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.2.1.  Scarcity of DSCPs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.2.2.  Problems with Tunneling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.2.3.  Problems with the ECN Field  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.3.  Handling of ECN Traffic  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   4.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   6.  Conclusions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   7.  Comments Solicited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11



























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

Internet-Draft      PCN packet specific dual marking          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.  Two
   mechanisms are used: admission control (AC), to decide whether to
   admit or block a new flow request, and (in abnormal circumstances)
   flow termination (FT) 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 "pre-congestion notification").

   The level of marking allows boundary nodes to make decisions about
   whether to admit or terminate.  This is achieved by marking packets
   on interior nodes according to some metering function implemented at
   each node.  Excess-traffic-marking marks PCN packets that exceed a
   certain reference rate on a link while threshold marking marks all
   PCN packets on a link when the PCN traffic rate exceeds a lower
   reference rate [RFC5670].  These marks are monitored by the egress
   nodes of the PCN domain.

   This document proposes how PCN marks can be encoded into the IP
   header when packet-specific dual marking (PSDM) is used to re-mark
   packets [Menth09f].  That means, both excess-traffic-marking and
   threshold-marking are activated on the links within a PCN domain, but
   packets are subject to re-marking by only one of them.  The encoding
   of unmarked PCN packets indicates whether they are subject to either
   excess-traffic-marking (not-ETM) or threshold-marking (not-ThM) and
   they may be re-marked to PCN-marked (PM).

   PSDM encoding can be applied in networks implementing

   o  only AC based on threshold-marking (reference rate = PCN-
      admissible-rate),

   o  only FT based on excess-traffic-marking (reference rate = PCN-
      supportable-rate),

   o  both AC and FT based on excess-traffic-marking (reference rate =
      PCN-admissible-rate)

   o  Probe-based AC based on threshold-marking (reference rate = PCN-
      admissible-rate) and FT based on excess-traffic-marking (reference
      rate = PCN-supportable-rate)[Menth09f].




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

Internet-Draft      PCN packet specific dual marking          March 2012


   The motivation for PSDM encoding is that probe packets are subject
   only to threshold-marking and that data packets are subject only to
   excess-traffic-marking.  Nevertheless, routers should not need to
   differentiate explicitly between probe and data packets since packets
   are a priori marked with an appropriate codepoint (not-ETM, not-ThM)
   indicating the marking mechanism applying to them.

   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 PSDM encoding 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.

1.1.  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].


2.  Terminology

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

   o  PCN-capable flow - a flow subject to PCN-based admission control
      and/or flow termination

   o  PCN-enabled DSCP - DSCP indicating within a PCN domain that
      packets possibly belong to a PCN-capable flow

   o  PCN-capable ECN codepoint (PCN codepoint) - DSCP set to a PCN-
      enabled DSCP and ECN field set to a codepoint indicating that a
      packet belongs to a PCN-capable flow (not-ThM, not-ETM, or PM,
      explained below)

   o  PCN packet - a packet belonging to a PCN capable flow within a PCN
      domain, must have a PCN-enabled DSCP and a PCN-capable ECN
      codepoint

   o  not-PCN capable (not-PCN) - new ECN codepoint for packets of non-
      PCN-capable flows when a PCN-enabled DSCP is set





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

Internet-Draft      PCN packet specific dual marking          March 2012


   o  not-excess-traffic-marked (not-ETM) - new ECN codepoint for
      unmarked PCN packets that are subject to excess-traffic-marking

   o  not-threshold-marked (not-ThM) - new ECN codepoint for unmarked
      PCN packets that are subject to threshold-marking

   o  PCN-marked (PM) - new ECN codepoint for re-marked PCN packets
      regardless whether they were subject to excess-traffic-marking or
      threshold-marking.


3.  Encoding for Packet-Specific Dual Marking

   In this section the encoding for packet-specific dual marking (PSDM)
   is presented and the reasons for the proposed design are outlined.

3.1.  Proposed Encoding and Expected Node Behavior

   The encoding reuses a PCN-enabled DSCP to indicate packets of PCN-
   capable flows within a PCN domain.

3.1.1.  PCN Codepoints

   The ECN field of packets with a PCN-enabled DSCP is interpreted
   within a PCN domain as PCN codepoint while it is interpreted as ECN
   codepoint outside PCN domains.  Four new PCN codepoints are defined
   in Figure 1.  PSDM encoding can be seen as an extension of baseline
   encoding [RFC5696]

   +--------+----------------------------------------------------+
   |        |           Codepoint in ECN field of IP header      |
   |  DSCP  |               (RFC3168 codepoint name)             |
   |        +--------------+-------------+-------------+---------+
   |        | 00 (Not-ECT) | 10 (ECT(0)) | 01 (ECT(1)) | 11 (CE) |
   +--------+--------------+-------------+-------------+---------+
   | DSCP n |    not-PCN   |  not-ETM    |   not-ThM   |   PM    |
   +--------+--------------+-------------+-------------+---------+

                         Figure 1: PSDM encoding.

3.1.2.  Codepoint Handling by PCN Ingress Nodes

   When packets belonging to PCN flows arrive at the ingress router of
   the PCN domain, the ingress router first drops all CE-marked packets.
   Then, it sets the DSCP of the remaining PCN packets to an PCN-enabled
   DSCP and re-marks the ECN field of all PCN packets that are subject
   to threshold-marking to not-ThM (e.g. probe packets), and all PCN
   packets that are subject to excess-traffic-marking to not-ETM (e.g.



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

Internet-Draft      PCN packet specific dual marking          March 2012


   data packets).  If packets with a PCN-enabled DSCP arrive that belong
   to non-PCN flows, the PCN ingress node re-marks their ECN field to
   not-PCN or re-marks their DSCP to a different one while preserving
   the contents of the ECN field.

3.1.3.  Codepoint Handling by PCN Interfaces

   If the meter for excess-traffic-marking of a PCN node indicates that
   a PCN packet should be re-marked, its ECN field is set to PCN-marked
   (PM) only if it was not-ETM before.  If the meter for threshold-
   marking of a PCN node indicates that a PCN packet should be re-
   marked, its ECN field is set to PCN-marked (PM) only if it was not-
   ThM before.

3.1.4.  Codepoint Handling by PCN Egress Nodes

   If the egress node of a PCN domain receives a PM-packet, it infers
   somehow whether the packet was not-ETM or not-ThM by the PCN ingress
   node to interpret the marking.  This can be done as probe packets
   must be distinguishable from PCN data packets anyway.  The egress
   node resets the ECN field of all packets with PCN-enabled DSCPs to
   not-ECT.  This breaks the ECN capability for all flows with PCN-
   enabled DSCPs, regardless whether they are PCN-capable or not.
   Appropriate tunnelling across a PCN domain can preserve the ECN
   marking of packets with PCN-enabled DSCPs and the ECN-capability of
   their flows (see Section 3.3).  When the DSCPs in the headers of
   packets belonging to flows with PCN-enabled DSCPs have been changed
   to another DSCP, the egress node should reverse that change.

3.2.  Reasons for the Proposed Encoding

3.2.1.  Scarcity of DSCPs

   DSCPs are a scarce resource in the IP header so that at most one
   should be used for PCN encoding.

3.2.2.  Problems with Tunneling

   The encoding scheme must cope with tunnelling within PCN domains.
   However, various tunnelling schemes limit the persistence of ECN
   marks in the top-most IP header to a different degree.  Two IP-in-IP
   tunnelling modes are defined in [RFC3168] and a third one in
   [RFC4301] for IP-in-IPsec tunnels.

   The limited-functionality option in [RFC3168] requires that the ECN
   codepoint in the outer header is set to not-ECT so that ECN is
   disabled for all tunnel routers, i.e., they drop packets instead of
   mark them in case of congestion.  The tunnel egress just decapsulates



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

Internet-Draft      PCN packet specific dual marking          March 2012


   the packet and leaves the ECN codepoints of the inner packet header
   unchanged.

   o  This mode protects the inner IP header from being PCN-marked upon
      decapsulation.  It can be used to tunnel ECN marks across PCN
      domains such that PCN marking is applied to the outer header
      without affecting the inner header.

   o  This mode is not useful to tunnel PCN traffic with PCN-enabled
      DSCP and PCN-capable PCN-codepoints within PCN domain because the
      ECN marking information from the outer ECN fields is lost upon
      decapsulation.

   The full-functionality option in [RFC3168] requires that the ECN
   codepoint in the outer header is copied from the inner header unless
   the inner header codepoint is CE.  In this case, the outer header
   codepoint is set to ECT(0).  This choice has been made to disable the
   ECN fields of the outer header as a covert channel.  Upon
   decapsulation, the ECN codepoint of the inner header remains
   unchanged unless the outer header ECN codepoint is CE.  In this case,
   the inner header codepoint is also set to CE.  This preserves outer
   header information if it is CE.  However, the fact that CE marks of
   the inner header are not visible in the outer header may be a problem
   for excess-traffic-marking as it takes already marked traffic into
   account and for some required packet drop policies.

   Tunnelling with IPsec copies the inner header ECN field to the outer
   header ECN field RFC4301, Sect. 5.1.2.1 [RFC4301] upon encapsulation.
   Upon decapsulation, CE-marks of the outer header are copied into the
   inner header, the other marks are ignored.  With this tunnelling
   mode, CE marks of the inner header become visible to all meters,
   markers, and droppers for tunnelled traffic.  In addition, limited
   information from the outer header is propagated into the inner
   header.  Therefore, only IPsec tunnels should be used inside PCN
   domains when ECN bits are reused for PCN encoding.  Another
   consequence is that CE is the only codepoint to which packets can be
   re-marked along a tunnel within a PCN domain so that the changed
   codepoint survives decapsulation.

3.2.3.  Problems with the ECN Field

   The guidelines in [RFC4774] describe how the ECN bits can be reused
   while being compatible with [RFC3168].  A CE mark of a packet must
   never be changed to another ECN codepoint.  Furthermore, a not-ECT
   mark of a packet must never be changed to one of the ECN-capable
   codepoints ECT(0), ECT(1), or CE.  Care must be taken that this rule
   is enforced when PCN packets leave the PCN domain.  As a consequence,
   all CE-marked PCN packets must be dropped before entering a PCN



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

Internet-Draft      PCN packet specific dual marking          March 2012


   domain and the ECN field of all PCN packets must be reset to not-ECT
   when leaving a PCN domain.

3.3.  Handling of ECN Traffic

   ECN is intended to control elastic traffic as TCP reacts to ECN
   marks.  Inelastic real-time traffic is mostly not transmitted over
   TCP such that this application of ECN is not appropriate.  However,
   there have been proposals made that would re-use the PCN signals for
   rate adaptation.  Therefore, two different options might be useful.

   o  preserve ECN marks from outside a PCN domain, i.e.  CE-marked
      packets should not be dropped.  To handle this case, ECN packets
      should be tunnelled through a PCN domain such that the ECN marking
      is hidden from the PCN control and PCN marking is applied only to
      the outer header.

   o  add PCN markings to the ECN field if applications wish to receive
      the PCN markings for whatever purpose.  In that case IPsec tunnels
      should be used for tunnelling.  This, however, must be done only
      if end systems are ECN capable and signal that they wish to
      receive this additional PCN marking information.  If this is
      useful, the required signalling needs to be defined.

   Both options are an independent of the way how PCN marks are encoded.
   Therefore, they are not in the scope of this document.


4.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request to IANA.


5.  Security Considerations

   {ToDo}


6.  Conclusions

   This document describes an encoding scheme with the following
   benefits: {ToDo}


7.  Comments Solicited

   Comments and questions are encouraged and very welcome.  They can be
   addressed to the IETF PCN working group mailing list <pcn@ietf.org>,



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

Internet-Draft      PCN packet specific dual marking          March 2012


   and/or to the authors.


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

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

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

   [RFC4301]  Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
              Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.

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

   [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.

8.2.  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.

   [Menth09f]
              Menth, M., Babiarz, J., and P. Eardley, "Pre-Congestion
              Notification Using Packet-Specific Dual Marking",
              Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Network
              of the Future (Future-Net), IEEE, Dresden, Germany,
              June 2009.

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



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

Internet-Draft      PCN packet specific dual marking          March 2012


Authors' Addresses

   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


   Jozef Babiarz
   3inova Networks Inc
   CRC Innovation Centre
   Bldg 94 Room 216D
   3701 Carling Avenue
   Ottawa  K2H 8S2
   Canada

   Phone: +1-613-298-0438
   Email: j.babiarz@3inovanetworks.com


   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




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


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/