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

Versions: (draft-baker-tsvwg-admitted-voice-dscp) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 5865

Please post the attached as a working group document in tsvwg



Transport Working Group                                         F. Baker
Internet-Draft                                                   J. Polk
Updates: 4542,4594 (if approved)                           Cisco Systems
Intended status: Informational                                  M. Dolly
Expires: June 14, 2007                                         AT&T Labs
                                                       December 13, 2006


                An EF DSCP for Capacity-Admitted Traffic
                draft-ietf-tsvwg-admitted-realtime-dscp-00

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

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

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on June 14, 2007.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

   This document requests a DSCP from the IANA for a class of real-time
   traffic conforming to the Expedited Forwarding Per Hop Behavior and
   admitted using a CAC procedure involving authentication,
   authorization, and capacity admission, as compared to a class of
   real-time traffic conforming to the Expedited Forwarding Per Hop
   Behavior but not subject to capacity admission or subject to very



Baker, et al.             Expires June 14, 2007                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft  An EF DSCP for Capacity-Admitted Traffic  September 2006


   coarse capacity admission.

   One of the reasons behind this is the need for classes of traffic
   that are handled under special policies, such as the non-preemptive
   Emergency Telecommunication Service, the US DoD's Assured Service
   (which is similar to MLPP), or e-911.  These do not need separate
   DSCPs or separate PHBs that are separate from each other, but they
   need a traffic class from which they can deterministically obtain
   their service requirements from including SLA matters.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.2.  Problem  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     1.3.  Proposed Solution  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   2.  Implementation of the Admitted Telephony Service Class . . . .  6
     2.1.  Potential implementations of EF in this model  . . . . . .  6
     2.2.  Capacity admission control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       2.2.1.  Capacity admission control by assumption . . . . . . .  8
       2.2.2.  Capacity admission control by call counting  . . . . .  9
       2.2.3.  End-point capacity admission performed by probing
               the network  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       2.2.4.  Centralized capacity admission control . . . . . . . . 10
       2.2.5.  Distributed capacity admission control . . . . . . . . 11
     2.3.  Prioritized capacity admission control . . . . . . . . . . 11
   3.  Recommendations on implementation of an Admitted Telephony
       Service Class  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   4.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   6.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     7.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     7.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 17














Baker, et al.             Expires June 14, 2007                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft  An EF DSCP for Capacity-Admitted Traffic  September 2006


1.  Introduction

   This document requests a DSCP from the IANA for a class of real-time
   traffic conforming to the Expedited Forwarding [RFC3246][RFC3247] Per
   Hop Behavior and admitted using a CAC procedure involving
   authentication, authorization, and capacity admission, as compared to
   a class of real-time traffic conforming to the Expedited Forwarding
   Per Hop Behavior but not subject to capacity admission or subject to
   very coarse capacity admission.

   One of the reasons behind this is the need for classes of traffic
   that are handled under special policies, such as the non-preemptive
   Emergency Telecommunication Service, the US DoD's Assured Service
   (which is similar to MLPP and uses preemption), or e-911, in addition
   to normal routine calls that use call admission.  It is possible to
   use control plane protocols to generally restrict session admission
   such that admitted traffic should receive the desired service, and
   the policy (e.g., routine, NS/EP, e-911, etc) need not be signaled in
   a DSCP.  However, service providers need to distinguish between
   special-policy traffic and other classes, particularly the existing
   VoIP services that perform no capacity admission or only very coarse
   capacity admission and can exceed their allocated resources.

   This DSCP applies to the Telephony Service Class described in
   [RFC4594].  WIthin an ISP and on inter-ISP links (i.e., within
   networks whose internal paths are uniform at hundreds of megabits or
   faster), one would expect this traffic to be carried in the Real Time
   Traffic Class described in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-class-aggr].

1.1.  Definitions

   The following terms and acronyms are used in this document.

   PHB:  A Per-Hop-Behavior (PHB) is the externally observable
      forwarding behavior applied at a DS-compliant node to a DS
      behavior aggregate [RFC2475].  It may be thought of as a program
      configured on the interface of an Internet host or router,
      specified drop probabilities, queuing priorities or rates, and
      other handling characteristics for the traffic class.

   DSCP:  The Differentiated Services Codepoint (DSCP), as defined in
      [RFC2474], is a value which is encoded in the DS field, and which
      each DS Node MUST use to select the PHB which is to be experienced
      by each packet it forwards [RFC3260].  It is a 6-bit number
      embedded into the 8-bit TOS field of an IPv4 datagram or the
      Traffic Class field of an IPv6 datagram.





Baker, et al.             Expires June 14, 2007                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft  An EF DSCP for Capacity-Admitted Traffic  September 2006


   CAC:  Call Admission Control, which includes concepts of
      authorization (an identified and authenticated user is determined
      to also be authorized to use the service) and capacity admission
      (at the present time, under some stated policy, capacity exists to
      support the call).  In the Internet, these are separate functions,
      while in the PSTN they and call routing are carried out together.

   UNI:  A User/Network Interface (UNI) is the interface (often a
      physical link or its virtual equivalent) that connects two
      entities that do not trust each other, and in which one (the user)
      purchases connectivity services from the other (the network).
      Figure 1 shows two user networks connected by what appears to each
      of them to be a single network ("The Internet", access to which is
      provided by their service provider) which provides connectivity
      services to other users.

   NNI:  A Network/Network Interface (NNI) is the interface (often a
      physical link or its virtual equivalent) that connects two
      entities that trust each other within limits, and in which the two
      are seen as trading services for value.  Figure 1 shows three
      service networks that together provide the connectivity services
      that we call "the Internet".  They are different administrations
      and are very probably in competition, but exchange contracts for
      connectivity and capacity that enable them to offer specific
      services to their customers.

   Queue:  There are multiple ways to build a multi-queue scheduler.
      Weighted Round Robin (WRR) literally builds multiple lists and
      visits them in a specified order, while a calendar queue (often
      used to implement Weighted Fair Queuing,or WFQ) builds a list for
      each time interval and enqueues at most a stated amount of data in
      each such list for transmission during that time interval.  While
      these differ dramatically in implementation, the external
      difference in behavior is generally negligible when they are
      properly configured.  Consistent with the definitions used in the
      Differentiated Services Architecture [RFC2475], these are treated
      as equivalent in this document, and the lists of WRR and the
      classes of a calendar queue will be referred to uniformly as
      "queues".












Baker, et al.             Expires June 14, 2007                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft  An EF DSCP for Capacity-Admitted Traffic  September 2006


                                        _.--------.
                                    ,-''           `--.
                                 ,-'                   `-.
           ,-------.           ,',-------.                `.
         ,'         `.       ,','         `.                `.
        /  User       \ UNI / /   Service   \                 \
       (    Network    +-----+    Network    )                 `.
        \             /  ;    \             /                    :
         `.         ,'   ;     `.         .+                     :
           '-------'    /        '-------'  \ NNI                 \
                       ;                     \                     :
                       ;     "The Internet"   \  ,-------.         :
                      ;                        +'         `.        :
        UNI: User/Network Interface           /   Service   \       |
                     |                       (    Network    )      |
        NNI: Network/Network Interface        \             /       |
                      :                        +.         ,'        ;
                       :                      /  '-------'         ;
                       :                     /                     ;
           ,-------.    \        ,-------.  / NNI                 /
         ,'         `.   :     ,'         `+                     ;
        /  User       \ UNI   /   Service   \                    ;
       (    Network    +-----+    Network    )                 ,'
        \             /     \ \             /                 /
         `.         ,'       `.`.         ,'                ,'
           '-------'           `.'-------'                ,'
                                 `-.                   ,-'
                                    `--.           _.-'
                                        `--------''

                     Figure 1: UNI and NNI interfaces

1.2.  Problem

   In short, the Telephony Service Class described in [RFC4594] permits
   the use of capacity admission in implementing the service, but
   present implementations either provide no capacity admission services
   or do so in a manner that depends on specific traffic engineering.
   In the context of the Internet backbone, the two are essentially
   equivalent; the edge network is depending on specific engineering by
   the service provider that may not be present.

   However, services are being requested of the network that would
   specifically make use of capacity admission, and would distinguish
   among users or the uses of available Voice-on-IP capacity in various
   ways.  Various agencies would like to provide services as described
   in section 2.6 of [RFC4504] or in [RFC4190].  This requires the use
   of capacity admission to differentiate among users (which might be



Baker, et al.             Expires June 14, 2007                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft  An EF DSCP for Capacity-Admitted Traffic  September 2006


   911 call centers, other offices with preferential service contracts,
   or individual users gaining access with special credentials) to
   provide services to them that are not afforded to routine customer-
   to-customer IP telephony sessions.

1.3.  Proposed Solution

   The IETF is asked to differentiate, in the Telephony Service, between
   sessions that are originated without capacity admission or using
   traffic engineering and sessions that are originated using more
   robust capacity admission procedures.  Sessions of the first type use
   a traffic class in which they compete without network-originated
   control as described in Section 2.2.1 or Section 2.2.2, and in the
   worst case lose traffic due to policing.  Sessions of the second type
   cooperate with network control, and may be given different levels of
   preference depending on the policies that the network applies.  In
   order to provide this differentiation, the IETF requests that the
   IANA assign a separate DSCP value to admitted sessions using the
   Telephony service (see Section 4).


2.  Implementation of the Admitted Telephony Service Class

2.1.  Potential implementations of EF in this model

   There are at least two possible ways to implement the Expedited
   Forwarding PHB in this model.  They are to implement separate classes
   as a set of

   o  Multiple data plane traffic classes, each consisting of a policer
      and a queue, and the queues enjoying different priorities, or

   o  Multiple data plane traffic classes, each consisting of a policer
      but feeding into a common queue or multiple queues at the same
      priority.

   We will explain the difference, and describe in what way they differ
   in operation.  The reason this is necessary is that there is current
   confusion in the industry, including a widely reported test for NS/EP
   services that implemented the policing model and described it as an
   implementation of the multi-priority model, and discussion in other
   environments of the intermixing of voice and video traffic at
   relatively low bandwidths in the policing model.

   The multi-priority model is shown in Figure 2.  In this model,
   traffic from each service class is placed into a separate priority
   queue.  If data is present in both queues, traffic from one of them
   will always be selected for transmission.  This has the effect of



Baker, et al.             Expires June 14, 2007                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft  An EF DSCP for Capacity-Admitted Traffic  September 2006


   transferring jitter from the higher priority queue to the lower
   priority queue, and reordering traffic in a way that gives the higher
   priority traffic a smaller average queuing delay.  Each queue must
   have its own policer, however, to protect the network from errors and
   attacks; if a traffic class thinks it is carrying a certain data rate
   but an abuse sends significantly more, the effect of simple
   prioritization would not preserve the lower priorities of traffic,
   which could cause routing to fail or otherwise impact an SLA.

                                             .
                     policers    priorities  |`.
           EF ---------> <=> ----------||----+  `.
                                         high|    `.
           EF2---------> <=> ----------||----+     .'-----------
                           .             medium  .'
              rate queues  |`.         +-----+ .' Priority
           AF1------>||----+  `.      /  low |'   Scheduler
                           |    `.   /
           AF2------>||----+     .'-+
                           |   .'
           CS0------>||----+ .' Rate Scheduler
                           |'   (WFQ, WRR, etc)

             Figure 2: Implementation as a data plane priority

   The multi-policer model is shown in Figure 3.  In this model, traffic
   from each service class is policed according to its SLA requirements,
   and then placed into a common priority queue.  Unlike the multi-
   priority model, the jitter experienced by the traffic classes in this
   case is the same, as there is only one queue, but the sum of the
   traffic in this higher priority queue experiences less average jitter
   than the elastic traffic in the lower priority.

                       policers    priorities  .
             EF ---------> <=> -------\        |`.
                                       --||----+  `.
             EF2---------> <=> -------/    high|    `.
                             .                 |     .'--------
                rate queues  |`.         +-----+   .'
             AF1------>||----+  `.      /  low | .' Priority
                             |    `.   /       |'   Scheduler
             AF2------>||----+     .'-+
                             |   .'
             CS0------>||----+ .' Rate Scheduler
                             |'   (WFQ, WRR, etc)

             Figure 3: Implementation as a data plane policer




Baker, et al.             Expires June 14, 2007                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft  An EF DSCP for Capacity-Admitted Traffic  September 2006


   The difference between the two operationally is, as stated, the
   issues of loss due to policing and distribution of jitter.

   If the two traffic classes are, for example, voice and video,
   datagrams containing video data are relatively large (generally the
   size of the path MTU) while datagrams containing voice are relatively
   small, on the order of only 40 to 200 bytes, depending on the codec.
   On lower speed links (less than 10 MBPS), the jitter introduced by
   video to voice can be disruptive, while at higher speeds the jitter
   is nominal compared to the jitter requirements of voice.  At access
   network speeds, therefore, [RFC4594] recommends separation of video
   and voice into separate queues, while at optical speeds
   [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-class-aggr] recommends that they use a
   common queue.

   If, on the other hand, the two traffic classes are carrying the same
   type of application with the same jitter requirements, then giving
   one preference in this sense does not benefit the higher priority
   traffic and may harm the lower priority traffic.  In such a case,
   using separate policers and a common queue is a superior approach.

2.2.  Capacity admission control

   There are five major ways that capacity admission is done or has been
   proposed to be done in Internet Voice applications:

   o  Capacity admission control by assumption,

   o  Capacity admission control by call counting,

   o  End-point capacity admission performed by probing the network,

   o  Centralized capacity admission control, and

   o  Distributed capacity admission control

2.2.1.  Capacity admission control by assumption

   The first approach is to ignore the matter entirely.  If one assumes
   that the capacity available to the application is uniformly far in
   excess of its requirements, it is perhaps overhead that can be
   ignored.  This assumption is currently made in Internet VoIP
   offerings such as Skype and Vonage; the end user is responsible to
   place his service on a LAN connected to the Internet backbone by a
   high speed broadband connection and use capable ISPs to deliver the
   service.  There is an authorization step in the sense that the
   service ensures that the user pays his bills, but no capacity
   admission is considered because there is a clear separation from the



Baker, et al.             Expires June 14, 2007                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft  An EF DSCP for Capacity-Admitted Traffic  September 2006


   voice application service provider admitting the calls and the access
   network provider admitting the traffic.  The two have no way of
   knowing about each other, except maybe in the abstract sense.

2.2.2.  Capacity admission control by call counting

   The H.323 gatekeeper, originally specified in 1996, operates on the
   model that the considerations of Section 2.2.1 generally apply, and
   that it is therefore sufficient to count calls in order to ensure
   that any bottlenecks in the network are never overloaded. .  Which
   phone is calling which phone is configured information into the
   Gatekeeper, ensuring it doesn't admit too many calls across a low
   speed link.  The area of influence of a Gatekeeper is called a Zone,
   and limits how far away a Gatekeeper can influence calls.  This is
   because call counting doesn't scale when more than one server is
   admitting flows across the same limited speed links.  This approach
   is consistent with the original design of H.323, which in 1996 was a
   mechanism for connecting H.320 media gateways across a LAN.  VoIP has
   come a long way since then, however, and the engineering trade-offs
   this approach requires in complex networks are unsatisfactory.

   SIP provides the option to go down another path, to admit its servers
   at layer 7, have no awareness of lower layer connectivity, resulting
   in a divorce from infrastructure knowledge - save for [RFC3312],
   which binds the two, but only at the endpoints.

   In short, if there is a bottleneck anywhere in the network that might
   be used to connect two gatekeepers, SIP proxies that do not implement
   or do not configure the use of [RFC3312], or other call management
   systems, the amount of traffic between the two must be contained
   below that bottleneck even if the normal path is of much higher
   bandwidth.  In addition, the multiplexing of traffic streams between
   different pairs of gatekeepers over a common LAN infrastructure is
   not handled by the application, and so must be managed in the
   engineering of the network.

2.2.3.  End-point capacity admission performed by probing the network

   [I-D.briscoe-tsvwg-cl-architecture] is one of many proposals that
   have looked at probing of the network by the end system to determine
   its capacity to accept a new session.  Such proposals have been made
   a number of times by the likes of NTT Labs, UIUC researchers, Cisco
   Systems (which used its Service Assurance Architecture to probe
   capacity using pings and report when network delay variability
   increased), and others.  Many of the proposals tested in research
   have fared reasonably well in high bandwidth environments where
   actual network congestion is unusual, but have not scaled down to
   slower access links.



Baker, et al.             Expires June 14, 2007                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft  An EF DSCP for Capacity-Admitted Traffic  September 2006


   The problem has been, in essence, that variable rate codecs can be on
   the quiet side of the average for lengthy periods of time and then
   become noisier.  New sessions can be disrupted or disrupt existing
   sessions if they perform their capacity admission procedures at a
   quiet time and find themselves overrunning the allocated capacity
   during a noisy time.  In addition, for a service in which the network
   must exercise control and differentiate among users, the users cannot
   be depended on to differentiate among themselves in the network's
   favor.  The network must manage that service.

   For this reason, [I-D.briscoe-tsvwg-cl-architecture] is only proposed
   as a solution within backbone networks, leaving access networks to
   provide other forms of capacity admission, and more generally such
   techniques are only recommended in high bandwidth contexts.  What is
   not addressed, is when these quite times become not-at-all quite due
   to some event occurring, leading to great amounts of traffic.  A
   means of maintaining existing critical calls is essential to retain a
   given service.  Times of disaster can be such times of extreme bursts
   of the number of call attempts.  Once a call is established, that
   call needs to be retained.

2.2.4.  Centralized capacity admission control

   The concept of a Bandwidth Broker was first discussed in the research
   world surrounding ESNET and Internet II in the late 1990's, and has
   been discussed in the literature pertaining to the Differentiated
   Services Architecture [RFC2475].  It is, in short, a central system
   that performs a variety of services on behalf of clients of a network
   including applying AAA services (as in [RFC2904])and authorizing them
   to use specified capacity at specified times.  Its strength is that
   it is relatively simple, at least in concept, and can keep track of
   simple book-keeping functions apart from network elements such as
   routers.  Its weakness is that it has no idea what the specific
   routing of any stated data flow is, or its capacity apart from
   services such as MPLS Traffic Engineering or engineering assumptions
   specified by the designers of a network, and obtaining that
   information from the network via SNMP GET or other network management
   action can impose a severe network overhead, and is obviously not in
   real-time.

   For scaling reasons, operational Bandwidth Brokers generally take on
   a semi-distributed or fully distributed nature.  They are implemented
   on a per-point-of-presence basis, and in satellite networks might be
   implemented in each terminal.  At this point, they become difficult
   to operationally distinguish from distributed capacity admission
   services such as described in Section 2.2.5.





Baker, et al.             Expires June 14, 2007                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft  An EF DSCP for Capacity-Admitted Traffic  September 2006


2.2.5.  Distributed capacity admission control

   The IETF developed the Integrated Services Model [RFC1633]and the
   RSVP capacity admission protocol [RFC2205] in the early 1990's, and
   then integrated it with the Differentiated Services Architecture in
   [RFC2998].  Since then, the IETF has worked to describe a next
   generation capacity admission protocol, which is calls NSIS, and
   which is limited in scope to considering unicast sessions.  [RFC4542]
   looked at the issue of providing preferential services in the
   Internet, and determined that RSVP with its defined extensions could
   provide those services to unicast and multicast sessions.

   As with the Bandwidth Broker model, there are concerns regarding
   scaling, mentioned in [RFC2208].  Present implementations that have
   been measured have been found to not display the scaling concerns,
   however, and in any event the use of RSVP Aggregation enables the
   backbone to handle such sessions in a manner similar to an ATM
   Virtual Path, bundling sessions together for capacity management
   purposes.

2.3.  Prioritized capacity admission control

   Emergency Telecommunication Service, the US DoD's Assured Service,
   and e-911 each call for some form of prioritization of some calls
   over others.  Prioritization of the use of bandwidth is fundamentally
   a matter of choices - at a point where one has multiple choices,
   applying a policy that selects among them.  In the PSTN, GETS
   operates in favor of an authorized caller either by routing a call
   that would otherwise be refused by a path unavailable to the general
   public or by queuing the call until some existing call completes and
   bandwidth becomes available. e-911 is similar, but the policy is
   based on the called party, the emergency call center.  MLPP operates
   by preempting an existing call to make way for the new one.

   In the Internet, routing is not performed on a per-call basis, so,
   apart from interconnections to the PSTN, re-routing isn't an option.
   On the other hand, in the Internet there are more classes of traffic
   than in the PSTN.  In the PSTN, all calls are uses of circuits, while
   in the Internet some bandwidth is always reserved for elastic
   applications - at least, it must be available for routing, and there
   is generally significant consideration of the web, instant messaging,
   and other applications.  In essence, any capacity admission policy
   that differentiates between calls has the option of temporarily
   borrowing bandwidth from the capacity reserved for elastic traffic by
   accepting new sessions under some prioritized policy while refusing
   sessions of lower priority because the threshold at that priority has
   been reached.




Baker, et al.             Expires June 14, 2007                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft  An EF DSCP for Capacity-Admitted Traffic  September 2006


   For example, regardless of the type of capacity admission that is
   used (apart from "no admission process"), one might admit prioritized
   sessions using a higher bandwidth threshold than one admits lower
   priority sessions.

   If capacity admission as described in Section 2.2.2 is in use, the
   thresholds must be set low enough that bandwidth would be available
   anywhere in the network.  This greatly limits the utility of such a
   service due to the level of bandwidth waste that results.

   If capacity admission as described in Section 2.2.3 is in use, then
   either multiple thresholds must be applied in marking the traffic,
   multiple traffic marks must be applied, or there must be multiple
   ways to interpret the result.  In any event, this is only applicable
   in domains in which the law of large numbers applies.

   If capacity admission as described in Section 2.2.4 is in use,
   thresholds can be applied related to a general policy or SLA, or
   related to the network ingress and egress in use.  It requires them
   to maintain state regarding network traffic routing separate from the
   network; to the extent that is variable, it requires direct
   monitoring in the OSS.

   If capacity admission as described in Section 2.2.5 is in use,
   thresholds can be applied to the critical points of the path that the
   traffic in question actually takes because one is asking the
   equipment that the path traverses.


3.  Recommendations on implementation of an Admitted Telephony Service
    Class

   It is the belief of the authors that either data plane PHB described
   in Section 2.1, if coupled with adequate AAA and capacity admission
   procedures as described in Section 2.2.5, are sufficient to provide
   the services required for an Admitted Telephony service class.  If
   preemption is in view, as described in section 2.3.5.2 or [RFC4542],
   this provides the tools for carrying out the preemption.  If
   preemption is not in view, or in addition to preemptive services, the
   application of different thresholds depending on call precedence has
   the effect of improving the probability of call completion by
   admitting preferred calls at a time that other calls are being
   refused.  Routine and priority traffic can be admitted using the same
   DSCP value, as the choice of which calls are admitted is handled in
   the admission procedure executed in the control plane, not the
   policing of the data plane.

   On the point of what protocols and procedures are required for



Baker, et al.             Expires June 14, 2007                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft  An EF DSCP for Capacity-Admitted Traffic  September 2006


   authentication, authorization, and capacity admission, we note that
   clear standards do not at this time exist for bandwidth brokers, NSIS
   has not at this time been finalized and in any event is limited to
   unicast sessions, and that RSVP has been standardized and has the
   relevant services.  We therefore recommend the use of RSVP at the
   UNI.  Procedures at the NNI are business matters to be discussed
   between the relevant networks, and are recommended but not required.


4.  IANA Considerations

   This note, fundamentally, requests IANA the assign a DSCP value to a
   second EF traffic class consistent with [RFC3246] and [RFC3247] and
   implementing the Telephony Service Class described in [RFC4594] at
   lower speeds and [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-class-aggr] at higher
   speeds.  This new traffic class requires the use of capacity
   admission such as RSVP services together with AAA services at the
   User/Network Interface (UNI); the use of such services at the NNI is
   at the option of the interconnected networks.  The recommended value
   for the code point 101100, paralleling the EF code point, which is
   101110, and both of which are allocated from Pool 1 as described in
   [RFC2474].

   The code point should be referred to as EF-ADMIT.


5.  Security Considerations

   A major requirement of this service is effective use of a signaling
   protocol such as RSVP, with the capabilities to identify its user
   either as an individual or as a member of some corporate entity, and
   assert a policy such as "routine" or "priority".

   This capability, one has to believe, will be abused by script kiddies
   and others if the proof of identity is not adequately strong or if
   policies are written or implemented improperly by the carriers.  This
   goes without saying, but this section is here for it to be said...


6.  Acknowledgements


7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-class-aggr]
              Chan, K., "Aggregation of DiffServ Service Classes",



Baker, et al.             Expires June 14, 2007                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft  An EF DSCP for Capacity-Admitted Traffic  September 2006


              draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-class-aggr-00 (work in
              progress), June 2006.

   [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.

   [RFC2998]  Bernet, Y., Ford, P., Yavatkar, R., Baker, F., Zhang, L.,
              Speer, M., Braden, R., Davie, B., Wroclawski, J., and E.
              Felstaine, "A Framework for Integrated Services Operation
              over Diffserv Networks", RFC 2998, November 2000.

   [RFC3246]  Davie, B., Charny, A., Bennet, J., Benson, K., Le Boudec,
              J., Courtney, W., Davari, S., Firoiu, V., and D.
              Stiliadis, "An Expedited Forwarding PHB (Per-Hop
              Behavior)", RFC 3246, March 2002.

   [RFC3247]  Charny, A., Bennet, J., Benson, K., Boudec, J., Chiu, A.,
              Courtney, W., Davari, S., Firoiu, V., Kalmanek, C., and K.
              Ramakrishnan, "Supplemental Information for the New
              Definition of the EF PHB (Expedited Forwarding Per-Hop
              Behavior)", RFC 3247, March 2002.

   [RFC3260]  Grossman, D., "New Terminology and Clarifications for
              Diffserv", RFC 3260, June 14002.

   [RFC4542]  Baker, F. and J. Polk, "Implementing an Emergency
              Telecommunications Service (ETS) for Real-Time Services in
              the Internet Protocol Suite", RFC 4542, May 2006.

7.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.briscoe-tsvwg-cl-architecture]
              Briscoe, B., "An edge-to-edge Deployment Model for Pre-
              Congestion Notification: Admission  Control over a
              DiffServ Region", draft-briscoe-tsvwg-cl-architecture-03
              (work in progress), June 2006.

   [RFC1633]  Braden, B., Clark, D., and S. Shenker, "Integrated
              Services in the Internet Architecture: an Overview",
              RFC 1633, June 1994.

   [RFC2205]  Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.



Baker, et al.             Expires June 14, 2007                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft  An EF DSCP for Capacity-Admitted Traffic  September 2006


              Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
              Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.

   [RFC2208]  Mankin, A., Baker, F., Braden, B., Bradner, S., O'Dell,
              M., Romanow, A., Weinrib, A., and L. Zhang, "Resource
              ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) Version 1 Applicability
              Statement Some Guidelines on Deployment", RFC 2208,
              September 1997.

   [RFC2904]  Vollbrecht, J., Calhoun, P., Farrell, S., Gommans, L.,
              Gross, G., de Bruijn, B., de Laat, C., Holdrege, M., and
              D. Spence, "AAA Authorization Framework", RFC 2904,
              August 2000.

   [RFC3312]  Camarillo, G., Marshall, W., and J. Rosenberg,
              "Integration of Resource Management and Session Initiation
              Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3312, October 2002.

   [RFC4190]  Carlberg, K., Brown, I., and C. Beard, "Framework for
              Supporting Emergency Telecommunications Service (ETS) in
              IP Telephony", RFC 4190, November 2005.

   [RFC4504]  Sinnreich, H., Lass, S., and C. Stredicke, "SIP Telephony
              Device Requirements and Configuration", RFC 4504,
              May 2006.

   [RFC4594]  Babiarz, J., Chan, K., and F. Baker, "Configuration
              Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes", RFC 4594,
              August 2006.


Authors' Addresses

   Fred Baker
   Cisco Systems
   Santa Barbara, California  93117
   USA

   Phone: +1-408-526-4257
   Email: fred@cisco.com











Baker, et al.             Expires June 14, 2007                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft  An EF DSCP for Capacity-Admitted Traffic  September 2006


   James Polk
   Cisco Systems
   Richardson, Texas  75082
   USA

   Phone: +1-817-271-3552
   Email: jmpolk@cisco.com


   Martin Dolly
   AT&T Labs
   Middletown Township, New Jersey  07748
   USA

   Phone: +1-732-420-4574
   Email: mdolly@att.com



































Baker, et al.             Expires June 14, 2007                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft  An EF DSCP for Capacity-Admitted Traffic  September 2006


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).





Baker, et al.             Expires June 14, 2007                [Page 17]


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