[Docs] [txt|pdf] [draft-ietf-issll-...] [Diff1] [Diff2]

Updated by: 5350 PROPOSED STANDARD

Network Working Group                                           F. Baker
Request for Comments: 3175                                  C. Iturralde
Category: Standards Track                                 F. Le Faucheur
                                                                B. Davie
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                          September 2001


           Aggregation of RSVP for IPv4 and IPv6 Reservations

Status of this Memo

   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This document describes the use of a single RSVP (Resource
   ReSerVation Protocol) reservation to aggregate other RSVP
   reservations across a transit routing region, in a manner
   conceptually similar to the use of Virtual Paths in an ATM
   (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) network.  It proposes a way to
   dynamically create the aggregate reservation, classify the traffic
   for which the aggregate reservation applies, determine how much
   bandwidth is needed to achieve the requirement, and recover the
   bandwidth when the sub-reservations are no longer required.  It also
   contains recommendations concerning algorithms and policies for
   predictive reservations.

1.  Introduction

   A key problem in the design of RSVP version 1 [RSVP] is, as noted in
   its applicability statement, that it lacks facilities for aggregation
   of individual reserved sessions into a common class.  The use of such
   aggregation is recommended in [CSZ], and required for scalability.

   The problem of aggregation may be addressed in a variety of ways.
   For example, it may sometimes be sufficient simply to mark reserved
   traffic with a suitable DSCP (e.g., EF), thus enabling aggregation of
   scheduling and classification state.  It may also be desirable to
   install one or more aggregate reservations from ingress to egress of



Baker, et al.               Standards Track                     [Page 1]

RFC 3175              RSVP Reservation Aggregation        September 2001


   an "aggregation region" (defined below) where each aggregate
   reservation carries similarly marked packets from a large number of
   flows.  This is to provide high levels of assurance that the end-to-
   end requirements of reserved flows will be met, while at the same
   time enabling reservation state to be aggregated.

   Throughout, we will talk about "Aggregator" and "Deaggregator",
   referring to the routers at the ingress and egress edges of an
   aggregation region.  Exactly how a router determines whether it
   should perform the role of aggregator or deaggregator is described
   below.

   We will refer to the individual reserved sessions (the sessions we
   are attempting to aggregate) as "end-to-end" reservations ("E2E" for
   short), and to their respective Path/Resv messages as E2E Path/Resv
   messages.  We refer to the the larger reservation (that which
   represents many E2E reservations) as an "aggregate" reservation, and
   its respective Path/Resv messages as "aggregate Path/Resv messages".

1.1.  Problem Statement: Aggregation Of E2E Reservations

   The problem of many small reservations has been extensively
   discussed, and may be summarized in the observation that each
   reservation requires a non-trivial amount of message exchange,
   computation, and memory resources in each router along the way.  It
   would be nice to reduce this to a more manageable level where the
   load is heaviest and aggregation is possible.

   Aggregation, however, brings its own challenges.  In particular, it
   reduces the level of isolation between individual flows, implying
   that one flow may suffer delay from the bursts of another.
   Synchronization of bursts from different flows may occur.  However,
   there is evidence [CSZ] to suggest that aggregation of flows has no
   negative effect on the mean delay of the flows, and actually leads to
   a reduction of delay in the "tail" of the delay distribution (e.g.,
   99% percentile delay) for the flows.  These benefits of aggregation
   to some extent offset the loss of strict isolation.

1.2.  Proposed Solution

   The solution we propose involves the aggregation of several E2E
   reservations that cross an "aggregation region" and share common
   ingress and egress routers into one larger reservation from ingress
   to egress.  We define an "aggregation region" as a contiguous set of
   systems capable of performing RSVP aggregation (as defined following)
   along any possible route through this contiguous set.





Baker, et al.               Standards Track                     [Page 2]

RFC 3175              RSVP Reservation Aggregation        September 2001


   Communication interfaces fall into two categories with respect to an
   aggregation region; they are "exterior" to an aggregation region, or
   they are "interior" to it.  Routers that have at least one interface
   in the region fall into one of three categories with respect to a
   given RSVP session; they aggregate, they deaggregate, or they are
   between an aggregator and a deaggregator.

   Aggregation depends on being able to hide E2E RSVP messages from
   RSVP-capable routers inside the aggregation region.  To achieve this
   end, the IP Protocol Number in the E2E reservation's Path, PathTear,
   and ResvConf messages is changed from RSVP (46) to RSVP-E2E-IGNORE
   (134) upon entering the aggregation region, and restored to RSVP at
   the deaggregator point.  These messages are ignored (no state is
   stored and the message is forwarded as a normal IP datagram) by each
   router within the aggregation region whenever they are forwarded to
   an interior interface.  Since the deaggregating router perceives the
   previous RSVP hop on such messages to be the aggregating router, Resv
   and other messages do not require this modification; they are unicast
   from RSVP hop to RSVP hop anyway.

   The token buckets (SENDER_TSPECs and FLOWSPECS) of E2E reservations
   are summed into the corresponding information elements in aggregate
   Path and Resv messages.  Aggregate Path messages are sent from the
   aggregator to the deaggregator(s) using RSVP's normal IP Protocol
   Number.  Aggregate Resv messages are sent back from the deaggregator
   to the aggregator, thus establishing an aggregate reservation on
   behalf of the set of E2E flows that use this aggregator and
   deaggregator.

   Such establishment of a smaller number of aggregate reservations on
   behalf of a larger number of E2E reservations yields the
   corresponding reduction in the amount of state to be stored and
   amount of signalling messages exchanged in the aggregation region.

   By using Differentiated Services mechanisms for classification and
   scheduling of traffic supported by aggregate reservations (rather
   than performing per aggregate reservation classification and
   scheduling), the amount of classification and scheduling state in the
   aggregation region is even further reduced.  It is not only
   independent of the number of E2E reservations, it is also independent
   of the number of aggregate reservations in the aggregation region.
   One or more Diff-Serv DSCPs are used to identify traffic covered by
   aggregate reservations and one or more Diff-Serv PHBs are used to
   offer the required forwarding treatment to this traffic.  There may
   be more than one aggregate reservation between the same pair of
   routers, each representing different classes of traffic and each
   using a different DSCP and a different PHB.




Baker, et al.               Standards Track                     [Page 3]

RFC 3175              RSVP Reservation Aggregation        September 2001


1.3.  Definitions

   We define an "aggregation region" as a set of RSVP-capable routers
   for which E2E RSVP messages arriving on an exterior interface of one
   router in the set would traverse one or more interior interfaces (of
   this and possibly of other routers in the set) before finally
   traversing an exterior interface.

   Such an E2E RSVP message is said to have crossed the aggregation
   region.

   We define the "aggregating" router for this E2E flow as the first
   router that processes the E2E Path message as it enters the
   aggregation region (i.e., the one which forwards the message from an
   exterior interface to an interior interface).

   We define the "deaggregating" router for this E2E flow as the last
   router to process the E2E Path as it leaves the aggregation region
   (i.e., the one which forwards the message from an interior interface
   to an exterior interface).

   We define an "interior" router for this E2E flow as any router in the
   aggregation region which receives this message on an interior
   interface and forwards it to another interior interface.  Interior
   routers perform neither aggregation nor deaggregation for this flow.

   Note that by these definitions a single router with a mix of interior
   and exterior interfaces may have the capability to act as an
   aggregator on some E2E flows, a deaggregator on other E2E flows, and
   an interior router on yet other flows.

1.4.  Detailed Aspects of Proposed Solution

   A number of issues jump to mind in considering this model.

1.4.1.  Traffic Classification Within The Aggregation Region

   One of the reasons that RSVP Version 1 did not identify a way to
   aggregate sessions was that there was not a clear way to classify the
   aggregate.  With the development of the Differentiated Services
   architecture, this is at least partially resolved; traffic of a
   particular class can be marked with a given DSCP and so classified.
   We presume this model.

   We presume that on each link en route, a queue, WDM color, or similar
   management component is set aside for all aggregated traffic of the
   same class, and that sufficient bandwidth is made available to carry




Baker, et al.               Standards Track                     [Page 4]

RFC 3175              RSVP Reservation Aggregation        September 2001


   the traffic that has been assigned to it.  This bandwidth may be
   adjusted based on the total amount of aggregated reservation traffic
   assigned to the same class.

   There are numerous options for exactly which Diff-serv PHBs might be
   used for different classes of traffic as it crosses the aggregation
   region.  This is the "service mapping" problem described in
   [RFC2998], and is applicable to situations broader than those
   described in this document.  Arguments can be made for using either
   EF or one or more AF PHBs for aggregated traffic.  For example, since
   controlled load requires non-TSpec-conformant (policed) traffic to be
   forwarded as best effort traffic rather than dropped, it may be
   appropriate to use an AF class for controlled load, using the higher
   drop preference for non-conformant packets.

   In conventional (unaggregated) RSVP operation, a session is
   identified by a destination address and optionally a protocol port.
   Since data belonging to an aggregated reservation is identified by a
   DSCP, the session is defined by the destination address and DSCP.
   For those cases where two DSCPs are used (for conformant and non-
   conformant packets, as noted above), the session is identified by the
   DSCP of conformant packets.  In general we will talk about mapping
   aggregated traffic onto a DSCP (even if a second DSCP may be used for
   non-conformant traffic).

   Whichever PHB or PHBs are used to carry aggregated reservations, care
   needs to be take in an environment where provisioned Diff-Serv and
   aggregated RSVP are used in the same network, to ensure that the
   total admitted load for a single PHB does not exceed the link
   capacity allocated to that PHB.  One solution to this is to reserve
   one PHB (or more) strictly for the aggregated reservation traffic
   (e.g., AF1 Class) while using other PHBs for provisioned Diff-Serv
   (e.g., AF2, AF3 and AF4 Classes).

   Inside the aggregation region, some RSVP reservation state is
   maintained per aggregate reservation, while classification and
   scheduling state (e.g., DSCPs used for classifying traffic) is
   maintained on a per aggregate reservation class basis (rather than
   per aggregate reservation).  For example, if Guaranteed Service
   reservations are mapped to the EF DSCP throughout the aggregation
   region, there may be a reservation for each aggregator/deaggregator
   pair in each router, but only the EF DSCP needs to be inspected at
   each interior interface, and only a single queue is used for all EF
   traffic.







Baker, et al.               Standards Track                     [Page 5]

RFC 3175              RSVP Reservation Aggregation        September 2001


1.4.2.  Deaggregator Determination

   The first question is "How do we determine the
   Aggregator/Deaggregator pair that are responsible for aggregating a
   particular E2E flow through the aggregation region?"

   Determination of the aggregator is trivial: we know that an E2E flow
   has arrived at an aggregator when its Path message arrives at a
   router on an exterior interface and must be forwarded on an interior
   interface.

   Determination of the deaggregator is more involved.  If an SPF
   routing protocol, such as OSPF or IS-IS, is in use, and if it has
   been extended to advertise information on Deaggregation roles, it can
   tell us the set of routers from which the deaggregator will be
   chosen.  In principle, if the aggregator and deaggregator are in the
   same area, then the identity of the deaggregator could be determined
   from the link state database.  However, this approach would not work
   in multi-area environments or for distance vector protocols.

   One method for Deaggregator determination is manual configuration.
   With this method the network operator would configure the Aggregator
   and the Deaggregator with the necessary information.

   Another method allows automatic Deaggregator determination and
   corresponding Aggregator notification.  When the E2E RSVP Path
   message transits from an interior interface to an exterior interface,
   the deaggregating router must advise the aggregating router of the
   correlation between itself and the flow.  This has the nice attribute
   of not being specific to the routing protocol.  It also has the
   property of automatically adjusting to route changes.  For instance,
   if because of a topology change, another Deaggregator is now on the
   shortest path, this method will automatically identify the new
   Deaggregator and swap to it.

1.4.3.  Mapping E2E Reservations Onto Aggregate Reservations

   As discussed above, there may be multiple Aggregate Reservations
   between the same Aggregator/Deaggregator pair.  The rules for mapping
   E2E reservations onto aggregate reservations are policy decisions
   which depend on the network environment and network administrator's
   objectives.  Such a policy is outside the scope of this specification
   and we simply assume that such a policy is defined by the network
   administrator.  We also assume that such a policy is somehow
   accessible to the Aggregators/Deaggregators but the details of how
   this policy is made accessible to Aggregators/Deaggregators (Local
   Configuration, COPS, LDAP, etc.) is outside the scope of this
   specification.



Baker, et al.               Standards Track                     [Page 6]

RFC 3175              RSVP Reservation Aggregation        September 2001


   An example of very simple policy would be that all the E2E
   reservations are mapped onto a single Aggregate Reservation (i.e.,
   single DSCP) between a given pair of Aggregator/Deaggregator.

   Another example of policy, which takes into account the Int-Serv
   service type requested by the receiver (and signalled in the E2E
   Resv), would be where Guaranteed Service E2E reservations are mapped
   onto one DSCP in the aggregation region and where Controlled Load E2E
   reservations are mapped onto another DSCP.

   A third example of policy would be one where the mapping of E2E
   reservations onto Aggregate Reservations take into account Policy
   Objects (such as information authenticating the end user) which may
   be included by the sender in the E2E path and/or by the receiver in
   the E2E Resv.

   Regardless of the actual policy, a range of options are conceivable
   for where the decision to map an E2E reservation onto an aggregate
   reservation is taken and how this decision is communicated between
   Aggregator and Deaggregator.  Both Aggregator and Deaggregator could
   be assumed to make such a decision independently.  However, this
   would either require definition of additional procedures to solve
   inconsistent mapping decisions (i.e., Aggregator and Deaggregator
   decide to map a given E2E reservation onto different Aggregate
   Reservations) or would result in possible undetected misbehavior in
   the case of inconsistent decisions.

   For simplicity and reliability, we assign the responsibility of the
   mapping decision entirely to the Deaggregator.  The Aggregator is
   notified of the selected mapping by the Deaggregator and follows this
   decision.  The Deaggregator was chosen rather than the Aggregator
   because the Deaggregator is the first to have access to all the
   information required to make such a decision (in particular receipt
   of the E2E Resv which indicates the requested Int-Serv service type
   and includes information signalled by the receiver).  This allows
   faster operations such as set-up or size adjustment of an Aggregate
   Reservation in a number of situations resulting in faster E2E
   reservation establishment.

1.4.4.  Size of Aggregate Reservations

   A range of options exist for determining the size of the aggregate
   reservation, presenting a tradeoff between simplicity and
   scalability.  Simplistically, the size of the aggregate reservation
   needs to be greater than or equal to the sum of the bandwidth of the
   E2E reservations it aggregates, and its burst capacity must be
   greater than or equal to the sum of their burst capacities.  However,
   if followed religiously, this leads us to change the bandwidth of the



Baker, et al.               Standards Track                     [Page 7]

RFC 3175              RSVP Reservation Aggregation        September 2001


   aggregate reservation each time an underlying E2E reservation
   changes, which loses one of the key benefits of aggregation, the
   reduction of message processing cost in the aggregation region.

   We assume, therefore, that there is some policy, not defined in this
   specification (although sample policies are suggested which have the
   necessary characteristics).  This policy maintains the amount of
   bandwidth required on a given aggregate reservation by taking account
   of the sum of the bandwidths of its underlying E2E reservations,
   while endeavoring to change it infrequently.  This may require some
   level of trend analysis.  If there is a significant probability that
   in the next interval of time the current aggregate reservation will
   be exhausted, the router must predict the necessary bandwidth and
   request it.  If the router has a significant amount of bandwidth
   reserved but has very little probability of using it, the policy may
   be to predict the amount of bandwidth required and release the
   excess.

   This policy is likely to benefit from introduction of some hysteresis
   (i.e., ensure that the trigger condition for aggregate reservation
   size increase is sufficiently different from the trigger condition
   for aggregate reservation size decrease) to avoid oscillation in
   stable conditions.

   Clearly, the definition and operation of such policies are as much
   business issues as they are technical, and are out of the scope of
   this document.

1.4.5.  E2E Path ADSPEC update

   As described above, E2E RSVP messages are hidden from the Interior
   routers inside the aggregation region.  Consequently, the ADSPECs of
   E2E Path messages are not updated as they travel through the
   aggregation region.  Therefore, the Deaggregator for a flow is
   responsible for updating the ADSPEC in the corresponding E2E Path to
   reflect the impact of the aggregation region on the QoS that may be
   achieved end-to-end.  The Deaggregator should update the ADSPEC of
   the E2E Path as accurately as possible.

   Since Aggregate Path messages are processed inside the aggregation
   region, their ADSPEC is updated by Interior routers to reflect the
   impact of the aggregation region on the QoS that may be achieved
   within the interior region.  Consequently, the Deaggregator should
   make use of the information included in the ADSPEC from an Aggregate
   Path where available.  The Deaggregator may elect to wait until such
   information is available before forwarding the E2E Path in order to
   accurately update its ADSPEC.




Baker, et al.               Standards Track                     [Page 8]

RFC 3175              RSVP Reservation Aggregation        September 2001


   To maximize the information made available to the Deaggregator,
   whenever the Aggregator signals an Aggregate Path,  the Aggregator
   should include an ADSPEC with fragments for all service types
   supported in the aggregation region (even if the Aggregate Path
   corresponds to an Aggregate Reservation that only supports a subset
   of those service types).  Providing this information to the
   Deaggregator for every possible service type facilitates accurate and
   timely update of the E2E ADSPEC by the Deaggregator.

   Depending on the environment and on the policy for mapping E2E
   reservations onto Aggregate Reservations, to accurately update the
   E2E Path ADSPEC, the Deaggregator may for example:

   -  update all the E2E Path ADSPEC segments (Default General
      Parameters Fragment, Guaranteed Service Fragment, Controlled-Load
      Service Fragment) based on the ADSPEC of a single Aggregate Path,
      or

   -  update the E2E Path ADSPEC by taking into account the ADSPEC from
      multiple Aggregate Path messages (e.g.,.  update the Default
      General Parameters Fragment using the "worst" value for each
      parameter across all the Aggregate Paths' ADSPECs, update the
      Guaranteed Service Fragment using the Guaranteed Service Fragment
      from the ADSPEC of the Aggregate Path for the reservation used for
      Guaranteed Services).

   By taking into account the information contained in the ADSPEC of
   Aggregate Path(s) as mentioned above, the Deaggregator should be able
   to accurately update the E2E Path ADSPEC in most situations.

   However, we note that there may be particular situations where the
   E2E Path ADSPEC update cannot be made entirely accurately by the
   Deaggregator.  This is most likely to happen when the path taken
   across the aggregation region depends on the service requested in the
   E2E Resv, which is yet to arrive.  Such a situation could arise if,
   for example:

   -  The service mapping policy for the aggregation region is such that
      E2E reservations requesting Guaranteed Service are mapped to a
      different PHB that those requesting Controlled Load service.

   -  Diff-Serv aware routing is used in the aggregation region, so that
      packets with different DSCPs follow different paths (sending them
      over different MPLS label switched paths, for example).

   As a result, the ADSPEC for the aggregate reservation that supports
   guaranteed service may differ from the ADSPEC for the aggregate
   reservation that supports controlled load.



Baker, et al.               Standards Track                     [Page 9]

RFC 3175              RSVP Reservation Aggregation        September 2001


   Assume that the sender sends an E2E Path with an ADSPEC containing
   segments for both Guaranteed Services and Controlled Load.  Then, at
   the time of updating the E2E ADSPEC, the Deaggregator does not know
   which service type will actually be requested by the receiver and
   therefore cannot know which PHB will be used to transport this E2E
   flow and, in turn, cannot pick the right parameter values to factor
   in when updating the Default General Parameters Fragment.  As
   mentioned above, in this particular case, a conservative approach
   would be to always take into account the worst value for every
   parameter.  Regardless of whether this conservative approach is
   followed or some simpler approach such as taking into account one of
   the two Aggregate Path ADSPEC, the E2E Path ADSPEC will be inaccurate
   (over-optimistic or over-pessimistic) for at least one service type
   actually requested by the destination.

   Recognizing that entirely accurate update of E2E Path ADSPEC may not
   be possible in all situations, we recommend that a conservative
   approach be taken in such situations (over-pessimistic rather than
   over-optimistic) and that the E2E Path ADSPEC be corrected as soon as
   possible.  In the example described above, this would mean that as
   soon as the Deaggregator receives the E2E Resv from the receiver, the
   Deaggregator should generate another E2E Path with an accurately
   updated ADSPEC based on the knowledge of which aggregate reservation
   will actually carry the E2E flow.

1.4.6.  Intra-domain Routes

   RSVP directly handles route changes, in that reservations follow the
   routes that their data follow.  This follows from the property that
   Path messages contain the same IP source and destination address as
   the data flow for which a reservation is to be established.  However,
   since we are now making aggregate reservations by sending a Path
   message from an aggregating to a deaggregating router, the reserved
   (E2E) data packets no longer carry the same IP addresses as the
   relevant (aggregate) Path message.  The issue becomes one of making
   sure that data packets for reserved flows follow the same path as the
   Path message that established Path state for the aggregate
   reservation.  Several approaches are viable.

   First, the data may be tunneled from aggregator to deaggregator,
   using technologies such as IP-in-IP tunnels, GRE tunnels, MPLS
   label-switched paths, and so on.  These each have particular
   advantages, especially MPLS, which allows traffic engineering.  They
   each also have some cost in link overhead and configuration
   complexity.






Baker, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 10]

RFC 3175              RSVP Reservation Aggregation        September 2001


   If data is not tunneled, then we are depending on a characteristic of
   IP best metric routing , which is that if the route from A to Z
   includes the path from H to L, and the best metric route was chosen
   all along the way, then the best metric route was chosen from H to L.
   Therefore, an aggregate path message which crosses a given aggregator
   and deaggregator will of necessity use the best path between them.

   If this is a single path, the problem is solved.  If it is a multi-
   path route, and the paths are of equal cost, then we are forced to
   determine, perhaps by measurement, what proportion of the traffic for
   a given E2E reservation is passing along each of the paths, and
   assure ourselves of sufficient bandwidth for the present use.  A
   simple, though wasteful, way of doing this is to reserve the total
   capacity of the aggregate route down each path.

   For this reason, we believe it is advantageous to use one of the
   above-mentioned tunneling mechanisms in cases where multiple equal-
   cost paths may exist.

1.4.7.  Inter-domain Routes

   The case of inter-domain routes differs somewhat from the intra-
   domain case just described.  Specifically, best-path considerations
   do not apply, as routing is by a combination of routing policy and
   shortest AS path rather than simple best metric.

   In the case of inter-domain routes, data traffic belonging to
   different E2E sessions (but the same aggregate session) may not enter
   an aggregation region via the same aggregator interface, and/or may
   not leave via the same deaggregator interface.  It is possible that
   we could identify this occurrence in some central system which sees
   the reservation information for both of the apparent sessions, but it
   is not clear that we could determine a priori how much traffic went
   one way or the other apart from measurement.

   We simply note that this problem can occur and needs to be allowed
   for in the implementation.  We recommend that each such E2E
   reservation be summed into its appropriate aggregate reservation,
   even though this involves over-reservation.

1.4.8.  Reservations for Multicast Sessions

   Aggregating reservations for multicast sessions is significantly more
   complex than for unicast sessions.  The first challenge is to
   construct a multicast tree for distribution of the aggregate Path
   messages which follows the same path as will be followed by the data
   packets for which the aggregate reservation is to be made.  This is
   complicated by the fact that the path taken by a data packet may



Baker, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 11]

RFC 3175              RSVP Reservation Aggregation        September 2001


   depend on many factors such as its source address, the choice of
   shared trees or source-specific trees, and the location of a
   rendezvous point for the tree.

   Once the problem of distributing aggregate Path messages is solved,
   there are considerable problems in determining the correct amount of
   resources to reserve at each link along the multicast tree.  Because
   of the amount of heterogeneity that may exist in an aggregate
   multicast reservation, it appears that it would be necessary to
   retain information about individual E2E reservations within the
   aggregation region to allocate resources correctly.  Thus, we may end
   up with a complex set of procedures for forming aggregate
   reservations that do not actually reduce the amount of stored state
   significantly for multicast sessions.

   As noted above, there are several aspects to RSVP state, and our
   approach for unicast aggregates all forms of state:  classification,
   scheduling, and reservation state.  One possible approach to
   multicast is to focus only on aggregation of classification and
   scheduling state, which are arguably the most important because of
   their impact on the forwarding path.  That approach is the one
   described in the current draft.

1.4.9.  Multi-level Aggregation

   Ideally, an aggregation scheme should be able to accommodate
   recursive aggregation, with aggregate reservations being themselves
   aggregated.  Multi-level aggregation can be accomplished using the
   procedures described here and a simple extension to the protocol
   number swapping process.

   We can consider E2E RSVP reservations to be at aggregation level 0.
   When we aggregate these reservations, we produce reservations at
   aggregation level 1.  In general, level n reservations may be
   aggregated to form reservations at level n+1.

   When an aggregating router receives an E2E Path, it swaps the
   protocol number from RSVP to RSVP-E2E-IGNORE.  In addition, it should
   write the aggregation level (1, in this case) in the 2 byte field
   that is present (and currently unused) in the router alert option.
   In general, a router which aggregates reservations at level n to
   create reservations at level n+1 will write the number n+1 in the
   router alert field.  A router which deaggregates level n+1
   reservations will examine all messages with IP protocol number RSVP-
   E2E-IGNORE but will process the message and swap the protocol number
   back to RSVP only in the case where the router alert field carries
   the number n+1.  For any other value, the message is forwarded
   unchanged.  Interior routers ignore all messages with IP protocol



Baker, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 12]

RFC 3175              RSVP Reservation Aggregation        September 2001


   number RSVP-E2E-IGNORE.  Note that only a few bits of the 2 byte
   field in the option would be needed, given the likely number of
   levels of aggregation.

   For IPv6, certain values of the router alert "value" field are
   reserved.  This specification requires IANA assignment of a small
   number of consecutive values for the purpose of recording the
   aggregation level.

1.4.10.  Reliability Issues

   There are a variety of issues that arise in the context of
   aggregation that would benefit from some form of explicit
   acknowledgment mechanism for RSVP messages.  For example, it is
   possible to configure a set of routers such that an E2E Path of
   protocol type RSVP-E2E-IGNORE would be effectively "black-holed", if
   it never reached a router which was appropriately configured to act
   as a deaggregator.  It could then travel all the way to its
   destination where it would probably be ignored due to its non-
   standard protocol number.  This situation is not easy to detect.  The
   aggregator can be sure this problem has not occurred if an aggregate
   PathErr message is received from the deaggregator (as described in
   detail below).  It can also be sure there is no problem if an E2E
   Resv is received.  However, the fact that neither of these events has
   happened may only mean that no receiver wishes to reserve resources
   for this session, or that an RSVP message loss occurred, or it may
   mean that the Path was black-holed.  However, if a neighbor-to-
   neighbor acknowledgment mechanism existed, the aggregator would
   expect to receive an acknowledgment of the E2E Path from the
   deaggregator, and would interpret the lack of a response as an
   indication that a problem of configuration existed.  It could then
   refrain from aggregating this particular session.  We note that such
   a reliability mechanism has been proposed for RSVP in [RFC291] and
   propose that it be used here.

1.4.11.  Message Integrity and Node Authentication

   [RSVP] defines a hop-by-hop authentication and integrity check.  The
   present specification allows use of this check on Aggregate RSVP
   messages and also preserves this check on E2E RSVP messages for E2E
   RSVP messages.

   Outside the Aggregation Region, any E2E RSVP message may contain an
   INTEGRITY object using a keyed cryptographic digest technique which
   assumes that RSVP neighbors share a secret.  Because E2E RSVP
   messages are not processed by routers in the Aggregation Region, the
   Aggregator and Deaggregator appear as logical RSVP neighbors of each
   other.  The Deaggregator is the Aggregator's Next Hop for E2E RSVP



Baker, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 13]

RFC 3175              RSVP Reservation Aggregation        September 2001


   messages while the Aggregator is the Deaggregator's Previous Hop.
   Consequently, INTEGRITY objects which may appear in E2E RSVP messages
   traversing the Aggregation Region are exchanged directly between the
   Aggregator and Deaggregator in a manner which is entirely transparent
   to the Interior routers.  Thus, hop-by-hop integrity checking for E2E
   messages over the Aggregation Region requires that the Aggregator and
   Deaggregator share a secret.  Techniques for establishing that secret
   are described in [INTEGRITY].

   Inside the Aggregation Region, any Aggregate RSVP message may contain
   an INTEGRITY object which assumes that the corresponding RSVP
   neighbors inside the Aggregation Region (e.g., Aggregator and
   Interior Router, two Interior Routers, Interior Router and
   Deaggregator) share a secret.

1.4.12.  Aggregated reservations without E2E reservations

   Up to this point we have assumed that the aggregate reservation is
   established as a result of the establishment of E2E reservations from
   outside the aggregation region.  It should be clear that alternative
   triggers are possible.  As discussed in [RFC2998], an aggregate RSVP
   reservation can be used to manage bandwidth in a diff-serv cloud even
   if RSVP is not used end-to-end.

   The simplest example of an alternative configuration is the static
   configuration of an aggregated reservation for a certain amount for
   traffic from an ingress (aggregator) router to an egress (de-
   aggregator) router.  This would have to be configured in at least the
   system originating the aggregate PATH message (the aggregator).  The
   deaggregator could detect that the PATH message is directed to it,
   and could be configured to "turn around" such messages, i.e., it
   responds with a RESV back to the aggregator.  Alternatively,
   configuration of the aggregate reservation could be performed at both
   the aggregator and the deaggregator.  As before, an aggregate
   reservation is associated with a DSCP for the traffic that will use
   the reserved capacity.

   In the absence of E2E microflow reservations, the aggregator can use
   a variety of policies to set the DSCP of packets passing into the
   aggregation region, thus determining whether they gain access to the
   resources reserved by the aggregate reservation.  These policies are
   a matter of local configuration, as usual for a device at the edge of
   a diffserv cloud.








Baker, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 14]

RFC 3175              RSVP Reservation Aggregation        September 2001


   Note that the "aggregator" could even be a device such as a PSTN
   gateway which makes an aggregate reservation for the set of calls to
   another PSTN gateway (the deaggregator) across an intervening diff-
   serv region.  In this case the reservation may be established in
   response to call signalling.

   From the perspective of RSVP signalling and the handling of data
   packets in the aggregation region, these cases are equivalent to the
   case of aggregating E2E RSVP reservations.  The only difference is
   that E2E RSVP signalling does not take place and cannot therefore be
   used as a trigger, so some additional knowledge is required in
   setting up the aggregate reservation.

2.  Elements of Procedure

   To implement aggregation, we define a number of elements of
   procedure.

2.1.  Receipt of E2E Path Message By Aggregating Router

   The very first event is the arrival of the E2E Path message at an
   exterior interface of an aggregator.  Standard RSVP procedures [RSVP]
   are followed for this, including onto what set of interfaces the
   message should be forwarded.  These interfaces comprise zero or more
   exterior interfaces and zero or more interior interfaces.  (If the
   number of interior interfaces is zero, the router is not acting as an
   aggregator for this E2E flow.)

   Service on exterior interfaces is handled as defined in [RSVP].

   Service on interior interfaces is complicated by the fact that the
   message needs to be included in some aggregate reservation, but at
   this point it is not known which one, because the deaggregator is not
   known.  Therefore, the E2E Path message is forwarded on the interior
   interface(s) using the IP Protocol number RSVP-E2E-IGNORE, but in
   every other respect identically to the way it would be sent by an
   RSVP router that was not performing aggregation.

2.2.  Handling Of E2E Path Message By Interior Routers

   At this point, the E2E Path message traverses zero or more interior
   routers.  Interior routers receive the E2E Path message on an
   interior interface and forward it on another interior interface.  The
   Router Alert IP Option alerts interior routers to check internally,
   but they find that the IP Protocol is RSVP-E2E-IGNORE and the next
   hop interface is interior.  As such, they simply forward it as a
   normal IP datagram.




Baker, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 15]

RFC 3175              RSVP Reservation Aggregation        September 2001


2.3.  Receipt of E2E Path Message By Deaggregating Router

   The E2E Path message finally arrives at a deaggregating router, which
   receives it on an interior interface and forwards it on an exterior
   interface.  Again, the Router Alert IP Option alerts it to intercept
   the message, but this time the IP Protocol is RSVP-E2E-IGNORE and the
   next hop interface is an exterior interface.

   Before forwarding the E2E Path towards the receiver, the Deaggregator
   should update its ADSPEC.  This update is to reflect the impact of
   the aggregation region onto the QoS to be achieved E2E by the flow.
   Such information can be collected by the ADSPEC of Aggregate Path
   messages travelling from the Aggregator to the Deaggregator.  Thus,
   to enable correct updating of the ADSPEC, a deaggregating router may
   wait as described below for the arrival of an aggregate Path before
   forwarding the E2E Path.

   When receiving the E2E Path, depending on the policy for mapping E2E
   reservation onto Aggregate Reservations, the Deaggregator may or may
   not be in a position to decide which DSCP the E2E flow for the
   processed E2E Path is going to be mapped onto, as described above.
   If the Deaggregator is in a position to know the mapping at this
   point, then the Deaggregator first checks that there is an Aggregate
   Path in place for the corresponding DSCP.  If so, then the
   Deaggregator uses the ADSPEC of this Aggregate Path to update the
   ADSPEC of the E2E Path and then forwards the E2E Path towards the
   receiver.  If not, then the Deaggregator requests establishment of
   the corresponding Aggregate Path by sending an E2E PathErr message
   with an error code of NEW-AGGREGATE-NEEDED and the desired DSCP
   encoded in the DCLASS Object.  The Deaggregator may also at the same
   time request establishment of an aggregate reservation for other
   DSCPs.  When receiving the Aggregate Path for the desired DSCP, the
   Deaggregator then uses the ADSPEC of this Aggregate Path to update
   the ADSPEC of the E2E Path.

   If the Deaggregator is not in a position to know the mapping at this
   point, then the Deaggregator uses the information contained in the
   ADSPEC of one Aggregate Path or of multiple Aggregate Paths to update
   the E2E Path ADSPEC.  Similarly, if one or more of the necessary
   Aggregate Paths is not yet established, the Deaggregator requests
   establishment of the corresponding Aggregate Path by sending an E2E
   PathErr message with an error code of NEW-AGGREGATE-NEEDED and the
   desired DSCP encoded in the respective DCLASS Object.  When receiving
   the Aggregate Path for the desired DSCP, the Deaggregator then uses
   the ADSPEC of this Aggregate Path to update the ADSPEC of the E2E
   Path.





Baker, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 16]

RFC 3175              RSVP Reservation Aggregation        September 2001


   Generating a E2E PathErr message with an error code of NEW-
   AGGREGATE-NEEDED should not result in any Path state being removed,
   but should result in the aggregating router initiating the necessary
   aggregate Path message, as described in the following section.

   The deaggregating router changes the E2E Path message's IP Protocol
   from RSVP-E2E-IGNORE to RSVP and forwards the E2E Path message
   towards its intended destination.

2.4.  Initiation of New Aggregate Path Message By Aggregating Router

   The aggregating Router is responsible for generating a new Aggregate
   Path for a DSCP when receiving a E2E PathErr message with the error
   code NEW-AGGREGATE-NEEDED from the deaggregator.  The DSCP value to
   include in the Aggregate Path Session is found in the DCLASS Object
   of the received E2E PathErr message.  The identity of the
   deaggregator itself is found in the ERROR SPECIFICATION of the E2E
   PathErr message.  The destination address of the aggregate Path
   message is the address of the deaggregating router, and the message
   is sent with IP protocol number RSVP.

   Existing RSVP procedures specify that the size of a reservation
   established for a flow is set to the minimum of the Path SENDER_TSPEC
   and the Resv FLOW_SPEC.  Consequently, the size of an Aggregate
   Reservation cannot be larger than the SENDER_TSPEC included in the
   Aggregate Path by the Aggregator.  To ensure that Aggregate
   Reservations can be sized by the Deaggregator without undesired
   limitations, the Aggregating router should always attempt to include
   in the Aggregate Path a SENDER_TSPEC which is at least as large as
   the size that would actually be required as determined by the
   Deaggregator.  One method to achieve this is to use a SENDER_TSPEC
   which is obviously larger than the highest load of E2E reservations
   that may be supported onto this network.  Another method is for the
   Aggregator to keep track of which flows are mapped onto a DSCP and
   always add their E2E Path SENDER_TSPEC into the Aggregate Path
   SENDER_TSPEC (and possibly also add some additional bandwidth in
   anticipation of future E2E reservations).

   The aggregating router is notified of the mapping from an E2E flow to
   a DSCP in two ways.  First, when the aggregating router receives a
   E2E PathErr with error code NEW-AGGREGATE-NEEDED, the Aggregator is
   notified that the corresponding E2E flow is (at least temporarily)
   mapped onto a given DSCP.  Secondly, when the aggregating router
   receives an E2E Resv containing a DCLASS Object (as described further
   below), the Aggregating Router is notified that the corresponding E2E
   flow is mapped onto a given DSCP.





Baker, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 17]

RFC 3175              RSVP Reservation Aggregation        September 2001


2.5.  Handling of E2E Resv Message by Deaggregating Router

   Having sent the E2E Path message on toward the destination, the
   deaggregator must now expect to receive an E2E Resv for the session.
   On receipt, its responsibility is to ensure that there is sufficient
   bandwidth reserved within the aggregation region to support the new
   E2E reservation, and if there is, then to forward the E2E Resv to the
   aggregating router.

   The Deaggregating router first makes the final decision of which
   Aggregate Reservation (and thus which DSCP) this E2E reservation is
   to be mapped onto.  This decision is made according to the policy
   selected by the network administrator as described above.

   If this final mapping decision is such that the Deaggregator can now
   make a more accurate update of the E2E Path ADSPEC than done when
   forwarding the initial E2E Path, the Deaggregator should do so and
   generate a new E2E Path immediately in order to provide the accurate
   ADSPEC information to the receiver as soon as possible.  Otherwise,
   normal Refresh procedures should be followed for the E2E Path.

   If no Aggregate Reservation currently exists from the corresponding
   aggregating router with the corresponding DSCP, the Deaggregating
   router will establish a new Aggregate Reservation as described in the
   next section.

   If the corresponding Aggregate Reservation exists but has
   insufficient bandwidth reserved to accommodate the new E2E
   reservation (in addition to all the existing E2E reservations
   currently mapped onto it), it should follow the normal RSVP
   procedures [RSVP] for a reservation being placed with insufficient
   bandwidth to support the reservation.  It may also first attempt to
   increase the aggregate reservation that is supplying bandwidth by
   increasing the size of the FLOW_SPEC that it includes in the
   aggregate Resv that it sends upstream.  As discussed in the previous
   section, the Aggregating Router should ensure that the SENDER_TSPEC
   it includes in the Aggregate Path is always in excess of the
   FLOW_SPEC that may be requested in the Aggregate Resv by the
   Deaggregator, so that the Deaggregator is not unnecessarily prevented
   from effectively increasing the Aggregate Reservation bandwidth as
   required.

   When sufficient bandwidth is available on the corresponding aggregate
   reservation, the Deaggregating Router may simply send the E2E Resv
   message with IP Protocol RSVP to the aggregating router.  This
   message should include the DCLASS object to indicate which DSCP the
   aggregator must use for this E2E flow.  The deaggregator will also




Baker, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 18]

RFC 3175              RSVP Reservation Aggregation        September 2001


   add the token bucket from the E2E Resv FLOWSPEC object into its
   internal understanding of how much of the Aggregate reservation is in
   use.

   As discussed above, in order to minimize the occurrence of situations
   where insufficient bandwidth is reserved on the corresponding
   Aggregate Reservation at the time of processing an E2E Resv, and in
   turn to avoid the delay associated with the increase of this
   aggregate bandwidth, the Deaggregator MAY anticipate the current
   demand and increase the Aggregate Reservations size ahead of actual
   requirements by E2E reservations.

2.6.  Initiation of New Aggregate Resv Message By Deaggregating Router

   Upon receiving an E2E Resv message on an exterior interface, and
   having determined the appropriate DSCP for the session according to
   the mapping policy, the Deaggregator looks for the corresponding path
   state for a session with the chosen DSCP.  If aggregate Path state
   exists, but no aggregate Resv state exists, the Deaggregator creates
   a new aggregate Resv.

   If no aggregate Path state exists for the appropriate DSCP, this may
   be because the Deaggregator could not decide earlier the final
   mapping for this E2E flow and elected to not establish Aggregate Path
   state for all DSCPs.  In that case, the Deaggregator should request
   establishment of the corresponding Aggregate Path by sending a E2E
   PathErr with error code of NEW-AGGREGATE-NEEDED and with a DCLASS
   containing the required DSCP.  This will trigger the Aggregator to
   establish the corresponding Aggregate Path.  Once the Deaggregator
   has determined that the aggregate Path state is established, it
   creates a new Aggregate Resv.

   The FLOW_SPEC of the new Aggregate Resv is set to a value not smaller
   than the requirement of the E2E reservation it is supporting.  The
   Aggregate Resv is sent toward the aggregator (i.e., to the previous
   hop), using the AGGREGATED-RSVP session and filter specifications
   defined below.  Since the DSCP is in the SESSION object, no DCLASS
   object is necessary.  The message should be reliably delivered using
   the mechanisms in [RFC2961] or, alternatively, the CONFIRM object may
   be used, to assure that the aggregate Resv does indeed arrive and is
   granted.  This enables the deaggregator to determine that the
   requested bandwidth is available to allocate to the E2E flows it
   supports.

   In order to minimize the occurrence of situations where no
   corresponding Aggregate Reservation is established at the time of
   processing an E2E Resv, and in turn to avoid the delay associated
   with the creation of this aggregate reservation, the Deaggregator MAY



Baker, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 19]

RFC 3175              RSVP Reservation Aggregation        September 2001


   anticipate the current demand and create the Aggregate Reservation
   before receiving E2E Resv messages requiring bandwidth on those
   aggregate reservations.

2.7.  Handling of Aggregate Resv Message by Interior Routers

   The aggregate Resv message is handled in essentially the same way as
   defined in [RSVP].  The Session object contains the address of the
   deaggregating router (or the group address for the session in the
   case of multicast) and the DSCP that has been chosen for the session.
   The Filterspec object identifies the aggregating router.  These
   routers perform admission control and resource allocation as usual
   and send the aggregate Resv on towards the aggregator.

2.8.  Handling of E2E Resv Message by Aggregating Router

   The receipt of the E2E Resv message with a DCLASS Object is the final
   confirmation to the aggregating router of the mapping of the E2E
   reservation onto an Aggregate Reservation.  Under normal
   circumstances, this is the only way it will be informed of this
   association.  It should now forward the E2E Resv to its previous hop,
   following normal RSVP processing rules [RSVP].

2.9.  Removal of E2E Reservation

   E2E reservations are removed in the usual way via PathTear, ResvTear,
   timeout, or as the result of an error condition.  When they are
   removed, their FLOWSPEC information must also be removed from the
   allocated portion of the aggregate reservation.  This same bandwidth
   may be re-used for other traffic in the near future.  When E2E Path
   messages are removed, their SENDER_TSPEC information must also be
   removed from the aggregate Path.

2.10.  Removal of Aggregate Reservation

   Should an aggregate reservation go away (presumably due to a
   configuration  change, route change, or policy event), the E2E
   reservations it supports are no longer active.  They must be treated
   accordingly.

2.11.  Handling of Data On Reserved E2E Flow by Aggregating Router

   Prior to establishment that a given E2E flow is part of a given
   aggregate, the flow's data should be treated as traffic without a
   reservation by whatever policies prevail for such.  Generally, this
   will mean being given the same forwarding behavior as best effort
   traffic.  However, upon establishing that the flow belongs to a given
   aggregate, the aggregating router is responsible for marking any



Baker, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 20]

RFC 3175              RSVP Reservation Aggregation        September 2001


   related traffic with the correct DSCP and forwarding it in the manner
   appropriate to traffic on that reservation.  This may imply
   forwarding it to a given IP next hop, or piping it down a given link
   layer circuit, tunnel, or MPLS label switched path.

   The aggregator is responsible for performing per-reservation policing
   on the E2E flows that it is aggregating.  The aggregator performs
   metering of traffic belonging to each reservation to assess
   compliance to the token bucket for the corresponding E2E reservation.
   Packets which are assessed in compliance are forwarded as mentioned
   above.  Packets which are assessed out of compliance must be either
   dropped, reshaped or marked to a different DSCP.  The detailed
   policing behavior is an aspect of the service mapping described in
   [RFC2998].

2.12.  Procedures for Multicast Sessions

   Because of the difficulties of aggregating multicast sessions
   described above, we focus on the aggregation of scheduling and
   classification state in the multicast case.  The main difference
   between the multicast and unicast cases is that rather than sending
   an aggregate Path message to the unicast address of a single
   deaggregating router, in the multicast case we send the "aggregate"
   Path message to the same group address as the E2E session.  This
   ensures that the aggregate Path message follows the same route as the
   E2E Path.  This difference between unicast and multicast is reflected
   in the Session objects defined below.  A consequence of this approach
   is that we continue to have reservation state per multicast session
   inside the aggregation region.

   A further challenge arises in multicast sessions with heterogeneous
   receivers.  Consider an interior router which must forward packets
   for a multicast session on two interfaces, but has only received a
   reservation request on one of those interfaces.  It receives packets
   marked with the DSCP chosen for the aggregate reservation.  When
   sending them out the interface which has no installed reservation, it
   has the following options:

   a) remark those packets to best effort before sending them out the
      interface;

   b) send the packets out the interface with the DSCP chosen for the
      aggregate reservation.

   The first approach suffers from the drawback that it requires nMF
   classification at an interior router in order to recognize the flows
   whose packets must be demoted.  The second approach requires over-
   reservation of resources on the interface on which no reservation was



Baker, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 21]

RFC 3175              RSVP Reservation Aggregation        September 2001


   received.  In the absence of such over-reservation, the packets sent
   with the "wrong" DSCP would be able to degrade the service
   experienced by packets using that DSCP legitimately.

   To make MF classification acceptable in an interior router, it may be
   possible to treat the case of heterogeneous flows as an exception.
   That is, an interior router only needs to be able to recognize those
   individual microflows that have heterogeneous resource needs on the
   outbound interfaces of this router.

3.  Protocol Elements

3.1.  IP Protocol RSVP-E2E-IGNORE

   This specification requires the assignment of a protocol type RSVP-
   E2E-IGNORE, whose number is at this point 134.  This is used only on
   E2E messages which require a router alert (Path, PathTear, and
   ResvConf), and signifies that the message must be treated one way
   when destined to an interior interface, and another way when destined
   to an exterior interface.  The protocol type is swapped by the
   Aggregator from RSVP to RSVP-E2E-IGNORE in E2E Path, PathTear, and
   ResvConf messages when they enter the Aggregation Region.  The
   protocol type is swapped back by the Deaggregator from RSVP-E2E-
   IGNORE to RSVP in such E2E messages when they exit the Aggregation
   Region.

3.2.  Path Error Code

   A PathErr code NEW-AGGREGATE-NEEDED is required.  This value does not
   signify that a fatal error has occurred, but that an action is
   required of the aggregating router to avoid an error condition in the
   near future.

3.3.  SESSION Object

   The SESSION object contains two values: the IP Address of the
   aggregate session destination, and the DSCP that it will use on the
   E2E data the reservation contains.  For unicast sessions, the session
   destination address is the address of the deaggregating router.  For
   multicast sessions, the session destination is the multicast address
   of the E2E session (or sessions) being aggregated.  The inclusion of
   the DSCP in the session allows for multiple sessions toward the same
   address to be distinguished by their DSCP and queued separately.  It
   also provides the means for aggregating scheduling and classification
   state.  In the case where a session uses a pair of PHBs (e.g., AF11
   and AF12), the DSCP used should represent the numerically smallest
   PHB (e.g., AF11).  This follows the same naming convention described
   in [BRIM].



Baker, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 22]

RFC 3175              RSVP Reservation Aggregation        September 2001


   Session types are defined for IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.

   o  IP4 SESSION object: Class = SESSION,
      C-Type = RSVP-AGGREGATE-IP4

        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
        |              IPv4 Session Address (4 bytes)           |
        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
        | /////////// |    Flags    |  /////////  |     DSCP    |
        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

   o  IP6 SESSION object: Class = SESSION,
      C-Type = RSVP-AGGREGATE-IP6

        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
        |                                                       |
        +                                                       +
        |                                                       |
        +              IPv6 Session Address (16 bytes)          +
        |                                                       |
        +                                                       +
        |                                                       |
        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
        | /////////// |    Flags    |  /////////  |     DSCP    |
        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

3.4.  SENDER_TEMPLATE Object

   The SENDER_TEMPLATE object identifies the aggregating router for the
   aggregate reservation.

   o  IP4 SENDER_TEMPLATE object: Class = SENDER_TEMPLATE,
      C-Type = RSVP-AGGREGATE-IP4

        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
        |                IPv4 Aggregator Address (4 bytes)      |
        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+














Baker, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 23]

RFC 3175              RSVP Reservation Aggregation        September 2001


   o  IP6 SENDER_TEMPLATE object: Class = SENDER_TEMPLATE,
      C-Type = RSVP-AGGREGATE-IP6

        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
        |                                                       |
        +                                                       +
        |                                                       |
        +           IPv6 Aggregator Address (16 bytes)          +
        |                                                       |
        +                                                       +
        |                                                       |
        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

3.5.  FILTER_SPEC Object

   The FILTER_SPEC object identifies the aggregating router for the
   aggregate reservation, and is syntactically identical to the
   SENDER_TEMPLATE object.

4.  Policies and Algorithms For Predictive Management Of Blocks Of
    Bandwidth

   The exact policies used in determining how much bandwidth should be
   allocated to an aggregate reservation at any given time are beyond
   the scope of this document, and may be proprietary to the service
   provider in question.  However, here we explore some of the issues
   and suggest approaches.

   In short, the ideal condition is that the aggregate reservation
   always has enough resources to allocate to any E2E reservation that
   requires its support, and never takes too much.  Simply stated, but
   more difficult to achieve.  Factors that come into account include
   significant times in the diurnal cycle: one may find that a large
   number of people start placing calls at 8:00 AM, even though the hour
   from 7:00 to 8:00 is dead calm.  They also include recent history: if
   more people have been  placing calls recently than have been
   finishing them, a prediction of the necessary bandwidth a few moments
   hence may call for more bandwidth than is currently allocated.
   Likewise, at the end of a busy period, we may find that the trend
   calls for declining reservation amounts.

   We recommend a policy something along this line.  At any given time,
   one should expect that the amount of bandwidth required for the
   aggregate reservation is the larger of the following:

   (a) a requirement known a priori, such as from history of the diurnal
       cycle at a particular week day and time of day, and




Baker, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 24]

RFC 3175              RSVP Reservation Aggregation        September 2001


   (b) the trend line over recent history, with 90 or 99% statistical
       confidence.

   We further expect that changes to that aggregate reservation would be
   made no more often than every few minutes, and ideally perhaps on
   larger granularity such as fifteen minute intervals or hourly.  The
   finer the granularity, the greater the level of signaling required,
   while the coarser the granularity, the greater the chance for error,
   and the need to recover from that error.

   In general, we expect that the aggregate reservation will not ever
   add up to exactly the sum of the reservations it supports, but rather
   will be an integer multiple of some block reservation size, which
   exceeds that value.

5.  Security Considerations

   Numerous security issues pertain to this document; for example, the
   loss of an aggregate reservation to an aggressor causes many calls to
   operate unreserved, and the reservation of a great excess of
   bandwidth may result in a denial of service.  However, these issues
   are not confined to this extension: RSVP itself has them.  We believe
   that the security mechanisms in RSVP address these issues as well.

   One security issue specific to RSVP aggregation involves the
   modification of the IP protocol number in RSVP Path messages that
   traverse an aggregation region.  If that field were maliciously
   modified in a Path message, it would cause the message to be ignored
   by all subsequent devices on its path, preventing reservations from
   being made.  It could even be possible to correct the value before it
   reached the receiver, making it difficult to detect the attack.  In
   theory, it might also be possible for a node to modify the IP
   protocol number for non-RSVP messages as well, thus interfering with
   the operation of other protocols.

   One way to mitigate the risks of malicious modification of the IP
   protocol number is to use an IPSEC authentication header, which would
   ensure that malicious modification of the IP header is detected.
   This is a desirable approach but imposes some administrative burden
   in the form of key management for authentication purposes.

   It is RECOMMENDED that implementations of this specification only
   support modification of the IP protocol number for RSVP Path,
   PathTear, and ResvConf messages.  That is, a general facility for
   modification of the IP protocol number SHOULD NOT be made available.






Baker, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 25]

RFC 3175              RSVP Reservation Aggregation        September 2001


   Network operators deploying routers with RSVP aggregation capability
   should be aware of the risks of inappropriate modification of the IP
   protocol number and should take appropriate steps (physical security,
   password protection, etc.) to reduce the risk that a router could be
   configured by an attacker to perform malicious modification of the
   protocol number.

6.  IANA Considerations

   Section 1.2 proposes a new protocol type, RSVP-E2E-IGNORE, which is
   used to identify a message that routers in the network core will see;
   further processing of such messages may or may not be required,
   depending on the egress interface type, as described in Section 1.2.
   The IANA assigned IP protocol number 134, in accordance with
   [RFC2780], meeting the Standards Track publication criterion.

   Section 1.4.9 describes the manner in which the Router Alert is used
   in the context of this specification, which is essentially a simple
   counter of the depth of nesting of aggregation.  The IPv4 Router
   Alert [RFC2113] has the option simply to ask the router to look at
   the protocol type of the intercepted datagram and decide what to do
   with it; the parameter is additional information to that decision.
   The IPv6 Router Alert [RFC2711] turns the parameter into an option
   sub-type.  As a result, the IPv6 router alert option may not be used
   algorithmically in the context of the protocol in question.  The IANA
   assigned a block of 32 values (3-35, "Aggregated Reservation Nesting
   Level") which we may map to nesting depths 0..31, hoping that 32
   levels is enough.

   Section 3.2 discusses a new, required path error code.  The IANA has
   assigned RSVP Parameters Error Code 26 to NEW-AGGREGATE-NEEDED.

   Sections 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 describe extensions to three object
   classes: Session, Filter Specification, and Sender Template.  The
   IANA has assigned two new common C-Types to be specified for the
   aggregator's address.  RSVP-AGGREGATE-IP4 is C-Type 9 and RSVP-
   AGGREGATE-IP6 is C-Type 10.  In adding these C-types to IANA RSVP
   Class Names, Class Numbers and Class Types registry, the same
   numbering for them is used in all three Classes, as is done for IPv4
   and IPv6 address tuples in [RSVP].











Baker, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 26]

RFC 3175              RSVP Reservation Aggregation        September 2001


7.  Acknowledgments

   The authors acknowledge that published documents and discussion with
   several people, notably John Wroclawski, Steve Berson, and Andreas
   Terzis materially contributed to this document.  The design is
   influenced by the RSVP tunnels document [TERZIS].













































Baker, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 27]

RFC 3175              RSVP Reservation Aggregation        September 2001


APPENDIX 1: Example Signalling Flow For First E2E Flow

   This Appendix does not provide additional specification.  It only
   illustrates the specification detailed above through a possible flow
   of RSVP signalling messages involved in the successful establishment
   of a unicast E2E reservation which is the first between a given pair
   of Aggregator/Deaggregator.

           Aggregator                              Deaggregator

    E2E Path
   ---------------->
                (1)
                           E2E Path
                     ------------------------------->
                                                        (2)
                      E2E PathErr(New-agg-needed, DCLASS=x)
                     <-------------------------------
                      E2E PathErr(New-agg-needed, DCLASS=y)
                     <-------------------------------
                (3)
                           AggPath(DSCP=x)
                     ------------------------------->
                           AggPath(DSCP=y)
                     ------------------------------->
                                                        (4)
                                                           E2E Path
                                                           ----------->
                                                        (5)
                           AggResv (DSCP=x)
                     <-------------------------------
                           AggResv (DSCP=y)
                     <-------------------------------
               (6)
                           AggResvConfirm (DSCP=x)
                     ------------------------------>
                           AggResvConfirm (DSCP=y)
                     ------------------------------>
                                                        (7)
                                                           E2E Resv
                                                           <----------
                                                        (8)
                           E2E Resv (DCLASS=x)
                     <-----------------------------
               (9)
       E2E Resv
   <---------------




Baker, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 28]

RFC 3175              RSVP Reservation Aggregation        September 2001


   (1)  Aggregator forwards E2E Path into aggregation region after
        modifying its IP Protocol Number to RSVP-E2E-IGNORE

   (2)  Let's assume no Aggregate Path exists.  To be able to accurately
        update the ADSPEC of the E2E Path, the Deaggregator needs the
        ADSPEC of Aggregate PATH.  In this example the Deaggregator
        elects to instruct the Aggregator to set up Aggregate Path
        states for the two supported DSCPs by sending a New-Agg-Needed
        PathErr code for each DSCP.

   (3)  The Aggregator follows the request from the Deaggregator and
        signals an Aggregate Path for both DSCPs.

   (4)  The Deaggregator takes into account the information contained in
        the ADSPEC from both Aggregate Path and updates the E2E Path
        ADSPEC accordingly.  The Deaggregator also modifies the E2E Path
        IP Protocol Number to RSVP before forwarding it.

   (5)  In this example, the Deaggregator elects to immediately proceed
        with establishment of Aggregate Reservations for both DSCPs.  In
        effect, the Deaggregator can be seen as anticipating the actual
        demand of E2E reservations so that resources are available on
        Aggregate Reservations when the E2E Resv requests arrive in
        order to speed up establishment of E2E reservations.  Assume
        also that the Deaggregator includes the optional Resv Confirm
        Request in these Aggregate Resv.

   (6)  The Aggregator merely complies with the received ResvConfirm
        Request and returns the corresponding Aggregate ResvConfirm.

   (7)  The Deaggregator has explicit confirmation that both Aggregate
        Resv are established.

   (8)  On receipt of the E2E Resv, the Deaggregator applies the mapping
        policy defined by the network administrator to map the E2E Resv
        onto an Aggregate Reservation.  Let's assume that this policy is
        such that the E2E reservation is to be mapped onto the Aggregate
        Reservation with DSCP=x.  The Deaggregator knows that an
        Aggregate Reservation is in place for the corresponding DSCP
        since (7).  The Deaggregator performs admission control of the
        E2E Resv onto the Aggregate Resv for DSCP=x.  Assuming that the
        Aggregate Resv for DSCP=x had been established with sufficient
        bandwidth to support the E2E Resv, the Deaggregator adjusts its
        counter tracking the unused bandwidth on the Aggregate
        Reservation and forwards the E2E Resv to the Aggregator
        including a DCLASS object conveying the selected mapping onto
        DSCP=x.




Baker, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 29]

RFC 3175              RSVP Reservation Aggregation        September 2001


   (9)  The Aggregator records the mapping of the E2E Resv onto DSCP=x.
        The Aggregator removes the DCLASS object and forwards the E2E
        Resv towards the sender.

APPENDIX 2: Example Signalling Flow For Subsequent E2E Flow Without
            Reservation Resizing

   This Appendix does not provide additional specification.  It only
   illustrates the specification detailed above through a possible flow
   of RSVP signalling messages involved in the successful establishment
   of a unicast E2E reservation which follows other E2E reservations
   between a given pair of Aggregator/Deaggregator.  This flow could be
   imagined as following the flow of messages illustrated in Appendix 1.

           Aggregator                              Deaggregator

    E2E Path
   ---------------->
                (10)
                           E2E Path
                       ------------------------------->
                                                      (11)
                                                         E2E Path
                                                         ----------->
                                                          E2E Resv
                                                         <-----------
                                                      (12)
                           E2E Resv (DCLASS=x)
                     <-----------------------------
                 (13)
       E2E Resv
   <---------------

   (10) Aggregator forwards E2E Path into aggregation region after
        modifying its IP Protocol Number to RSVP-E2E-IGNORE

   (11) Because previous E2E reservations have been established, let's
        assume that Aggregate Path exists for all supported DSCPs.  The
        Deaggregator takes into account the information contained in the
        ADSPEC from the Aggregate Paths and updates the E2E Path ADSPEC
        accordingly.  The Deaggregator also modifies the E2E Path IP
        Protocol Number to RSVP before forwarding it.

   (12) On receipt of the E2E Resv, the Deaggregator applies the mapping
        policy defined by the network administrator to map the E2E Resv
        onto an Aggregate Reservation.  Let's assume that this policy is
        such that the E2E reservation is to be mapped onto the Aggregate
        Reservation with DSCP=x.  Because previous E2E reservations have



Baker, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 30]

RFC 3175              RSVP Reservation Aggregation        September 2001


        been established, let's assume that an Aggregate Reservation is
        in place for DSCP=x.  The Deaggregator performs admission
        control of the E2E Resv onto the Aggregate Resv for DSCP=x.
        Assuming that the Aggregate Resv for DSCP=x has sufficient
        unused bandwidth to support the new E2E Resv, the Deaggregator
        then adjusts its counter tracking the unused bandwidth on the
        Aggregate Reservation and forwards the E2E Resv to the
        Aggregator including a DCLASS object conveying the selected
        mapping onto DSCP=x.

   (13) The Aggregator records the mapping of the E2E Resv onto DSCP=x.
        The Aggregator removes the DCLASS object and forwards the E2E
        Resv towards the sender.

APPENDIX 3: Example Signalling Flow For Subsequent E2E Flow With
            Reservation Resizing

   This Appendix does not provide additional specification.  It only
   illustrates the specification detailed above through a possible flow
   of RSVP signalling messages involved in the successful establishment
   of a unicast E2E reservation which follows other E2E reservations
   between a given pair of Aggregator/Deaggregator.  This flow could be
   imagined as following the flow of messages illustrated in Appendix 2.




























Baker, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 31]

RFC 3175              RSVP Reservation Aggregation        September 2001


                 Aggregator                        Deaggregator

    E2E Path
   ---------------->
                    (14)
                           E2E Path
                       ------------------------------->
                                                       (15)
                                                           E2E Path
                                                           ----------->

                                                           E2E Resv
                                                           <-----------


                                                       (16)
                        AggResv (DSCP=x, increased Bw)
                       <-------------------------------
                   (17)
                       AggResvConfirm (DSCP=x, increased Bw)
                       ------------------------------>
                                                       (18)
                          E2E Resv (DCLASS=x)
                       <-----------------------------
                   (19)
       E2E Resv
   <---------------

   (14) Aggregator forwards E2E Path into aggregation region after
        modifying its IP Protocol Number to RSVP-E2E-IGNORE

   (15) Because previous E2E reservations have been established, let's
        assume that Aggregate Path exists for all supported DSCPs.  The
        Deaggregator takes into account the information contained in the
        ADSPEC from the Aggregate Paths and updates the E2E Path ADSPEC
        accordingly.  The Deaggregator also modifies the E2E Path IP
        Protocol Number to RSVP before forwarding it.

   (16) On receipt of the E2E Resv, the Deaggregator applies the mapping
        policy defined by the network administrator to map the E2E Resv
        onto an Aggregate Reservation.  Let's assume that this policy is
        such that the E2E reservation is to be mapped onto the Aggregate
        Reservation with DSCP=x.  Because previous E2E reservations have
        been established, let's assume that an Aggregate Reservation is
        in place for DSCP=x.  The Deaggregator performs admission
        control of the E2E Resv onto the Agg Resv for DSCP=x.  Let's
        assume that the Aggregate Resv for DSCP=x does NOT have
        sufficient unused bandwidth to support the new E2E Resv.  The



Baker, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 32]

RFC 3175              RSVP Reservation Aggregation        September 2001


        Deaggregator then attempts to increase the Aggregate Reservation
        bandwidth for DSCP=x by sending a new Aggregate Resv with an
        increased bandwidth sufficient to accommodate all the E2E
        reservations already mapped onto that Aggregate reservation plus
        the new E2E reservation plus possibly some additional spare
        bandwidth in anticipation of additional E2E reservations to
        come.  Assume also that the Deaggregator includes the optional
        Resv Confirm Request in these Aggregate Resv.

   (17) The Aggregator merely complies with the received ResvConfirm
        Request and returns the corresponding Aggregate ResvConfirm.

   (18) The Deaggregator has explicit confirmation that the Aggregate
        Resv has been successfully increased.  The Deaggregator performs
        again admission control of the E2E Resv onto the increased
        Aggregate Reservation for DSCP=x.  Assuming that the increased
        Aggregate Reservation for DSCP=x now has sufficient unused
        bandwidth and resources to support the new E2E Resv, the
        Deaggregator then adjusts its counter tracking the unused
        bandwidth on the Aggregate Reservation and forwards the E2E Resv
        to the Aggregator including a DCLASS object conveying the
        selected mapping onto DSCP=x.

   (19) The Aggregator records the mapping of the E2E Resv onto DSCP=x.
        The Aggregator removes the DCLASS object and forwards the E2E
        Resv towards the sender.

References

   [CSZ]        Clark, D., S. Shenker, and L. Zhang, "Supporting Real-
                Time Applications in an Integrated Services Packet
                Network:  Architecture and Mechanism," in Proc.
                SIGCOMM'92, September 1992.

   [IP]         Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
                September 1981.

   [HOSTREQ]    Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet hosts -
                communication layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.

   [DSFIELD]    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.

   [PRINCIPLES] Carpenter, B., "Architectural Principles of the
                Internet", RFC 1958, June 1996.




Baker, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 33]

RFC 3175              RSVP Reservation Aggregation        September 2001


   [ASSURED]    Heinanen, J, Baker, F., Weiss, W. and J. Wroclawski,
                "Assured Forwarding PHB Group", RFC 2597, June 1999.

   [BROKER]     Jacobson, V., Nichols K. and L. Zhang, "A Two-bit
                Differentiated Services Architecture for the Internet",
                RFC 2638, June 1999.

   [BRIM]       Brim, S., Carpenter, B. and F. LeFaucheur, "Per Hop
                Behavior Identification Codes", RFC 2836, May 2000.

   [RSVP]       Braden, R., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S. and S.
                Jamin, "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Version 1
                Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.

   [TERZIS]     Terzis, A., Krawczyk, J., Wroclawski, J. and L. Zhang,
                "RSVP Operation Over IP Tunnels", RFC 2746, January
                2000.

   [DCLASS]     Bernet, Y., "Format of the RSVP DCLASS Object", RFC
                2996, November 2000.

   [INTEGRITY]  Baker, F., Lindell, B. and M. Talwar, "RSVP
                Cryptographic Authentication", RFC 2747, January 2000.

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

   [RFC2961]    Berger, L., Gan, D., Swallow, G., Pan, P. and F.
                Tommasi, "RSVP Refresh Reduction Extensions", RFC 2961,
                April 2001.

   [RFC2780]    Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines
                For Values In the Internet Protocol and Related
                Headers", RFC 2780, March 2000.

   [RFC2711]    Partridge, C. and A. Jackson, "IPv6 Router Alert
                Option", RFC 2711, October 1999.

   [RFC2113]    Katz, D. "IP Router Alert Option", RFC 2113, February
                1997.









Baker, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 34]

RFC 3175              RSVP Reservation Aggregation        September 2001


Authors' Addresses

   Fred Baker
   Cisco Systems
   1121 Via Del Rey
   Santa Barbara, CA, 93117  USA

   Phone: (408) 526-4257
   EMail: fred@cisco.com


   Carol Iturralde
   Cisco Systems
   250 Apollo Drive
   Chelmsford MA, 01824 USA

   Phone: 978-244-8532
   EMail: cei@cisco.com


   Francois Le Faucheur
   Cisco Systems
   Domaine Green Side
   400, Avenue de Roumanille
   06410 Biot - Sophia Antipolis
   France

   Phone: +33.4.97.23.26.19
   EMail: flefauch@cisco.com


   Bruce Davie
   Cisco Systems
   250 Apollo Drive
   Chelmsford MA,01824 USA

   Phone: 978-244-8921
   EMail: bdavie@cisco.com













Baker, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 35]

RFC 3175              RSVP Reservation Aggregation        September 2001


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001).  All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.



















Baker, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 36]


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