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

Versions: 00 01

TSVWG Working Group                                               L. Han
Internet-Draft                                                     Y. Qu
Intended status: Informational                                   L. Dong
Expires: April 22, 2019                                            R. Li
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                               T. Nadeau
                                                            Lucid Vision
                                                                K. Smith
                                                                Vodafone
                                                             J. Tantsura
                                                                  Apstra
                                                        October 19, 2018


           Resource Reservation Protocol for IP Transport QoS
                  draft-han-tsvwg-ip-transport-qos-01

Abstract

   IP is designed for use in Best Effort Networks, which are networks
   that provide no guarantee that data is delivered, or that delivery
   meets any specified quality of service parameters.  However there are
   new applications requiring IP to provide deterministic services in
   terms of bandwidth and latency, such as network based AR/VR
   (Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality), industrial internet.  This
   document proposes a solution in IPv6 that can be used by transport
   layer protocols to guarantee certain level of service quality.  This
   new service is fined-grained and could apply to individual or
   aggregated TCP/UDP flow(s).

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 22, 2019.





Han, et al.              Expires April 22, 2019                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft              ResRev for IP QoS               October 2018


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  Design Targets  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Scope and Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.3.  Sub-layer in IP for Transport Control . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.4.  IP In-band signaling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.5.  IPv6 Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.  Key Messages and Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.1.  Setup and Setup State Report messages . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.2.  Forwarding State and Forwarding State Report     messages  11
     4.3.  Hop Number  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.4.  Flow Identifying Method and Service ID  . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.5.  QoS State and life of Time  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     4.6.  Authentication  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   5.  Packet Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     5.1.  Basic Hardware Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     5.2.  Flow Identification in Packet Forwarding  . . . . . . . .  15
     5.3.  QoS Forwarding State Detection and Failure Handling . . .  16
   6.  Details of Working with Transport Layer . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     6.1.  Working with TCP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     6.2.  Working with UDP and other Protocols  . . . . . . . . . .  19
   7.  Additional Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     7.1.  User and Application driven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     7.2.  Traffic Management in Host  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     7.3.  Heterogeneous Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     7.4.  Proxy Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24



Han, et al.              Expires April 22, 2019                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft              ResRev for IP QoS               October 2018


     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   Appendix B.  Message Objects  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     B.1.  Setup State Object  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     B.2.  Bandwidth Object  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     B.3.  Burst Msg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     B.4.  Latency Object  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
     B.5.  Authentication Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
     B.6.  OAM Object  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
     B.7.  Forwarding State Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
     B.8.  Setup State Report Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
     B.9.  Forward State Report Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35

1.  Introduction

   Recently, more and more new applications for The Internet are
   emerging.  These applications have a number of key requirements that
   are common to all such as that their required bandwidth is very high
   and/or latency is very low compared with traditional applications
   like most of web and video applications.

   For example, network based Augmented Reality (AR) or Virtual Reality
   (VR) applications may need hundreds of Mbps bandwidth (throughput)
   and a low single digit millisecond latency.  Moreover, the difference
   between mean bit rate and peak bit rate may be significant due to the
   choice of compression algorithm
   [I-D.han-iccrg-arvr-transport-problem].  This may result in large
   bursts, and make traffic management more difficult.

   Some future applications may expect networks to provide a bounded
   latency service.  One such example is tactile network [Tactile].

   With the technology development in 5G [HU5G][QU2016] and beyond, the
   wireless access network is also increasing the demand for the Ultra-
   Reliable and Low-Latency Communications (URLLC).  This also leads to
   the question of whether IP can provide such service in an Evolved
   Packet Core (EPC)[EPC] network.  IP is becoming more and more
   important in the EPC when the Multi-access Edge Computing (MEC)[MEC]
   for 5G requires the cloud and data service to move closer to eNodeB
   [eNodeB].

   [I-D.ietf-detnet-use-cases] identifies some use cases from different
   industries which have a common need for "deterministic flows".  Such
   flows require guaranteed bandwidth and bounded latency.

   Traditionally, an IP network provides an unreliable or best-effort
   datagram service over a collection of underlying networks (i.e.:



Han, et al.              Expires April 22, 2019                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft              ResRev for IP QoS               October 2018


   ethernet, ATM, etc...).  Integrated services(IntServ) [RFC3175]
   specifies a fine-grained QoS system, which requires all routers along
   the traffic path to support it and maintain the states for resource
   reserved IP flow(s), so it is difficult to scale up to keep track of
   all the reservations.  Differentiated services (DiffServ) [RFC2475]
   specifies a simple and scalable mechanism to classify traffic and
   provide more coarse QoS, however because it can only specify per-hop
   behaviors (PHBs), and how individual routers deal with the DS
   [RFC2474] field is configuration specific.  It is difficult to
   provide consistent resource reservation for specified class of
   traffic, thus hard to support the end-to-end bandwidth or latency
   guarantee.

   The transport layer (TCP/UDP) on top of IP is based on the best-
   effort-only service, which has influenced the transport layer
   evolution for quite long time, and results in some widely accepted
   assumptions and solutions, such as:

   1.  The IP layer can only provide basic P2P (point to point) or P2MP
       (point to multi-point) end-to-end connectivity in the Internet,
       but the connectivity is not reliable and does not guarantee any
       quality of service to end-user or application, such as bandwidth,
       packet loss, latency etc.  Due to this assumption, the transport
       layer or application must have its own control mechanism in
       congestion and flow to obtain the reliable and satisfactory
       service to cooperate with the under layer network quality.

   2.  The transport layer assumes that the IP layer can only process
       all IP flows equally in the hardware since the best effort
       service is actually an un-differentiated service.  The process
       includes scheduling, queuing and forwarding.  Thus, the transport
       layer must behave nicely and friendly to make sure all flows will
       only obtain its own faired share of resource, and no one could
       consume more and no one could be starved.

   This document proposes a new IP transport service that guarantees
   bandwidth and latency for new applications.  The scope and criteria
   for the new technology will also be discussed.  This new IP transport
   service is designed to be supplementary to regular IP transport
   services, only meant to be used for special applications that are
   bandwidth and/or latency sensitive.

2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP




Han, et al.              Expires April 22, 2019                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft              ResRev for IP QoS               October 2018


   14 RFC 2119 [RFC2119] RFC 8174 [RFC8174] when, and only when, they
   appear in all capitals, as shown here.

   Abbreviations used in this documents:

   E2E
         End-to-end.

   EH
         IPv6 Extension Header or Extension Option.

   QoS
         Quality of Service.

   OAM
         Operation and Management.

   In-band Signaling
         In telecommunications, in-band signaling is sending control
         information within the same band or channel used for voice or
         video.

   Out-of-band Signaling
         out-of-band signaling is that the control information sent over
         a different channel, or even over a separate network.

   IP flow
         For non-IPSec, an IP flow is identified by the source,
         destination IP address, the protocol number, the source and
         destination port number.

   IP path
         An IP path is the route that IP flow will traverse.  It could
         be the shortest path determined by routing protocols (IGP or
         BPG), or the explicit path such as segment routing
         [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing].

   QoS channel
         A forwarding channel that is QoS guaranteed.  It provides
         additional QoS service to IP forwarding.  A QoS channel can be
         used for one or multiple IP flows depending on the granularity
         of in-band signaling.

   CIR
         Committed Information Rate.

   PIR
         Peak Information Rate.



Han, et al.              Expires April 22, 2019                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft              ResRev for IP QoS               October 2018


   HbH-EH
         IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Extension Header.

   Dst-EH
         IPv6 Destination Extension Header.

   HbH-EH-aware node
         Network nodes that are configured to process the IPv6 Hop-by-
         Hop Extension Header.

3.  Overview

   Semiconductor chip technology has advanced significantly in the last
   decade, and as such the widely used network processing and forwarding
   process can now not only forward packets at line speed, but also
   easily support other feature processing such as QoS for DiffServ/
   MPLS, Access Control List (ACL), fire wall, and Deep Packet
   Inspection (DPI).

   This advancement enables network processors to do the general process
   to handle simple control messages for traffic management, such as
   signaling for hardware programming, congestion state report, OAM,
   etc.  So now it's possible to treat some TCP/IP flows differently
   from others and give them specified resource are feasible now by
   using network processor.

   This document proposes a deterministic IP transport service, which
   can provide guaranteed bandwidth and latency.  The solution is based
   on the QoS implemented in network processor through in-band
   signaling.

3.1.  Design Targets

   The proposed transport service is expected to satisfy the following
   criteria:

   o  End user or application may directly use the new service.

   o  The new service can coexist with the current transport service and
      is backward compatible.

   o  Service providers can manage the new service.

   o  Performance and scalability targets of this new service are
      practical for vendors to achieve.

   o  The new service is transport agnostic.  TCP, UDP and other
      transport protocols on top of IP can use it.



Han, et al.              Expires April 22, 2019                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft              ResRev for IP QoS               October 2018


3.2.  Scope and Assumptions

   The initial aim is to propose a solution for IPv6.  To limit the
   scope of the document and simplify the design and solution, the
   following constraints are given:

   1.  The new service with QoS is aimed to be supplementary to regular
       IP service.  It is targeted for the applications that are
       bandwidth and/or latency sensitive.  It is not intended to
       replace the TCP/IP variants that have been proved to be efficient
       and successful for current applications.

   2.  The new service is limited within one administrative domain, even
       it does not exclude the possibilities of extending the mechanism
       for inter-domain scenarios.  Currently only inter-domain security
       is considered, and the inter-domain SLA, accounting and other
       issues are not discussed.

   3.  Due to high bandwidth requirement of new service for individual
       flow, the total number of the flows with the new service cannot
       be high for a port, or a system.  From another point of view, the
       new service is targeted for applications that really need it, the
       number of supported applications/users should be controlled and
       cannot be unlimited.  Hence the scalability requirement for the
       new service is limited.

   4.  The new service must be able to coexist with the regular
       transport service in the same hardware, and be backward
       compatible.  Also, a transport flow can switch between regular
       transport and new service without service interruption.

3.3.  Sub-layer in IP for Transport Control

   In order to provide some new features for the layer above IP, it is
   very useful to introduce an additional sub-layer, Transport Control,
   between layer 3 (IP) and layer 4 (TCP/UDP).  The new layer belongs to
   IP, and is present only when the system needs to provide extra
   control for the upper layer, in addition to the normal IP forwarding.
   Fig 1. illustrates a new stack with the sub-layer.












Han, et al.              Expires April 22, 2019                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft              ResRev for IP QoS               October 2018


                        +=========================+
                        |           APP           |
                        +=========================+
                        |         TCP/UDP         |
                        +=========================+
                        |      Transport Ctl      |
                        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                        |           IP            |
                        +=========================+
                        |     Network Access      |
                        +=========================+

            Figure 1: The new stack with a sub-layer in Layer 3

   The new sub-layer is always bound with IP layer and can provide
   support of the features for upper layer, such as:

   In-band Signaling
      The IP header with the new sub-layer can carry the signaling
      information for the devices on the IP path.  The information may
      include all QoS related parameters used for hardware programming.

   Congestion control
      The congestion state in each device on the path can be detected
      and notified to the source of flows by the sub-layer; The dynamic
      congestion control instruction can also be carried by the sub-
      layer and examined by network devices on the IP path.

   IP Path OAM
      The OAM instruction can be carried in the sub-layer, and the OAM
      state can be notified to the source of flows by the sub-layer.
      The OAM includes the path and device property detection, QoS
      forwarding diagnosis and report.

   IPv4 could use the IP option for the purpose of the sub-layer.  But
   due to the limit size of the IP option, the functionalities,
   scalability of the layer is restricted.

   IPv6 can realize the sub-layer easily using IPv6 extension header
   [RFC8200].  The document will focus on the solution for IPv6 using
   different IPv6 extension headers.

3.4.  IP In-band signaling

   In-band signaling messages are carried along with the payload.  It is
   guaranteed that the signaling follows the same path as the data flow,
   and this can bring up some advantages that other methods can hardly
   provide:



Han, et al.              Expires April 22, 2019                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft              ResRev for IP QoS               October 2018


   Diagnosis
      The in-band signaling message takes the same path, same hops, same
      processing at each hop as the data packet, this will make the
      diagnosis for both signaling and data path easier.

   Simplicity
      The in-band signaling message is forwarded with the normal data
      packet, it does not need to run a separate protocol.  This will
      dramatically reduce the complexity of the control.

   Performance and scalability
      Due to the simplicity of in-band signaling for control, it is
      easier to provide a better performance and scalability for a new
      future.

   Note, the requirement of IP in-band signaling was proposed before by
   John Harper [I-D.harper-inband-signalling-requirements].  And the in-
   band QoS signaling for IPv6 was simply discussed in
   [I-D.roberts-inband-qos-ipv6].  Unfortunately, both works did not
   continue.

   This document proposes a detailed solution for QoS service using in-
   band signaling, and it also tries to address issues raised by
   previous proposals, such as security, scalability and performance.

3.5.  IPv6 Approach

   IPv6 extension header is used for signaling.  There are two types of
   extension header used for the purpose of transport QoS control, one
   is the hop-by-hop EH (HbH-EH) and another is the destination EH (Dst-
   EH).

   The HbH-EH may be examined and processed by the nodes that are
   explicitly configured to do so [RFC8200], and these nodes are called
   HbH-EH-aware nodes.  Note, not all nodes along a patch need to HbH-
   EH-aware.  HbH-EH is used to carry the QoS requirement for dedicated
   flow(s) and then the information is intercepted by HbH-EH-aware nodes
   on the path to program hardware accordingly.

   The destination EH will only be examined and processed by the
   destination device that is associated with the destination IPv6
   address in the IPv6 header.  This EH is used to send the QoS related
   report information directly to the source of the signaling at other
   end.

   The following figure illustrates the path setup process:





Han, et al.              Expires April 22, 2019                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft              ResRev for IP QoS               October 2018


             Setup Message (bandwidth, latency, setup state)

        +------------------------HbH-EH------ -----------------+
        |             |                          |             |
        |             |                          |             |
     +------+   +------------+   +-----+   +------------+   +------+
     |      |   |            |   |     |   |            |   |      |
     | host |---|     R1     |---| R2  |---|    R3      |---|server|
     |      |   |HbH-EH-aware|   |     |   |HbH-EH-aware|   |      |
     |      |   |            |   |     |   |            |   |      |
     +------+   +------------+   +-----+   +------------+   +------+
        |                                                       |
        |                                                       |
        +----------------------- Dst-EH ------------------------+

              Setup State Report Message (setup state report)

                           Figure 2: Path Setup

   Using the figure.2 for illustration, to set up a path with resource
   reservation, a setup message including QoS requirements, such as max/
   min bandwidth, burst size, the latency, and the setup state is sent
   from the host to the server.  After each HbH-EH-aware node along the
   path receives the message, it reads the QoS information and programs
   the hardware for resource reservation, queuing management etc.  The
   setup state object is updated at each HbH-EH-aware node to include
   the QoS programming and provisioning result and the necessary
   hardware reference information for IP forwarding with QoS.  After the
   setup message reaches the server, the server will send a setup state
   report message encoded as Dst-EH to the host.  The setup state report
   message carries the path setup results from the setup state object.

4.  Key Messages and Parameters

4.1.  Setup and Setup State Report messages

   Setup message is intended to program the hardware for QoS channel on
   the IP path from the source to the destination expressed in IPv6
   header.  It is embedded as the HbH-EH in an IPv6 packet and will be
   processed at each HbH-EH-aware node.  For the simplicity, performance
   and scalability purpose, not all routers along the path need do the
   processing or be HbH-EH-aware.  For different QoS requirements and
   scenarios, different criteria can be used to configure HbH-EH-aware
   nodes.

   A throttle router is the device that an interested TCP/UDP session
   cannot get the enough bandwidth to support its application, and it
   will also contribute more to latency than non-throttle routers.  The



Han, et al.              Expires April 22, 2019                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft              ResRev for IP QoS               October 2018


   regular throttle routers include the BRAS (broadband remote access
   server) in broadband access network, the PGW (PDN Gateway) in LTE
   network etc.  In more general case, any routers which aggregated
   traffic may become as a throttle router.  Throttle routers should be
   configured to process HbH-EH when:

   o  Reserved bandwidth is required: The throttle router is the
      critical point to be configured to process the hop-by-hop EH for
      the bandwidth reservation.  Moreover, the direction of congestion
      must be considered.

   o  Bounded latency is required: In theory, each router and switch
      could contribute some delay to the end-to-end latency, but the
      throttle router will contribute more than non-throttle routers,
      and slow device will contribute more than fast device.  We can use
      OAM to detect the latency contribution in a network, and configure
      those worst-cast devices to process the HbH-EH.

   Setup State Report message is the message sent from the destination
   host to the source host (from the point of view of the Setup
   message).  The message is embedded into the Dst-EH in any data
   packet.  The Setup State Report in the message is just a copy from
   the Setup message received at the destination host for a typical TCP
   session.  The message is used at the source host to forward the
   packet later and to do the congestion control.


     <Setup Message> ::= <Setup State Object> [ <Bandwidth
     Object> ]
                         [ <Burst Object> ] [ <Latency
                         Object> ]
                         [ <OAM Object> ] [ <Authentication
                         Object> ]
     <Setup State Report Message> ::= <Setup State Report
     Object>
                                      [ <OAM Object> ]

4.2.  Forwarding State and Forwarding State Report messages

   After the QoS is programmed by the in-band signaling, the specified
   IP flows can be processed and forwarded for the QoS requirement.
   There are two ways for host to use the QoS channel for associated TCP
   session:

   1.  Host directly send the IP packet without any changes to the
       packet, this is for the following cases:





Han, et al.              Expires April 22, 2019                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft              ResRev for IP QoS               October 2018


       *  The hardware was programmed to use the tuples in IP header as
          identification for QoS process (SIS = 0), and

       *  The packet does not function to collect the QoS forwarding
          state on the path.

   2.  Host add the Forward State message into a data packet's IP header
       as HbH-EH and send the packet, this is for the cases:

       *  The hardware was programmed to use the Service ID as
          identification for QoS process (SIS != 0).

       *  The hardware was programmed to use the tuples in IP header as
          identification for QoS process (SIS = 0), and the data packet
          functions to collect the QoS forwarding state on the path.
          This is the situation that host wants to detect the QoS
          forwarding state for the purpose of failure handling (See
          section 4.3).

   Forwarding State message format is shown in the Section 6.7.  It is
   used to notify the service ID and also update QoS forwarding state
   for the hops that are HbH-EH-aware nodes.

   After Forwarding State message is reaching the destination host, the
   host is supposed to retrieve it and form a Forwarding State Report
   message, and carry it in any data packet as the Dst-EH, then send it
   to the host in the reverse direction.


     <Forward State Message> ::= <Forward State Object> [
     <Latency Object> ]
                                 [ <OAM Object> ] [ <Authentication
                                 Object> ]
     <Forward State Report Message> ::= <Forward State Report
     Object>
                                        [ <OAM Object> ]

4.3.  Hop Number

   This is the parameter for total number of HbH-EH-aware nodes on the
   path.  It is the field "Hop_num" in Setup message, and is used to
   locate the bit position for "Setup State" and the "Service ID" in
   "Service ID List".  The value of "Hop_num" must be decremented at
   each HbH-EH-aware node.  At the receiving host of the in-band
   signaling, the Hop_num must be zero.






Han, et al.              Expires April 22, 2019                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft              ResRev for IP QoS               October 2018


   The source host must know the exact hop number, and setup the initial
   value in the Setup message.  The exact hop number can be detected
   using OAM message.

4.4.  Flow Identifying Method and Service ID

   A QoS channel might be enforced for a group of flows or a delicate
   flow, and flow identifying method means the way of identifying a flow
   or a group of flows that can use a HW programmed QoS channel.
   Different levels of flow granularities to support QoS are defined as
   below:

   Flow level
      The flow identification could be 5 tuples for non IPSec IPv6
      packet: the source, destination IP address, protocol number,
      source and destination port number, and also could be 3 tuples for
      IPSec IPv6 packet: the source, destination IP address and the flow
      label.

   Address level In-band Signaling
      A flow of packets share the same source, destination IP address,
      but with different protocol number.  This is the scenario that the
      signaling is for the aggregated flows which have the same source,
      destination address. i.e, All TCP/UDP flows between the same
      client and same server (only one address for client and one for
      server)

   Transport level In-band Signaling
      Packets share the same source, destination IP address, protocol
      number, but with different source or destination port number (non-
      IPSec) or different flow label (IPSec).  This could be for the
      aggregated TCP or UDP flows that started and terminated at the
      same IP addresses.

   DiffServ level In-band Signaling
      Packets share the same DSCP value.  This means aggregated
      differentiated service flows that have the same DSCP value.  The
      DSCP value is determined by the 6 most-significant bits in 8-bits
      DiffServ field for IPv4 or 8-bits Traffic Class field for IPv6.

   There are two ways for flow identifying.  One is by tuple or DSCP
   value in IP header, another is by a local significant number, called
   service ID, generated and maintained in a router.  When "Service ID
   Size" (SIS) is zero, it means the "Flow identification method" (FI)
   is used for both control plane and data plane.  When "SIS" is not
   zero, it means "FI" is only used in signaling of setting up the QoS
   channel, and the data plane will only use the "Service ID".  The use




Han, et al.              Expires April 22, 2019                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft              ResRev for IP QoS               October 2018


   of local generated number to identify flow is to speed up the flow
   lookup and QoS process for data plane.

   The "Service ID List" is a list of "Service ID" for all hops that are
   HbH-EH-aware nodes on the IP path.  When a router receives a HbH-EH,
   it may generate a service ID for the flow(s) that is defined by the
   Flow Identifying Method in "FI".  Then the router must attach the
   service ID value to the end of the Service ID List.  After the packet
   reaches the destination host, the Service ID List will be that the
   1st router's service ID as the list header, and the last router's
   service ID as the list tail.

4.5.  QoS State and life of Time

   After a router is programmed for a QoS, a QoS state is created.  The
   QoS state life is determined by the "Time" in the Setup message.
   Whenever there is a packet processed by a QoS state, the associated
   timer for the QoS state is reset.  If the timer of a QoS state is
   expired, the QoS state will be erased and the associated resource
   will be released.

   In order to keep the QoS state active, a application at source host
   can send some zero size of data to refresh the QoS state.

   When the Time is set to zero, it means the life of the QoS State will
   be kept until the de-programming message is received.

4.6.  Authentication

   The in-band signaling is designed to have a basic security mechanism
   to protect the integrity of a signaling message.  The Authentication
   message is to attach to a signaling message, the source host
   calculates the harsh value of a key and all invariable part of a
   signaling message (Setup message: ver, FI, R, SIS, P, Time; Bandwidth
   message, Latency message, Burst message).  The key is only known to
   the hosts and all HbH-EH-aware nodes.  The securely distribution of
   the key is out the scope of the document.

5.  Packet Forwarding

   To achieve the required QoS, after the path setup with guaranteed
   bandwidth there are some requirements to be met during data
   forwarding.  These include the hardware capability, the scheme for
   the data forwarding, QoS processing, state report, etc.







Han, et al.              Expires April 22, 2019                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft              ResRev for IP QoS               October 2018


5.1.  Basic Hardware Capability

   Section 4 explains how QoS guaranteed path can be set up and the
   corresponding messages used, however different implementations may
   vary in details.  To achieve the satisfactory targets for performance
   and scalability, the protocol must be cooperated with capable
   hardware to provide the desired fine-grained QoS for different
   transport.

   In our experiment to implement the feature for TCP, we used a network
   processor with traffic management feature.  The traffic management
   can provide the fine-grained QoS for any configured flow(s).

   The following capabilities are RECOMMENDED:

   1.  The in-banding signaling is processed in network processor
       without punting to controller CPU for help

   2.  The QoS forwarding state is kept and maintained in network
       processor without the involvement from controller CPU.

   3.  The QoS state has a life of a pre-configured time and will be
       automatically deleted if there is no data packet processed by
       that QoS state.  The timer can be changed on the fly.

   4.  The data forwarding does not need to be done at the controller
       CPU, or so called slow path.  It is at the same hardware as the
       normal IP forwarding.  For any IP packet, the QoS forwarding is
       executed first.  Normal forwarding will be executed if there is
       no QoS state associated with the identification of the flow.

   5.  The QoS forwarding and normal forwarding can be switched on the
       fly.

   The details of data plane and hardware related implementations, such
   as traffic classification, shaping, queuing and scheduling, are out
   of scope of this document.  The report of [NGP] has given some
   experiments and results by using commercial hardwares.

5.2.  Flow Identification in Packet Forwarding

   Flow identification in Packet Forwarding is same as the QoS channel
   establishment by Setup message.  It is to forward a packet with a
   specified QoS process if the packet is identified to be belonging to
   specified flow(s).

   There are two method used in data forwarding to identify flows:




Han, et al.              Expires April 22, 2019                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft              ResRev for IP QoS               October 2018


   1.  Hardware was programmed to use tuples in IP header implicitly.
       This is indicated by that the "SIS" is zero or the Service ID is
       not used.  When a packet is received, its tuples are looked up
       according to the value of "FI".  If there is a QoS table has
       match for the packet, the packet will be processed by the QoS
       state found in the QoS table.  This method does not need any EH
       added into the data packet unless the data packet function to
       collect the QoS forwarding state on the path.

   2.  Hardware was programmed to use service ID to identify flows.
       This is indicated by that the "SIS" is not zero.  When a packet
       is received, the service ID associated with the hop is retrieved
       and looked up for the QoS table.  If it has match for the packet,
       the packet will be processed by the QoS state entry found in the
       QoS table.

5.3.  QoS Forwarding State Detection and Failure Handling

   QoS forwarding may fail due to different reasons:

   1.  Hardware failure in HbH-EH-aware node.

   2.  IP path change due to link failure, node failure or routing
       changes; And the IP path change has impact to the HbH-EH-aware
       node.

   3.  Network topology change; and the change leads to the changes of
       HbH-EH-aware nodes.

   Application may need to be aware of the service status of QoS
   guarantee when the application is using a TCP session with QoS.  In
   order to provide such feature, the TCP stack in the source host can
   detect the QoS forwarding state by sending TCP data packet with
   Forwarding State message coded as HbH-EH.  After the TCP data packet
   reaches the destination host, the host will copy the forwarding state
   into a Forwarding State Report message, and send it with another TCP
   packet (for example, TCP-ACK) in reverse direction to the source
   host.  Thereafter, the source host can obtain the QoS forwarding
   state on all HbH-EH-aware nodes.

   A host can do the QoS forwarding state detection by three ways: on
   demand, periodically or constantly.

   After a host detects that there is QoS forwarding state failure, it
   can repair such failure by sending another Setup message embedded
   into a HbH-EH of any TCP packet.  This repairing can handle all
   failure case mentioned above.




Han, et al.              Expires April 22, 2019                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft              ResRev for IP QoS               October 2018


   If a failure cannot be repaired, host will be notified, and
   appropriate action can be taken, see section 7.1

6.  Details of Working with Transport Layer

   The proposed new IP service is transport agnostic, which means any
   transport layer protocol can use it.

6.1.  Working with TCP

   Considering TCP as the most widely used transport layer protocol,
   this document uses TCP as an example of transport protocol to show
   how it works with the proposed IP service.

   The following is the list of messages for signaling and associated
   data forwarding.

   o  Setup: This is for the setup of QoS channel through the IP path.

   o  Bandwidth: This is the required bandwidth for the QoS channel.  It
      has minimum (CIR) and maximum bandwidth (PIR).

   o  Latency: This is the required latency for the QoS channel, it is
      the bounded latency for each hop on the path.  This is not the end
      to end latency.

   o  Burst: This is the required burst for the QoS channel, it is the
      maximum burst size.

   o  Authentication: This is the security message for a in-band
      signaling.

   o  OAM: This is the Operation and Management message for the QoS
      channel.

   o  Setup State Report: This is the state report of a setup message.

   o  Forwarding State: This is the forwarding state message used for
      data packet.

   o  Forwarding State Report: This is the forwarding state report of a
      QoS channel.

   There are three scenarios of QoS signaling for TCP session setup with
   QoS

   1.  Upstream: This is for the direction of client to server.  A
       application decides to open a TCP session with upstream QoS (for



Han, et al.              Expires April 22, 2019                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft              ResRev for IP QoS               October 2018


       uploading), it will call TCP API to open a socket and connect to
       a server.  The client host will form a TCP SYN packet with the
       HbH-EH in the IPv6 header.  The EH includes Setup message and
       Bandwidth message, and optionally Latency, Burst, Authentication
       and OAM messages.  The packet is forwarded at each hop.  Each
       HbH-EH-aware nodes will process the signaling message to finish
       the following tasks before forwarding the packet to next hop:

       *  Retrieve the QoS parameters to program the Hardware, it
          includes: FL, Time, Bandwidth, Latency, Burst

       *  Update the field in the EH, it includes: Hop_number,
          Total_latency, and possibly Service ID List

       When the server receives the TCP SYN, the Host kernel will also
       check the HbH-EH while punting the TCP packet to the TCP stack
       for processing.  If the HbH-EH is present and the Report bit is
       set, the Host kernel must form a new Setup State Report message,
       all fields in the message must be copied from the Setup message
       in the HbH-EH.  When the TCP stack is sending the TCP-SYNACK to
       the client, the kernel must add the Setup State Report message as
       a Dst-EH in the IPv6 header.  After this, the IPv6 packet is
       complete and can be sent to wire; When the client receives the
       TCP-SYNACK, the Host kernel will check the Dst-EH while punting
       the TCP packet to the TCP stack for processing.  If the Dst-EH is
       present and the Setup State Report message is valid, the kernel
       must read the Setup State Report message.  Depending on the setup
       state, the client will operate according to description in
       section 7.1

   2.  Downstream: This is for the direction of server to client.  A
       application decides to open a TCP session with downstream QoS
       (for downloading), it will call TCP API to open a socket and
       connect to a server.  The client host will form a TCP SYN packet
       with the Dst-EH in the IPv6 header.  The EH includes Bandwidth
       message, and optionally Latency, Burst messages.  The packet is
       forwarded at each hop.  Each hop will not process the Dst-EH.
       When the server receives the TCP SYN, the Host kernel will check
       the Dst-EH while punting the TCP packet to the TCP stack for
       processing.  If the Dst-EH is present, the Host kernel will
       retrieve the QoS requirement information from Bandwidth, Latency
       and Burst message, and check the QoS policy for the user.  If the
       user is allowed to get the service with the expected QoS, the
       server will form a Setup message similar to the case of client to
       server, and add it as the HbH-EH in the IPv6 header, and send the
       TCP-SYNACK to client.  Each HbH-EH-aware nodes on the path from
       server to client will process the message similar to the case of
       client to server.  After the client receives the TCP-SYNACK, The



Han, et al.              Expires April 22, 2019                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft              ResRev for IP QoS               October 2018


       client will send the Setup State Report message to server as the
       Dst-EH in the TCP-ACK.  Finally the server receives the TC-ACK
       and Setup State Report message, it can send the data to the
       established session according to the pre-negotiated QoS
       requirements.

   3.  Bi-direction: This is the case that the client wants to setup a
       session with bi-direction QoS guarantee.  The detailed operations
       are actually a combination of Upstream and Downstream described
       above.

   After a QoS channel is setup, the in-band signaling message can still
   be exchanged between two hosts, there are two scenarios for this.

   1.  Modify QoS on the fly: When the pre-set QoS parameters need to be
       adjusted, the application at source host can re-send a new in-
       band signaling message, the message can be embedded into any TCP
       packet as a IPv6 HbH-EH.  The QoS modification should not impact
       the established TCP session and programmed QoS service.  Thus,
       there is no service impacted during the QoS modification.
       Depending on the hardware performance, the signaling message can
       be sent with TCP packet with different data size.  If the
       performance is high, the signaling message can be sent with any
       TCP packet; otherwise, the signaling message should be sent with
       small size TCP packet or zero-size TCP packet (such as TCP ACK).
       Modification of QoS on the fly is a very critical feature for the
       so called "Application adaptive QoS transport service".  With
       this service, an application (or the proxy from a service
       provider) could setup an optimized CIR for different stage of
       application for the economical and efficient purpose.  For
       example, in the transport of compressed video, the I-frame has
       big size and cannot be lost, but P-frame and B-frame both have
       smaller size and can tolerate some loss.  There are much more
       P-frame and B-frame than I-frame in videos with smooth changes
       and variations in images [I-D.han-iccrg-arvr-transport-problem].
       Based on this characteristics, application can request a
       relatively small CIR for the time of P-frame and P-frame, and
       request a big CIR for the time of I-frame.

   2.  Repairing of the QoS channel: This is the case the QoS channel
       was broken and need to be repaired, see section 5.3.

6.2.  Working with UDP and other Protocols

   There are other transport layer protocols, such as UDP, QUICK and
   SCTP, and for these protocols similar strategy as TCP can be applied.
   The to establish a closed-loop for the transport control.




Han, et al.              Expires April 22, 2019                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft              ResRev for IP QoS               October 2018


   For protocols with natively bi-directional control mechanism such as
   SCTP, only some QoS control functionalities for the protocol need to
   be added.  The mechanism for TCP can be borrowed for such job.  There
   will be the QoS setup for one directional data stream, and QoS setup
   state report for another directional data stream.  The protocol may
   also have functionalities in the stack to handle the adjustment of
   the behaviour for different QoS setup and setup states.

   For protocols that natively lack the feed-back control mechanism to
   form a closed-loop such as UDP, this mechanism needs to be added into
   the streams.  There are two options to realize this:

   1.  Modify the protocol itself to have some state machine to
       establish the closed-loop for the protocol.  This can be done in
       the kernel of the OS by modifying the protocol stack.

   2.  Modify the user data stream to introduce the closed-loop scheme,
       this becomes as application work.  It is up to application to add
       or modify codes for the state machine of the closed-loop control.

7.  Additional Considerations

   This document only covers the details of setting up a path with QoS
   using IPv6, and TCP is used as an example of transport layer protocol
   to achieve flow level service.  Only basic scenarios are covered, and
   there are lots of open issues to be researched.  The following is a
   non-comprehensive list, and they can be addressed in separate drafts.

7.1.  User and Application driven

   The QoS transport service is initiated and controlled by end user's
   application.  Following tasks are done in host:

   1.  The detailed QoS parameters in signaling message are set by end
       user application.  New socket option must be added, the option is
       a place holder for QoS parameters (Setup, Bandwidth, etc.), Setup
       State Report and Forwarding State Report messages.

   2.  The Setup State Report and Forwarding State Report message
       received at host are processed by transport service in kernel.
       The Setup State Report message processed at host can result in
       the notification to the application whether the setup is
       successful.  If the setup is successful, the application can
       start to use the socket having the QoS support; If the setup is
       failed, the application may have three choices:

       *  Lower the QoS requirement and re-setup a new QoS channel with
          new in-band signaling message.



Han, et al.              Expires April 22, 2019                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft              ResRev for IP QoS               October 2018


       *  Use the TCP session as traditional transport without any QoS
          support.

       *  Lookup the service provider for help to locate the problem in
          network.

7.2.  Traffic Management in Host

   In order to better accommodate this new IP in-band service, the OS on
   a host may be changed in traffic management related areas.  There are
   two parts for traffic management to be changed: one is to manage
   traffic going out a host's shared links, and the other is congestion
   control for TCP flows.

   1.  For current traffic management in a host, all TCP/UDP sessions
       will share the bandwidth for all egress links.  For the purpose
       to work with the differentiated service provided by under layer
       network in bandwidth and latency, the kernel may allocate
       expected resource to applications that are using the QoS
       transport service.  For example, kernel can queue different
       packets from different applications or users to different queue
       and schedule them in different priority.  Only after this change,
       some application can use more bandwidth and get less queuing
       delay for a link than others.

   2.  The congestion control in a host manages the behavior of TCP
       flow(s).  This includes important features like slow start, AIMD,
       fast retransmit, selective ACK, etc.  To accommodate the benefit
       of the QoS guaranteed transport service, the congestion control
       can be much simpler [I-D.han-tsvwg-cc].  The new congestion
       control is related to the implementation of QoS guarantee.
       Following is a simple congestion control algorithm assuming that
       the CIR is guaranteed and PIR is shared between flows:

       *  There is no slow start, the TCP can start sending traffic at
          the rate of CIR.

       *  The AIMD is kept, but the range of the sawtooth pattern should
          be maintained between CIR and PIR.

       *  Other congestion control features can be kept.

7.3.  Heterogeneous Network

   When an IP network is connected with a non-IP network, such as MPLS
   or Ethernet network, the in-band signaling should also work in that
   network to achieve an end-to-end connection.  The behavior, protocol
   and rules in the interworking with non-IP network is out of the scope



Han, et al.              Expires April 22, 2019                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft              ResRev for IP QoS               October 2018


   of this draft, and further research needs to be done to solve the
   problem.

7.4.  Proxy Control

   It is expected that in a real service provider network, the in-band
   signaling will be checked, filtered and managed at proxy routers.  It
   serves the following purposes:

   1.  A proxy can check if the in-band signaling from an end user meets
       the SLA compliance.  This adds extra security and DOS attack
       prevention.

   2.  A proxy can collect the statistics for user's TCP flows and check
       the in-band signaling for accounting and charging.

   3.  A proxy can insert and process appropriate in-band signaling for
       TCP flows if the host does not support this new feature.  This
       can provide backward compatibility, also enable the host to use
       the new feature.

8.  IANA Considerations

   This document defines a new option type for the Hop-by-Hop Options
   header and the Destination Options header.  According to [RFC8200],
   the detailed value are:

   +-----------+----------------+---------------------+---------------+
   |           |  Binary Value  |                     |               |
   | Hex Value +----+---+-------+    Description      |    Reference  |
   |           | act|chg|  rest |                     |               |
   +-----------+----+---+-------+---------------------+---------------+
   |    0x0    | 00 | 0 | 10000 |   In-band Signaling |   Section 4   |
   |           |    |   |       |                     |  in this doc  |
   +-----------+----+---+-------+---------------------+---------------+

                       Figure 3: The New Option Type

   1.  The highest-order 2 bits: 00, indicating if the processing IPv6
   node does not recognize the Option type, skip over this option and
   continue processing the header.

   2.  The third-highest-order bit: 0, indicating the Option Data does
   not change en route.

   3.  The low-order 5 bits: 10000, assigned by IANA.





Han, et al.              Expires April 22, 2019                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft              ResRev for IP QoS               October 2018


   This document also defines a 4-bit subtype field, for which IANA will
   create and will maintain a new sub-registry entitled "In-band
   signaling Subtypes" under the "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
   Parameters" [IPv6_Parameters] registry.  Initial values for the
   subtype registry are given below


   +-------+------------+-----------------------------+---------------+
   |  Type |  Mnemonic  |        Description          |   Reference   |
   +-------+------------+-----------------------------+---------------+
   |   0   |   SETUP    |        Setup object         |  Appendix B   |
   +-------+------------+-----------------------------+---------------+
   |   1   |  BANDWIDTH |      Bandwidth object       |  Appendix B   |
   +-------+------------+-----------------------------+---------------+
   |   2   |    BURST   |        Burst object         |  Appendix B   |
   +-------+------------+-----------------------------+---------------+
   |   3   |   LATENCY  |        Latency object       |  Appendix B   |
   +-------+------------+-----------------------------+---------------+
   |   4   |     AUTH   |     Authentication object   |  Appendix B   |
   +-------+------------+-----------------------------+---------------+
   |   5   |     OAM    |           OAM object        |  Appendix B   |
   +-------+------------+-----------------------------+---------------+
   |   6   | FWD STATE  |         Forward state       |  Appendix B   |
   +-------+------------+-----------------------------+---------------+
   |   7   |SETUP REPORT|       Setup state report    |  Appendix B   |
   +-------+------------+-----------------------------+---------------+
   |   8   | FWD REPORT |   Forwarding state report   |  Appendix B   |
   +-------+------------+-----------------------------+---------------+

                 Figure 4: The In-band Signaling Sub Type

9.  Security Considerations

   It is important to guarantee that the resource reservation is used by
   authenticated users, and false signaling should not be accepted or
   processed.  The following aspects may be considered:

      Authentication of user

         If an user is interested in using this new service, the user
         should sign up to a service provider.  Service provider should
         do the proper authentication check for a new user, and
         establish account for the user.

         After the sign up, a user should provide a security key to the
         service provider through a secured channel (https, registered
         mail, etc.), or the key could be generated and given to user by
         the service provider.  Service provider should distribute the



Han, et al.              Expires April 22, 2019                [Page 23]


Internet-Draft              ResRev for IP QoS               October 2018


         security key of the user to different network device.  More
         specifically, the security key should be distributed securely
         to all HbH-EH-aware nodes for an open network, or the proxy for
         a closed network.

      Proxy

         Proxy or gateway is the 1st network device connecting to
         customer's devices (Host, phone, etc.) that can generate the
         signaling for resource reservation.  The functionality of the
         Proxy is to check if the signaling is allowed to go through
         SP's network.  This can be done by checking the signaling
         integrity and other info associated with the user, such as the
         source/destination IP address, the account balance, the user's
         privilege, etc.

      Authentication of signaling message

         The signaling for resource reservation should be checked at
         each HbH-EH-aware nodes or a proxy node.

   Service ID is originally used for performance improvement of
   forwarding with QoS, and it can also provide additional security
   protection of forwarding resource in data plane.  Service ID in each
   HbH-EH-aware node is to represent an IP flow with programmed QoS
   service, and it is a local significant number generated by a router
   to identify a flow that was offered QoS service.  So, the router can
   periodically change the number for the same flow to protect any
   middle box sniffing for DOS attacking.  It can be done by host
   periodical send out in-band signaling with the same QoS parameters
   and obtain the new Service ID and Service ID List for the use of next
   data forwarding.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2581]  Allman, M., Paxson, V., and W. Stevens, "TCP Congestion
              Control", RFC 2581, DOI 10.17487/RFC2581, April 1999,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2581>.






Han, et al.              Expires April 22, 2019                [Page 24]


Internet-Draft              ResRev for IP QoS               October 2018


   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8200]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [eNodeB]   wikipedia, "eNodeB", 2018,
              <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENodeB>.

   [EPC]      3GPP, "The Evolved Packet Core", 2018,
              <http://www.3gpp.org/technologies/keywords-acronyms/ 100-
              the-evolved-packet-core>.

   [HU5G]     Huawei, "5G Vision: 100 Billion connections, 1 ms Latency,
              and 10 Gbps Throughput", 2015,
              <http://www.huawei.com/minisite/5g/en/defining-5g.html>.

   [I-D.falk-xcp-spec]
              Falk, A., "Specification for the Explicit Control Protocol
              (XCP)", draft-falk-xcp-spec-03 (work in progress), July
              2007.

   [I-D.han-iccrg-arvr-transport-problem]
              Han, L. and K. Smith, "Problem Statement: Transport
              Support for Augmented and Virtual Reality Applications",
              draft-han-iccrg-arvr-transport-problem-01 (work in
              progress), March 2017.

   [I-D.han-tsvwg-cc]
              Han, L., Qu, Y., and T. Nadeau, "A New Congestion Control
              in Bandwidth Guaranteed Network", draft-han-tsvwg-cc-00
              (work in progress), March 2018.

   [I-D.harper-inband-signalling-requirements]
              Harper, J., "Requirements for In-Band QoS Signalling",
              draft-harper-inband-signalling-requirements-00 (work in
              progress), January 2007.

   [I-D.ietf-aqm-codel]
              Nichols, K., Jacobson, V., McGregor, A., and J. Iyengar,
              "Controlled Delay Active Queue Management", draft-ietf-
              aqm-codel-06 (work in progress), December 2016.




Han, et al.              Expires April 22, 2019                [Page 25]


Internet-Draft              ResRev for IP QoS               October 2018


   [I-D.ietf-aqm-fq-codel]
              Hoeiland-Joergensen, T., McKenney, P.,
              dave.taht@gmail.com, d., Gettys, J., and E. Dumazet, "The
              FlowQueue-CoDel Packet Scheduler and Active Queue
              Management Algorithm", draft-ietf-aqm-fq-codel-06 (work in
              progress), March 2016.

   [I-D.ietf-aqm-pie]
              Pan, R., Natarajan, P., Baker, F., and G. White, "PIE: A
              Lightweight Control Scheme To Address the Bufferbloat
              Problem", draft-ietf-aqm-pie-10 (work in progress),
              September 2016.

   [I-D.ietf-detnet-use-cases]
              Grossman, E., "Deterministic Networking Use Cases", draft-
              ietf-detnet-use-cases-19 (work in progress), October 2018.

   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]
              Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B.,
              Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing
              Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-15 (work
              in progress), January 2018.

   [I-D.ietf-tcpm-dctcp]
              Bensley, S., Eggert, L., Thaler, D., Balasubramanian, P.,
              and G. Judd, "Datacenter TCP (DCTCP): TCP Congestion
              Control for Datacenters", draft-ietf-tcpm-dctcp-03 (work
              in progress), November 2016.

   [I-D.roberts-inband-qos-ipv6]
              Roberts, L. and J. Harford, "In-Band QoS Signaling for
              IPv6", draft-roberts-inband-qos-ipv6-00 (work in
              progress), July 2005.

   [I-D.sridharan-tcpm-ctcp]
              Sridharan, M., Tan, K., Bansal, D., and D. Thaler,
              "Compound TCP: A New TCP Congestion Control for High-Speed
              and Long Distance Networks", draft-sridharan-tcpm-ctcp-02
              (work in progress), November 2008.

   [IPv6_Parameters]
              IANA, "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Parameters",
              2015, <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/
              ipv6-parameters.xhtml#ipv6-parameters-2>.

   [MEC]      ETSI, "Multi-access Edge Computing", 2018,
              <https://www.etsi.org/technologies-clusters/technologies/
              multi-access-edge-computing>.



Han, et al.              Expires April 22, 2019                [Page 26]


Internet-Draft              ResRev for IP QoS               October 2018


   [NGP]      ETSI, "Next Generation Protocols (NGP); Recommendation for
              New Transport Technologies", 2018,
              <https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gr/
              NGP/001_099/010/01.01.01_60/gr_NGP010v010101p.pdf>.

   [QU2016]   Qualcomm, "Leading the world to 5G", 2016,
              <https://www.qualcomm.com/media/documents/files/
              qualcomm-5g-vision-presentation.pdf>.

   [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,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.

   [RFC2475]  Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
              and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
              Services", RFC 2475, DOI 10.17487/RFC2475, December 1998,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2475>.

   [RFC3175]  Baker, F., Iturralde, C., Le Faucheur, F., and B. Davie,
              "Aggregation of RSVP for IPv4 and IPv6 Reservations",
              RFC 3175, DOI 10.17487/RFC3175, September 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3175>.

   [Tactile]  JDavid Szabo, et al. Proceedings of European Wireless
              2015; 21th European Wireless Conference, "Towards the
              Tactile Internet: Decreasing Communication Latency with
              Network Coding and Software Defined Networking", 2015,
              <http://fastpass.mit.edu/Fastpass-SIGCOMM14-Perry.pdf>.

   [TCP-vegas]
              Peterson, L., "TCP Vegas: New Techniques for Congestion
              Detection and Avoidance - CiteSeer page on the 1994
              SIGCOMM paper", 1994.

   [TCP_Targets]
              Andreas Benthin, Stefan Mischke, University of Paderborn,
              "Bandwidth Allocation of TCP", 2004.

Appendix A.  Acknowledgements

   The authors are very grateful to Fred Baker for his valuable
   contributions to this document.

   We appreciate the following people who made lots of contributions to
   this draft: Guoping Li, Boyan Tu, and Xuefei Tan, and thank Huawei
   Nanjing research team led by Feng Li to provide the Product on



Han, et al.              Expires April 22, 2019                [Page 27]


Internet-Draft              ResRev for IP QoS               October 2018


   Concept (POC) development and test, the team members include Fengxin
   Sun, Xingwang Zhou, and Weiguang Wang.  We also like to thank other
   people involved in the discussion of solution: Tao Ma from Future
   Network Strategy dept.

Appendix B.  Message Objects

   This section defines detailed objects used in different messages.

B.1.  Setup State Object









































Han, et al.              Expires April 22, 2019                [Page 28]


Internet-Draft              ResRev for IP QoS               October 2018


      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |0 0 0 0|ver| FI|R|SIS|P| Time  | Hop_num |u|   Total_latency   |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                     State for each hop index                  |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                     Service ID list for hops                  |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-. . . +



     Type = 0, Setup state;

     Version: The version of the protocol for the QoS

     FI: Flow identification method,

         0: 5 tuples; 1: src,dst,port; 2: src,dst; 3: DSCP

     R: If the destination host report the received Setup state to

        the src address by Destination EH. 0: dont report; 1: report

     SIS: Service ID size; 0: 0bits, 1: 16bits, 2: 20bits, 3: 32bits

     P: 0: program HW for the QoS from src to dst;

        1: De-program HW for the QoS from src to dst

     Time: The life time of QoS forwarding state in second.

     Hop_num: The total hop number on the path set by host. It must be

     decremented at each hop after the processing.

     u: the unit of latency, 0: ms; 1: us

     Total_latency : Latency accumulated from each hop, each hop will

     add the latency in the device to this value.


                     Figure 5: The Setup State Object

   Setup state for each hop index: each bit is the setup state on each
   hop on the path, 0: failed; 1: success.  The 1st hop is at the most
   significant bit.



Han, et al.              Expires April 22, 2019                [Page 29]


Internet-Draft              ResRev for IP QoS               October 2018


   Service ID list for hops: it is for all hops on the path, each
   service ID bit size is defined in SIS.  The 1st service ID is at the
   top of the stack.  Each hop add its service ID at the correct
   position indexed by the current hop number for the router.

   The Setup object is embedded into the hop-by-hop EH to setup the QoS
   in the device on the IP forwarding path.  To keep the whole setup
   message size unchanged at each hop, the total hop number must be
   known at the source host.  The total hop number can be detected by
   OAM.  The service ID list is empty before the 1st hop receives the
   in-band signaling.  Each hop then fill up the associated service ID
   into the correct place determined by the index of the hop.

B.2.  Bandwidth Object


      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |0 0 0 1|      reserved         |       Minimum bandwidth       |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |        Maximum bandwidth      |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     Type = 1,

     Minimum bandwidth : The minimum bandwidth required, or CIR, unit
     Mbps

     Maximum bandwidth : The maximum bandwidth required, or PIR, unit
     Mbps


                      Figure 6: The Bandwidth Object

B.3.  Burst Msg















Han, et al.              Expires April 22, 2019                [Page 30]


Internet-Draft              ResRev for IP QoS               October 2018


      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |0 0 1 0|       Burst size      |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     Type = 2,

     Burst size : The burst size, unit M bytes




                        Figure 7: The burst message

B.4.  Latency Object


      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |0 0 1 1|u|        Latency      |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     Type = 3,

     u: the unit of the latency

        0: ms; 1: us

     Latency: Expected maximum latency for each hop




                       Figure 8: The Latency Object

B.5.  Authentication Object













Han, et al.              Expires April 22, 2019                [Page 31]


Internet-Draft              ResRev for IP QoS               October 2018


      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |0 1 0 0|    MAC_ALG    |  res  |  MAC data (variable length)   |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+. . .+

     Type = 4,

     MAC_ALG: Message Authentication Algorithm

               0: MD5; 1:SHA-0; 2: SHA-1; 3: SHA-256; 4: SHA-512

     MAC data: Message Authentication Data;

     Res: Reserved bits

     Size of signaling data (opt_len): Size of MAC data + 2

     MD5: 18; SHA-0: 22; SHA-1: 22; SHA-256: 34; SHA-512: 66




                    Figure 9: The Authentication Object

B.6.  OAM Object


    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0 1 0 1| OAM_t |   OAM_len     |    OAM data (variable length) |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+. . .+

   Type = 5,

   OAM_t : OAM type

   OAM_len : 8-bit unsigned integer. Length of the OAM data, in octets;

   OAM data: OAM data, details of OAM data are TBD.


                         Figure 10: The OAM Object







Han, et al.              Expires April 22, 2019                [Page 32]


Internet-Draft              ResRev for IP QoS               October 2018


B.7.  Forwarding State Object


    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0 1 1 0|ver| FI|R|SIS|P| Time  | Hop_num |u|   Total_latency   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |               Forwarding state for each hop index             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 Service ID list for hops                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-. . . +



   Type = 6, Forwarding state;

   All parameter definitions and process in the 1st row are same in

   the setup message.

   Forward state for each hop index : each bit is the fwd state on
   each

   hop on the path, 0: failed; 1: success; The 1st hop is at the

   most significant bit.

   Service ID list for hops: it is for all hops on the path, each index
   bit

   size is defined in SIS. The list is from the setup report message.


                  Figure 11: The Forwarding State Object

B.8.  Setup State Report Object














Han, et al.              Expires April 22, 2019                [Page 33]


Internet-Draft              ResRev for IP QoS               October 2018


    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0 1 1 1|ver|H|u|   Total_latency   |          Reserved         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     State for each hop index                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                  Service ID list for hops                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-. . . +



   Type = 7, Setup state report;

   H: Hop number bit. When a host receives a setup message and form

   a setup report message, it must check if the Hop_num in setup

   message is zero. If it is zero, the H bit is set to one, and if

   it is not zero, the H bit is clear. This will notify the source

   of setup message that if the original Hop_num was correct.

   Following are directly copied from the setup message:

   u, Total_latency;

   State for each hop index

   Service ID list for hops.


                 Figure 12: The Setup State Report Object

B.9.  Forward State Report Object















Han, et al.              Expires April 22, 2019                [Page 34]


Internet-Draft              ResRev for IP QoS               October 2018


    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |1 0 0 0|ver|H|u|   Total_latency   |         Reserved          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |               Forwarding state for each hop index             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



   Type = 8, Forwarding state report;

   H: Hop number bit. When a host receives a Forward State message

   and form a Forward State Report message, it must check if the

   Hop_num in Forward State message is zero. If it is zero, the H bit

   is set to one, and if it is not zero, the H bit is clear.

   This will notify the source of Forward State message that if the

   original Hop_num was set correct.

   Following are directly copied from the Forward State message:

   u, Total_latency;

   Forwarding State for each hop index


                  Figure 13: The Fwd State Report Object

Authors' Addresses

   Lin Han
   Huawei Technologies
   2330 Central Expressway
   Santa Clara, CA  95050
   USA

   Phone: +10 408 330 4613
   Email: lin.han@huawei.com








Han, et al.              Expires April 22, 2019                [Page 35]


Internet-Draft              ResRev for IP QoS               October 2018


   Yingzhen Qu
   Huawei Technologies
   2330 Central Expressway
   Santa Clara, CA  95050
   USA

   Email: yingzhen.qu@huawei.com


   Lijun Dong
   Huawei Technologies
   2330 Central Expressway
   Santa Clara, CA  95050
   USA

   Email: lijun.dong@huawei.com


   Richard Li
   Huawei Technologies
   2330 Central Expressway
   Santa Clara, CA  95050
   USA

   Email: renwei.li@huawei.com


   Thomas Nadeau
   Lucid Vision
   Hampton  NH 03842
   USA

   Email: tnadeau@lucidvision.com


   Kevin Smith
   Vodafone
   UK

   Email: Kevin.Smith@vodafone.com


   Jeff Tantsura
   Apstra

   Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com





Han, et al.              Expires April 22, 2019                [Page 36]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/