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

Versions: 00 01 02 03

Internet Draft                                                 S. Berson
Expiration: December 1996                                            ISI
File:                          File: draft-ietf-issll-atm-support-00.txt

                 IP Integrated Services Support in ATM

                             June 13, 1996

Status of Memo

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

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

   To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the
   linebreak "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-
   Drafts Shadow Directories on ds.internic.net (US East Coast),
   nic.nordu.net (Europe), ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast), or munnari.oz.au
   (Pacific Rim).


   Integrated Services in the Internet is rapidly becoming a reality.
   Meanwhile, ATM technology is appearing in the marketplace.  It is an
   important problem to integrate ATM networks into this emerging
   Integrated Services Internet.  "Classical" IP over ATM[11,8] is now
   widely deployed, effectively solving the problem of "best effort
   service" in internets with ATM links.  A key remaining issue is to
   provide the Internet Integrated Services (IIS) model over internets
   with ATM links.  This draft provides guidelines for using ATM VCs
   with QoS as part of an Integrated Services Internet.

[NOTE - The .txt version does not currently have all the figures.]

Berson                 Expiration: December 1996                [Page 1]

Internet Draft        Integrated Services and ATM              June 1996

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ........................................................2
2. RSVP ................................................................3
   2.1 RSVP messages ...................................................4
   2.2 Reservation Styles ..............................................4
   2.3 RSVP flows ......................................................5
   2.4 RSVP flows and VCs ..............................................6
3. Single VC per RSVP Flow .............................................6
   3.1 Dynamic QoS .....................................................7
      4.   Tear down old VC ............................................8
      5.   Activate timer ..............................................8
   5.1 Mixed data and control traffic ..................................12
   5.2 Single RSVP VC per RSVP Flow ....................................12
   5.3 Multiplexed point-to-multipoint RSVP VCs ........................12
   5.4 Multiplexed point-to-point RSVP VCs .............................13
   5.5 QoS for RSVP VCs ................................................14
6. Additional issues ...................................................14
7. Conclusions and Future Work .........................................14

Berson                 Expiration: December 1996                [Page 2]

Internet Draft        Integrated Services and ATM              June 1996

1. Introduction

   [NOTE:  This draft discusses RSVP and ATM specifically, but most of
   the issues and approaches are not specific to either RSVP or ATM, but
   rather would apply to any setup protocol and any Non-Broadcast
   Multiple Access (NBMA) network.  In those cases where an issue is
   specific to either RSVP or ATM, it will be pointed out in the text.
   It is the intention of the author in the future to split this draft
   into two documents, one dealing with RSVP-specific issues, and the
   other with general integrated services issues.]

   The Internet currently has one class of service normally referred to
   as "best effort."  This service is typified by first-come, first-
   serve scheduling at each hop in the network. Best effort service has
   worked exceptionally well for electronic mail, World Wide Web (WWW)
   access, file transfer (e.g. ftp), etc.  For real-time traffic such as
   voice and video, the current Internet has performed well only across
   unloaded networks.  In order to provide guaranteed quality real-time
   traffic, new classes of service and new protocols are being
   introduced in the Internet[10,4], while retaining the existing best
   effort service.  Signalling for these new services is done by
   RSVP[3,12], the Resource ReSerVation Protocol.

   Due to extensive telephone company support, ATM is rapidly becoming
   an important link layer technology.  As this draft was being written,
   the current version of ATM signalling was UNI 3.1[9], and UNI 3.1 is
   expected to be predominant in the marketplace in the near term.
   However, a new version (UNI 4.0) is expected to be standardized soon,
   and this draft will be updated as appropriate.

   One of the important features of ATM technology is the ability to
   request a point-to-point Virtual Circuit (VC) with a specified
   Quality of Service (QoS). An additional feature of ATM technology is
   the ability to request point-to-multipoint VCs with a specified QoS.
   Point-to-multipoint VCs allows leaf nodes to be joined and removed
   from the VC dynamically and so provide a mechanism for supporting IP
   multicast.  It is only natural that RSVP and the Internet Integrated
   Services (IIS) model would like to utilize the QoS properties of any
   underlying link layer, and this draft concentrates on ATM.

   Classical IP over ATM[11] has solved part of this problem, supporting
   IP unicast traffic over ATM. Classical IP over ATM is based on a
   Logical IP Subnetwork (LIS), which is a separately administered IP
   subnetwork.  Hosts within a LIS communicate using the ATM network,
   while hosts from different subnets communicate only by going through
   an IP router (even though it may be possible to open a direct VC
   between the two hosts over the ATM network).  Classical IP over ATM
   provides an Address Resolution Protocol (ATMARP) for ATM edge devices

Berson                 Expiration: December 1996                [Page 3]

Internet Draft        Integrated Services and ATM              June 1996

   to resolve IP addresses to native ATM addresses.  For any pair of
   IP/ATM edge devices (i.e. hosts or routers), a single VC is created
   on demand and shared for all traffic between the two devices.  A
   second part of the RSVP and IIS over ATM problem, IP multicast, is
   close to being solved with MARS[1], the Multicast Address Resolution
   Server.  The MARS server generalizes ATMARP by allowing an IP address
   to resolve into a list of native ATM addresses, rather than just a
   single address.

   There is work in progress on alternative IP over ATM models (e.g.
   NHRP[7]) but similar solutions to those described here for the
   classical model are still expected to apply.  But further study is

   A key remaining issue for IP over ATM is the integration of RSVP
   signalling and ATM signalling in support of the Internet Integrated
   Services (IIS) model.  There are two main areas involved in
   supporting the IIS model, QoS translation and VC management.  QoS
   translation concerns mapping a QoS from the IIS model to a proper ATM
   QoS, while VC management concentrates on how many VCs are needed and
   which traffic flows are routed over which VCs.  This draft
   concentrates on VC management, and we assume that the QoS for a
   single RSVP flow can be acceptably translated to an ATM QoS.  This
   assumption is reasonable since the traffic parameters for both IIS
   and ATM QoS are very similar.

   The remainder of this draft is organized as follows.  Section 2
   describes how source traffic is mapped to RSVP flows and then to VCs.
   Section 3 describes the "single homogeneous VC" model where there is
   only one VC per RSVP flow even when there are different receivers
   requesting different reservations.  In particular, this section
   describes how the QoS of the single VC must be dynamically changed
   over ATM and how to limit excessive signalling using timers.  Section
   4 examines the case where a single RSVP flow can be fed into several
   VCs.  In particular, this section describes the need for multiple VCs
   particularly for simultaneously supporting a single QoS service as
   well as best effort service.  Section 5 describes alternatives for
   VCs used for RSVP signalling messages.  Section 6 discusses some
   additional minor issues.  Section 7 concludes the draft and describes
   continuing and future work.


   [NOTE - this section is RSVP specific]

   RSVP[3,12] provides many important features for signalling in the
   Internet including receiver initiated reservations, "soft state" in
   routers, heterogeneous reservations within a multicast session,

Berson                 Expiration: December 1996                [Page 4]

Internet Draft        Integrated Services and ATM              June 1996

   dynamic change of reservations, and multiple reservation styles or
   modes of sharing. Of particular interest for RSVP and ATM [Note 1]

   are reservation styles, dynamic change of reservations, and
   heterogeneous reservations within a multicast session.  The remainder
   of this section describes these features.

   2.1 RSVP messages

      In RSVP resources are reserved by use of two types of messages,
      PATH and RESV.  Each RSVP traffic source sends out PATH messages
      along the same route (unicast or multicast) as the data traffic
      will travel.  PATH messages carry information about the source
      traffic parameters such as a mean bit rate, and token bucket size.
      Using information from PATH messages and obtained from higher
      layer protocols, receivers can then make reservations for specific
      resources by sending RESV messages along the reverse path of the
      PATH messages.  Resources will be allocated on the proper outgoing
      link of all nodes along the route from traffic source(s) to the
      receiver.  This is shown in figure  with two sources "S1" and
      "S2," and two receivers "R1" and "R2."

                  Figure 1: RSVP message flow

      Multiple receivers can send RESV messages toward the same traffic
      source(s) as shown in figure .  The quantities of resources
      requested by these receivers may be different.  RSVP handles RESV
      messages for different quantities of resources by doing "merging".
      A node where multiple different reservation messages arrive (from
      different receivers) is called a "merge node".  In order that RSVP
      scale well with the number of receivers of a session, only one
      merged RESV message is forwarded from a merge node towards a
      source, and this message carries the maximum of the incoming
      resource reservation requests. In figure , router "r1" is a merge
      node and would send to traffic sources "S1" and "S2" a reservation
      message requesting the maximum of the resources requested by
      receivers "R1" and "R2."

   2.2 Reservation Styles

      RSVP provides several different styles of reservations.  The
      styles that are part of the current version 1 RSVP specification
[Note 1] Though ATM is sender oriented, it is worth noting that receiver
initiated reservations were not an issue at all.

Berson                 Expiration: December 1996                [Page 5]

Internet Draft        Integrated Services and ATM              June 1996

      are shown in figure , while noting that additional styles may be
      defined in the future.  The reservation style helps determine how
      many RSVP flows are needed for a multicast group and which source
      traffic uses which flow. Reservation styles can be "distinct",
      where each RSVP flow is used by exactly one sender, or "shared",
      where multiple senders use the same RSVP flow. Reservation styles
      can also have either "explicit sender selection", where a
      reservation is established only for senders explicitly listed in
      the reservation message, or can have "wildcard sender selection"
      where traffic from any sender is selected. Different reservation
      styles are suitable for different types of data traffic.
      Typically, shared type styles are best for audio conferencing
      since there would typically be only one person speaking at a time
      independent of the number of senders.  Distinct type styles are
      typically used for video where each traffic source is continuously
      sending, and so sharing is difficult.


      Sender Selection |      Distinct            |     Shared
      Explicit         | Fixed-Filter (FF) Style  |  Shared-Explicit (SE) Style
      Wildcard         | (None defined)           |  Wildcard-Filter (WF) Style

                 Figure 2: Reservation Styles

      Three reservation styles have currently been defined. Fixed filter
      style has explicit sender selection and distinct reservations and
      is typically used for video conferencing where each video stream
      has its own RSVP flow. Wildcard filter style has wildcard sender
      selection and shared style and is typically used for audio
      conferencing where people naturally take turns speaking. Shared
      explicit style has explicit sender selection and shared
      reservations and is similar to wildcard style except it provides
      better security by explicitly listing senders. Currently, there is
      no style defined with wildcard sender selection and distinct

                 Figure 3: IP over ATM network

   2.3 RSVP flows

      As an example, consider a system with two senders (S1 and S2), two
      receivers (R1 and R2), and three routers (r1, r2, and r3) as shown
      above in figure .  Assuming that the two receivers are requesting

Berson                 Expiration: December 1996                [Page 6]

Internet Draft        Integrated Services and ATM              June 1996

      the same QoS, then the number of RSVP flows at the ATM edge device
      "r1" needed to support different reservation styles for this
      configuration can be determined. For a wildcard filter style, only
      one (point-to-multipoint) flow is needed as all senders for this
      group can use the shared reservation across the ATM network. For
      styles with explicit sender selection, assume that both senders
      are selected. For fixed filter style, three flows are needed, one
      QoS flow for each of the two senders explicitly listed and one
      best effort service flow to be shared among any other senders.
      For the shared explicit style, two flows are needed, one QoS flow
      to be shared among all the (i.e. two) explicitly listed senders,
      and one best effort service flow to be shared among the remaining

      More generally, the following numbers of RSVP flows are created
      for different filter styles.  For a reservation with wildcard
      filter (WF) style, there is only one RSVP flow, since all senders
      to a (multicast or unicast) session are part of the same
      reservation.  For shared explicit (SE) style, there are two RSVP
      flows, one for the senders explicitly listed who receive reserved
      service, and one for any other senders who receive ordinary best
      effort service.  Finally, the number of RSVP flows created by a
      fixed filter (FF) style reservation depends on the number of
      senders listed in the reservation message.  If there are n senders
      listed in the message, then there are n+1 RSVP flows created, one
      for each of the n senders, and one additional flow for all senders
      that are not listed.

   2.4 RSVP flows and VCs

      There are different approaches to mapping RSVP flows to ATM VCs.
      Two approaches are discussed in this draft, while a third remains
      for future work.  Section 3 examines the VC per flow model, where
      each RSVP flow is mapped to a single ATM VC.  This ATM VC can be a
      point-to-point or point-to-multipoint as appropriate.  Section 4
      examines the multiple VCs per RSVP flow model where a single flow
      can be forwarded into several VCs each with a different QoS.
      Other models allowing aggregation of RSVP flows into VCs (VC for
      multiple flows model) are being studied and will be briefly
      discussed in section 7.

3. Single VC per RSVP Flow

   One approach for mapping RSVP flows into VCs is to have a single
   (point-to-point or point-to-multipoint) VC for each RSVP flow.  The
   potential problem with this scheme is that different receivers might
   request different qualities of service.  In the "single VC per RSVP
   flow" model, this heterogeneity problem is handled by using the

Berson                 Expiration: December 1996                [Page 7]

Internet Draft        Integrated Services and ATM              June 1996

   maximum of the requested resources of all the receivers of a session.
   The remainder of this section discusses the issue of dynamically
   changing the QoS of a VC.  The following section allows more
   heterogeneity in reservations by using additional VCs.

   3.1 Dynamic QoS

      RSVP provides dynamic quality of service (QoS) in that the
      resources that a reservation requests may change at any time.
      There are several common reasons for a change of reservation QoS.
      First, an existing receiver can request a new larger (or smaller)
      QoS if the current received quality is unacceptable.  Second, a
      sender may change its traffic specification (TSpec), which can
      trigger a change in the reservation requests of the receivers.
      Third, a new sender can start sending to a multicast group with a
      larger traffic specification than existing senders, triggering
      larger reservations.  Finally, a new receiver can make a
      reservation that is larger than existing reservations. If the
      merge node for the larger reservation is an ATM edge device, a new
      larger reservation must be set up across the ATM network.

      Since ATM service, as currently defined, does not allow
      renegotiating the QoS of a VC, dynamically changing the
      reservation means tearing down an established VC, and creating a
      new VC with the new QoS.  Tearing down a VC and setting up a new
      VC in ATM are complex operations that involve a non-trivial amount
      of processor time, and have a substantial latency.

      To prevent excessive signalling load on an ATM network, timers can
      be used.  Each ATM edge device is configured with a time parameter
      tau that gives the minimum amount of time the edge device will
      wait between successive changes of the QoS of a particular VC.
      Thus if the QoS of a VC is changed at time t, all messages that
      would change the QoS of that VC that arrive before time t+tau
      would be queued.  If several messages changing the QoS of a VC
      arrive during the interval, redundant messages can be discarded.
      At time t+tau, the remaining change(s) of QoS, if any, can be
      executed.  This timer approach would apply more generally to any
      network structure, and might be worthwhile to incorporate into

      The sequence of events for a single VC would be

      1.   Wait if timer is active

      2.   Establish VC with new QoS

Berson                 Expiration: December 1996                [Page 8]

Internet Draft        Integrated Services and ATM              June 1996

      3.   Remap data traffic to new VC

      4.   Tear down old VC

      5.   Activate timer

   3.2 Limitations

      There are two major problems with the single VC per RSVP flow
      approach.  The first problem is that a user making a small or no
      reservation would get a "free ride" across the ATM network on any
      person(s) making a larger reservation.  The second problem is that
      a user may want to join an existing VC at the established QoS
      level, but, because of a lack of resources, not be able to join.
      The rejected user would still like to receive the traffic on a
      best effort basis, which is the standard method of operation in
      the Internet.  Preserving the homogeneous single VC per RSVP flow
      model in this case would mean tearing down the QoS VC, and
      replacing it with a single best effort VC.  Clearly it is
      unacceptable to tear down one customer's existing QoS reservation
      because a second customer was not able to join the existing VC.  A
      solution to both the "free ride" problem and the best effort
      service problem involves having multiple VCs carrying identical
      traffic which is the subject of the next section.

4. Multiple VCs per RSVP Flow

   The previous "single VC per RSVP flow" model had the advantage that
   each byte of data traffic was sent over the ATM network exactly once
   and each leaf of the VC received identical service.  This homogeneous
   model is simple but does not take into account the situation that
   different users may demand (and be willing to pay for) different
   levels of service than others.  This section discusses solutions to
   heterogeneous reservation requests from different receivers involving
   multiple VCs per RSVP flow.  Two different approaches are discussed.
   The first approach requires at most two VCs per RSVP flow, one for
   best effort traffic, and the other for (homogeneous) QoS traffic.
   The other approach has one VC per QoS requested, and so potentially
   has an unlimited number of VCs per RSVP flow.

   4.1 Two VCs per RSVP flow

      RSVP supports heterogeneous QoS, meaning that different receivers
      of the same multicast group can request a different QoS. But most
      importantly, some receivers might have no reservation at all, but
      want to receive the traffic on a best effort service basis. The IP
      model allows receivers to join a multicast group at any time on a
      best effort basis, and it is important that ATM as part of the

Berson                 Expiration: December 1996                [Page 9]

Internet Draft        Integrated Services and ATM              June 1996

      Internet continue to provide this service.  We define the "limited
      heterogeneity" model as the case where the receivers of a
      multicast session are limited to use either best effort service or
      a single alternate quality of service.  The alternate QoS can be
      chosen either by higher level protocols or by dynamic
      renegotiation of QoS as described in the previous section.

               Figure 4: Limited heterogeneity

      In order to support limited heterogeneity, each ATM edge device
      participating in a session would need at most two VCs.  One VC
      would be a point-to-multipoint best effort service VC and would
      serve all best effort service IP destinations for this multicast
      group. The other VC would be a point to multipoint VC with QoS and
      would serve all IP destinations for this multicast group that have
      an RSVP reservation established. This is shown in figure  where
      there are three receivers, R2 requesting best effort service,
      while R1 and R3 request distinct reservations.  One point-to-
      multipoint VC is set up for best effort traffic which serves R2.
      Another VC is set up for the QoS traffic to receivers R1 and R3,
      using the maximum of R1 and R3's reservation.  Note that though
      the VC and hence the QoS for R1 and R3 are the same within the ATM
      cloud, the reservation outside the ATM cloud (from router r4 to
      receiver R3) uses the QoS actually requested by R3.

      The disadvantage of the limited heterogeneity scheme is that each
      packet will need to be duplicated at the network layer and one
      copy sent into each of the 2 VCs. Looking at figure , there are
      two VCs going from router r1 to switch s1.  Two copies of every
      packet will traverse the r1-s1 link.  Depending on the network
      topology and group membership, there may be a large amount of
      duplicate traffic flowing over the ATM links.

      Note that two separate VCs for each session will not normally be
      needed.  First, if all the receivers are making reservations, no
      best effort VC is needed.  Second, the best effort traffic for all
      sessions with the same ATM destinations can be multiplexed on the
      same best effort VC.  In the ideal case, there will be only one
      best effort VC for all the best effort traffic for all sessions on
      a single node.  This will limit the number of VCs needed.

   4.2 Many VCs per RSVP flow

      Instead of arbitrarily restricting an RSVP flow to at most two
      VCs, rules can be specified as to when a new QoS VC can be created

Berson                 Expiration: December 1996               [Page 10]

Internet Draft        Integrated Services and ATM              June 1996

      (e.g. when the user is willing to pay).  This gives a lot of
      flexibility to a service provider.  Full heterogeneity is possible
      where a separate VC could be created for each distinct QoS for a
      multicast session.

      While we advocate the limited heterogeneity approach as in section
      4.1, different service providers may choose alternate approaches.
      RSVP allows for local policy control [6] as well as admission
      control.  Thus a user can request a reservation with a specific
      QoS and with a policy object that, for example, offers to pay for
      additional costs setting up a new VC.  The policy module at the
      entry to a service provider can decide how to satisfy that request
      - either by merging the request in with an existing VC or by
      creating a new VC for this (and perhaps other) users.  This policy
      can be on a user-provider basis where a user and a provider have
      an agreement on the type of service offered, or on a provider-
      provider basis, where two providers have such an agreement.  With
      the ability to do local policy control, service providers can
      provide services best suited to their own resources and their
      customers desires.

                Figure 5: Limited heterogeneity

      This is shown in figure .  Whereas, in figure , R1 and R3 shared
      the same VC across the ATM network; in figure , R1 and R3 have a
      separate VC, so each receives precisely the resources requested.

      Note that while full heterogeneity gives users exactly what they
      request, it requires more resources of the network than limited
      heterogeneity.  In figure , three copies of each packet are sent
      on the link from r1 to s1.  Two copies of each packet are then
      sent from s1 to s2.  As with limited heterogeneity, the exact
      amount of bandwidth dedicated to duplicate traffic depends on the
      network topology and group membership.

   4.3 Making a reservation

      For the limited heterogeneity case, making an RSVP reservation
      will mean that a leaf of a point to multipoint VC will need to
      leave the best effort service VC and join as a new leaf of the QoS
      VC.  If no QoS VC exists, a new QoS VC is created with the
      receiver as a leaf.  If the new QoS leaf cannot be created, an
      error message will be sent and the user will continue receiving
      best effort service.  If there is a QoS VC, but the QoS needs to
      be increased for the new reservation, a new VC with the larger QoS

Berson                 Expiration: December 1996               [Page 11]

Internet Draft        Integrated Services and ATM              June 1996

      will be requested (for all QoS receivers).  If the new VC request
      fails, the old QoS VC will remain, the new reservation will fail,
      and the new user will continue to receive best effort service.  An
      RSVP reservation teardown will mean leaving the QoS VC and joining
      the best effort service VC. If no best effort VC exists, then one
      would be created.

      For the full heterogeneity model, making an RSVP reservation is
      similar to the limited heterogeneity case.  The difference is that
      a change in reservation may attempt to switch a leaf from one QoS
      VC to another QoS VC.


   [NOTE - this section is RSVP specific]

   One last important issue is providing a data path for the RSVP
   messages themselves.  As mentioned in section 2, there are two main
   types of messages, PATH and RESV.  PATH messages are sent to a
   multicast address, while RESV messages are sent to a unicast address.
   Other RSVP messages are handled similar to either PATH or RESV.  So
   ATM VCs used for RSVP signalling messages need to provide both
   unicast and multicast functionality.

   There are several different approaches for how to assign VCs to use
   for RSVP signalling messages.  The main approaches are:

   o    use same VC as data

   o    single VC per session

   o    single point-to-multipoint VC multiplexed among sessions

   o    multiple point-to-point VCs multiplexed among sessions

   There are several different issues that affect the choice of how to
   assign VCs for RSVP signalling.  One issue is the number of
   additional VCs needed for RSVP signalling.  Related to this issue is
   the degree of multiplexing on the RSVP VCs.  In general more
   multiplexing means less VCs.  An additional issue is the latency in
   dynamically setting up new RSVP signalling VCs.  A final issue is
   complexity of implementation.  The remainder of this section
   discusses the issues and tradeoffs among these different approaches
   and suggests guidelines for when to use which alternative.

Berson                 Expiration: December 1996               [Page 12]

Internet Draft        Integrated Services and ATM              June 1996

   5.1 Mixed data and control traffic

      In this scheme RSVP signalling messages are sent on the same VCs
      as is the data traffic.  The main advantage of this scheme is that
      no additional VCs are needed beyond what is needed for the data
      traffic.  An additional advantage is that there is no ATM
      signalling latency for PATH messages (which follow the same
      routing as the data messages).  However there can be a major
      problem when data traffic on a VC is nonconforming.  With
      nonconforming traffic, RSVP signalling messages may be dropped.
      While RSVP is resilient to a moderate level of dropped messages,
      excessive drops would lead to repeated tearing down and re-
      establishing QoS VCs, a very undesirable behavior for ATM.  Due to
      these problems, this is not a good choice for providing RSVP
      signalling messages, even though the number of VCs needed for this
      scheme is minimized.

      One variation of this scheme that is hopeful but requires further
      study is to have a packet scheduling algorithm (before entering
      the ATM network) that gives priority to the RSVP signalling
      traffic.  In this way, the ATM Cell Loss Priority (CLP) bit could
      be used to make sure that RSVP signalling messages only rarely get

   5.2 Single RSVP VC per RSVP Flow

      In this scheme, there is a parallel RSVP signalling VC for each
      RSVP flow.  This scheme results in twice the minimum number of
      VCs, but means that RSVP signalling messages have the advantage of
      a separate VC.  This separate VC means that RSVP signalling
      messages have their own traffic contract and compliant signalling
      messages are not subject to dropping due to other noncompliant
      traffic (such as can happen with the scheme in section 5.1).  The
      advantage of this scheme is its simplicity - whenever a data VC is
      created, a separate RSVP signalling VC is created.  The
      disadvantage of the extra VC is that extra ATM signalling needs to
      be done.

      This scheme requires twice the minimum number of VCs and also
      additional latency, but is quite simple.  This approach would tend
      to work well on hosts.

   5.3 Multiplexed point-to-multipoint RSVP VCs

      In this scheme, there is a single point-to-multipoint RSVP
      signalling VC for each unique ingress router and unique set of
      egress routers.  This scheme allows multiplexing of RSVP
      signalling traffic that shares the same ingress router and the

Berson                 Expiration: December 1996               [Page 13]

Internet Draft        Integrated Services and ATM              June 1996

      same egress routers.  This can save on the number of VCs, by
      multiplexing, but there are problems when the destinations of the
      multiplexed point-to-multipoint VCs are changing.  Several
      alternatives exist in these cases, that have applicability in
      different situations.  First, when the egress routers change, the
      ingress router can check if it already has a point-to-multipoint
      RSVP signalling VC for the new list of egress routers.  If the
      RSVP signalling VC already exists, then the RSVP signalling
      traffic can be switched to this existing VC.  If no such VC
      exists, one approach would be to create a new VC with the new list
      of egress routers.  Other approaches include modifying the
      existing VC to add an egress router or using a separate new VC for
      the new egress routers.  When a destination drops out of a group,
      an alternative would be to keep sending to the existing VC even
      though some traffic is wasted.

      The number of VCs used in this scheme is a function of traffic
      patterns across the ATM network, but is always less than the
      number used with the Single RSVP VC per data VC.  In addition,
      existing best effort data VCs could be used for RSVP signalling.
      Reusing best effort VCs saves on the number of VCs at the cost of
      higher probability of RSVP signalling packet loss.  One possible
      place where this scheme will work well is in the core of the
      network where there is the most opportunity to take advantage of
      the savings due to multiplexing.

   5.4 Multiplexed point-to-point RSVP VCs

      In this scheme, multiple point-to-point RSVP signalling VCs are
      used for a single point-to-multipoint data VC.  This scheme allows
      multiplexing of RSVP signalling traffic but requires the same
      traffic to be sent on each of several VCs.  This scheme is quite
      flexible and allows a large amount of multiplexing.  Since point-
      to-point VCs can set up a reverse channel at the same time as
      setting up the forward channel, this scheme could save
      substantially on signalling cost.  In addition, signalling traffic
      could share existing best effort VCs.  Sharing existing VCs
      reduces the total number of VCs needed, but might cause signalling
      traffic drops if there is congestion in the ATM network.

      This pt-pt scheme would work well in the core of the network where
      there is much opportunity for multiplexing.  Also in the core of
      the network, RSVP VCs can stay permanently established either as
      Permanent Virtual Circuits (PVCs) or as long lived Switched
      Virtual Circuits (SVCs).  The number of VCs in this scheme will
      depend on traffic patterns, but in the core of a network would be
      approximately n(n-1)/2 where n is the number of IP nodes in the
      network.  In the core of the network, this will typically be small

Berson                 Expiration: December 1996               [Page 14]

Internet Draft        Integrated Services and ATM              June 1996

      compared to the total number of VCs.

   5.5 QoS for RSVP VCs

      There is an issue for what QoS, if any, to assign to the RSVP VCs.
      Two solutions have been covered in section 5.1 and in the shared
      best effort VC variation in section 5.4.  For other RSVP VC
      schemes, a QoS (possibly best effort) will be needed.  What QoS to
      use partially depends on the expected level of multiplexing that
      is being done on the VCs, and the expected reliability of best
      effort VCs.  Since RSVP signalling is infrequent (typically every
      30 seconds), only a relatively small QoS should be needed.  This
      is important since using a larger QoS risks the VC setup being
      rejected for lack of resources.  Falling back to best effort when
      a QoS call is rejected is possible, but if the ATM net is
      congested, there will likely be problems with with RSVP packet
      loss on the best effort VC also.  Additional experimentation is
      needed in this area.

6. Additional issues

   There is an issue with VCs timing out as described in RFC1755,
   section 3.4 on VC Teardown.  RFC1755 recommends tearing down a VC
   that is inactive for a certain length of time - 20 minutes is
   recommended.  This timeout could mean that a valid VC with QoS that
   has been established with RSVP might be torn down unexpectedly.
   While this behavior is acceptable for best-effort traffic, it is
   important that if a reservation has been established on a VC, that
   the VC not be torn down.  If there is no choice about the VC being
   torn down, the RSVP daemon must be notified, so a reservation failure
   message can be sent.

   Most of the previous discussion has been concerned with meshes of
   point-to-multipoint connections.  An alternate approach is to use a
   MultiCast Server[1] (MCS).  An MCS provides a relay node that
   forwards the multicast (e.g. PATH) messages.  It is expected that all
   the previous discussion applies for an MCS as well as meshes, but
   further experimentation is needed.

7. Conclusions and Future Work

   We have described a scheme for deploying "classical" RSVP over IP
   over ATM.  We have a prototype system using the limited heterogeneity
   model running at ISI and we are experimenting with it now.  There are
   a number of other issues that are subjects of continuing research.
   These issues (and others) are covered in [2], and are briefly
   repeated here.

Berson                 Expiration: December 1996               [Page 15]

Internet Draft        Integrated Services and ATM              June 1996

   One key issue is how to translate an Internet Integrated Services
   (IIS) QoS to an ATM QoS.  Fortunately, this issue seems to be getting
   easier as the IETF and ATM Forum QoS definitions are getting more
   similar as they evolve.  However there are still potential
   differences in traffic shaping and policing models.  Additional
   coordination between the IETF and the ATM Forum in testing and
   standardizing a QoS translation is desirable now.

   A second issue is to consider the multiple RSVP flows per VC (or
   aggregation) model.  With this model, large VCs could be set up
   between IP routers in an ATM network. These VCs could be managed the
   same as how IIS point-to-point links (e.g. T-1, DS-3) are managed
   now.  Traffic from multiple sources over multiple multicast groups
   might be multiplexed on the same VC. This approach has a number of
   advantages. First, there is typically no signalling latency as VCs
   would be in existence when the traffic started flowing, so no time is
   wasted in setting up VCs. Second, the heterogeneity problem in full
   over ATM has been reduced to a solved problem.  Finally, the dynamic
   QoS problem for ATM has also been reduced to a solved problem.  The
   problem with this approach is that the choice of what QoS to use for
   which of the large VCs is difficult. If chosen poorly, there might be
   many VC setups failing while other bandwidth is unused. An additional
   problem is that the ability of ATM to do QoS dependent routing is

   ATM is currently close to a new standard (UNI 4.0) that promises
   certain advantages over the current UNI 3.1 version.  Current work in
   the ATM Forum and ITU promises additional advantages.  A final issue
   is to keep current with changes in ATM, and to keep this document
   up-to-date.  Some specific issues are covered in [2,5].


[1] Armitage, G., "Support for Multicast over UNI 3.0/3.1 based ATM
    Networks," Internet Draft.

[2] Borden, M., Crawley, E., Krawczyk, J, Baker, F., and Berson, S.,
    "Issues for RSVP and Integrated Services over ATM," Internet Draft.

[3] Braden, R., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and Jamin, S.,
    "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional
    Specification," Internet Draft.

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

[5] Demirtjis, A., Berson, S., Edwards, B., Maher, M., Braden, B., and

Berson                 Expiration: December 1996               [Page 16]

Internet Draft        Integrated Services and ATM              June 1996

    Mankin, A., "RSVP and ATM Signalling," ATM Forum Contribution 96-

[6] Herzog, S., "Building Blocks for Accounting and Access Control in
    RSVP," Internet Draft.

[7] Katz, D., Piscitello, D., Cole, B., Luciani, J., "NBMA Next Hop
    Resolution Protocol (NHRP)," Internet Draft.

[8] Perez, M., Liaw, F., Grossman, D., Mankin, A., Hoffman, E., and
    Malis, A., "ATM Signalling Support for IP over ATM," RFC 1755.

[9] "ATM User-Network Interface (UNI) Specification - Version 3.1",
    Prentice Hall.

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

[11] Laubach, M., "Classical IP and ARP over ATM," RFC1577, January

[12] Zhang, L., Deering, S., Estrin, D., Shenker, S., Zappala, D.,
    "RSVP: A New Resource ReSerVation Protocol," IEEE Network, September

Security Considerations

   Security considerations have not been addressed in this draft.

Author's Address

   Steven Berson
   USC Information Sciences Institute
   4676 Admiralty Way
   Marina del Rey, CA 90292

   Phone: (310) 822-1511
   EMail: berson@isi.edu

Berson                 Expiration: December 1996               [Page 17]

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