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

Versions: (draft-briscoe-pcn-3-in-1-encoding) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 RFC 6660

Congestion and Pre-Congestion                                 B. Briscoe
Notification                                                          BT
Internet-Draft                                              T. Moncaster
Intended status: Standards Track           Moncaster Internet Consulting
Expires: November 22, 2011                                      M. Menth
                                                 University of Tuebingen
                                                            May 21, 2011


       Encoding 3 PCN-States in the IP header using a single DSCP
                   draft-ietf-pcn-3-in-1-encoding-05

Abstract

   The objective of Pre-Congestion Notification (PCN) is to protect the
   quality of service (QoS) of inelastic flows within a Diffserv domain.
   On every link in the PCN domain, the overall rate of the PCN-traffic
   is metered, and PCN-packets are appropriately marked when certain
   configured rates are exceeded.  Egress nodes provide decision points
   with information about the PCN-marks of PCN-packets which allows them
   to take decisions about whether to admit or block a new flow request,
   and to terminate some already admitted flows during serious pre-
   congestion.

   This document specifies how PCN-marks are to be encoded into the IP
   header by re-using the Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)
   codepoints within a PCN-domain.  This encoding builds on the baseline
   encoding of RFC5696 and provides for three different PCN marking
   states using a single DSCP: not-marked (NM), threshold-marked (ThM)
   and excess-traffic-marked (ETM).  Hence, it is called the 3-in-1 PCN
   encoding.

Status of this Memo

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 22, 2011.



Briscoe, et al.         Expires November 22, 2011               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft             3-in-1 PCN Encoding                  May 2011


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

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


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Changes in This Version (to be removed by RFC Editor)  . .  4
   2.  Requirements Language  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.1.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Requirements for and Applicability of 3-in-1 PCN Encoding  . .  5
     3.1.  PCN Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.2.  Requirements Imposed by Baseline Encoding  . . . . . . . .  6
     3.3.  Applicability of 3-in-1 PCN Encoding . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  Definition of 3-in-1 PCN Encoding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.  Behaviour of a PCN Node Compliant with the 3-in-1 PCN
       Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   6.  Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     6.1.  Backward Compatibility with Pre-existing PCN
           Implementations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     6.2.  Recommendations for the Use of PCN Encoding Schemes  . . .  9
       6.2.1.  Use of Both Excess-Traffic-Marking and
               Threshold-Marking  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       6.2.2.  Unique Use of Excess-Traffic-Marking . . . . . . . . . 10
       6.2.3.  Unique Use of Threshold-Marking  . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   9.  Conclusions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   11. Comments Solicited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Appendix A.  Co-existence of ECN and PCN (informative) . . . . . . 13
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15




Briscoe, et al.         Expires November 22, 2011               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft             3-in-1 PCN Encoding                  May 2011


1.  Introduction

   The objective of Pre-Congestion Notification (PCN) [RFC5559] is to
   protect the quality of service (QoS) of inelastic flows within a
   Diffserv domain, in a simple, scalable, and robust fashion.  Two
   mechanisms are used: admission control, to decide whether to admit or
   block a new flow request, and flow termination to terminate some
   existing flows during serious pre-congestion.  To achieve this, the
   overall rate of PCN-traffic is metered on every link in the domain,
   and PCN-packets are appropriately marked when certain configured
   rates are exceeded.  These configured rates are below the rate of the
   link thus providing notification to boundary nodes about overloads
   before any real congestion occurs (hence "pre-congestion
   notification").

   [RFC5670] provides for two metering and marking functions that are
   configured with reference rates.  Threshold-marking marks all PCN
   packets once their traffic rate on a link exceeds the configured
   reference rate (PCN-threshold-rate).  Excess-traffic-marking marks
   only those PCN packets that exceed the configured reference rate
   (PCN-excess-rate).  The PCN-excess-rate is typically larger than the
   PCN-threshold-rate [RFC5559].  Egress nodes monitor the PCN-marks of
   received PCN-packets and provide information about the PCN-marks to
   decision points which take decisions about flow admission and
   termination on this basis [I-D.ietf-pcn-cl-edge-behaviour],
   [I-D.ietf-pcn-sm-edge-behaviour].

   The baseline encoding defined in [RFC5696] describes how two PCN
   marking states (Not-marked and PCN-Marked) can be encoded using a
   single Diffserv codepoint.  It also provides an experimental
   codepoint (EXP), along with guidelines for use of that codepoint.  To
   support the application of two different marking algorithms in a PCN-
   domain, for example as required in [I-D.ietf-pcn-cl-edge-behaviour],
   three PCN marking states are needed.  This document describes an
   extension to the baseline encoding that uses the EXP codepoint to
   provide a third PCN marking state in the IP header, still using a
   single Diffserv codepoint.  This encoding scheme is called "3-in-1
   PCN encoding".

   This document only concerns the PCN wire protocol encoding for all IP
   headers, whether IPv4 or IPv6.  It makes no changes or
   recommendations concerning algorithms for congestion marking or
   congestion response.  Other documents define the PCN wire protocol
   for other header types.  For example, the MPLS encoding is defined in
   [RFC5129] and Appendix A of that document provides an informative
   example for a mapping between the encodings in IP and in MPLS.





Briscoe, et al.         Expires November 22, 2011               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft             3-in-1 PCN Encoding                  May 2011


1.1.  Changes in This Version (to be removed by RFC Editor)

   From draft-ietf-pcn-3-in-1-encoding-04 to -05:

      *  Draft moved to standards track as per working group
         discussions.

      *  Added Appendix A discussing ECN handling in the PCN-domain.

      *  Clarified that this document modifies [RFC5696].

      *  .......

   From draft-ietf-pcn-3-in-1-encoding-03 to -04:

      *  Updated document to reflect RFC6040.

      *  Re-wrote introduction.

      *  Re-wrote section on applicability.

      *  Re-wrote section on choosing encoding scheme.

      *  Updated author details.

   From draft-ietf-pcn-3-in-1-encoding-02 to -03:

      *  Corrected mistakes in introduction and improved overall
         readability.

      *  Added new terminology.

      *  Rewrote a good part of Section 4 and 5 to achieve more clarity.

      *  Added appendix explaining when to use which encoding scheme and
         how to encode them in MPLS shim headers.

      *  Added new co-author.

   From draft-ietf-pcn-3-in-1-encoding-01 to -02:

      *  Corrected mistake in introduction, which wrongly stated that
         the threshold-traffic rate is higher than the excess-traffic
         rate.  Other minor corrections.

      *  Updated acks & refs.





Briscoe, et al.         Expires November 22, 2011               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft             3-in-1 PCN Encoding                  May 2011


   From draft-ietf-pcn-3-in-1-encoding-00 to -01:

      *  Altered the wording to make sense if
         draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-tunnel moves to proposed standard.

      *  References updated

   From draft-briscoe-pcn-3-in-1-encoding-00 to
   draft-ietf-pcn-3-in-1-encoding-00:

      *  Filename changed to draft-ietf-pcn-3-in-1-encoding.

      *  Introduction altered to include new template description of
         PCN.

      *  References updated.

      *  Terminology brought into line with [RFC5670].

      *  Minor corrections.


2.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

2.1.  Terminology

   General PCN-related terminology is defined in the PCN architecture
   [RFC5559], and terminology specific to packet encoding is defined in
   the PCN baseline encoding [RFC5696].  Additional terminology is
   defined below.

   PCN encoding:  mapping of PCN marking states to specific codepoints
      in the packet header.


3.  Requirements for and Applicability of 3-in-1 PCN Encoding

3.1.  PCN Requirements

   In accordance with the PCN architecture [RFC5559], PCN-ingress-nodes
   control packets entering a PCN-domain.  Packets belonging to PCN-
   controlled flows are subject to PCN-metering and -marking, and PCN-
   ingress-nodes mark them as Not-marked (PCN-colouring).  Any node in
   the PCN-domain may perform PCN-metering and -marking and mark PCN-



Briscoe, et al.         Expires November 22, 2011               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft             3-in-1 PCN Encoding                  May 2011


   packets if needed.  There are two different metering and marking
   schemes: threshold-marking and excess-traffic-marking [RFC5670].
   Some edge behaviors require only a single marking scheme
   [I-D.ietf-pcn-sm-edge-behaviour], others require both
   [I-D.ietf-pcn-cl-edge-behaviour].  In the latter case, three PCN
   marking states are needed: not-marked (NM) to indicate not-marked
   packets, threshold-marked (ThM) to indicate packets marked by the
   threshold-marker, and excess-traffic-marked (ETM) to indicate packets
   marked by the excess-traffic-marker [RFC5670].  Threshold-marking and
   excess-traffic-marking are configured to start marking packets at
   different load conditions, so one marking scheme indicates more
   severe pre-congestion than the other.  Therefore, a fourth PCN
   marking state indicating that a packet is marked by both markers is
   not needed.  However a fourth codepoint is required to indicate
   packets that are not PCN-capable (the not-PCN codepoint).

   In all current PCN edge behaviors that use two marking schemes
   [RFC5559], [I-D.ietf-pcn-cl-edge-behaviour], excess-traffic-marking
   is configured with a larger reference rate than threshold-marking.
   We take this as a rule and define excess-traffic-marked as a more
   severe PCN-mark than threshold-marked.

3.2.  Requirements Imposed by Baseline Encoding

   The baseline encoding scheme [RFC5696] was defined so that it could
   be extended to accommodate an additional marking state.  It provides
   rules to embed the encoding of two PCN states in the IP header.
   Figure 1 shows the structure of the former type-of-service field.  It
   contains the 6-bit Differentiated Services (DS) field that holds the
   DS codepoint (DSCP) [RFC2474] and the 2-bit ECN field [RFC3168].

            0     1     2     3     4     5     6     7
         +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
         |              DS FIELD             | ECN FIELD |
         +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

       Figure 1: Structure of the former type-of-service field in IP

   Baseline encoding defines that the DSCP must be set to a PCN-
   compatible DSCP n and the ECN-field [RFC3168] indicates the specific
   PCN-mark.  Baseline encoding offers four possible encoding states
   within a single DSCP with the following restrictions.

   o  Codepoint `00' (not-ECT) is used to indicate non-PCN traffic as
      "not-PCN".  This allows both PCN and non-PCN traffic to use the
      same DSCP.





Briscoe, et al.         Expires November 22, 2011               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft             3-in-1 PCN Encoding                  May 2011


   o  Codepoint `10' (ECT(0)) is used to indicate Not-marked PCN
      traffic.

   o  Codepoint `11' (CE) is used to indicate the most severe PCN-mark.

   o  Codepoint `01' (ECT(1)) is available for experimental use and may
      be re-used by other PCN encodings such as the presently defined
      3-in-1 PCN encoding (subject to the rules defined in [RFC5696]).

   [RFC6040] defines rules for the encapsulation and decapsulation of
   ECN markings within IP-in-IP tunnels.  This RFC removes some of the
   constraints that existed when [RFC5696] was written.  Happily the
   rules for use of the EXP codepoint are fully compatible with
   [RFC6040].  In particular, the relative severity of each marking is
   the same: CE (PM) is more severe than ECT(1) (EXP) is more severe
   than ECT(0) (NM).  This is discussed in more detail in both the
   baseline encoding document [RFC5696] and in
   [I-D.ietf-pcn-encoding-comparison].

3.3.  Applicability of 3-in-1 PCN Encoding

   The 3-in-1 encoding is applicable in situations where two marking
   schemes are being used in the PCN-domain.  In some circumstances it
   can also be used in PCN-domains with only a single marking scheme in
   use.  Further guidance on choosing an encoding scheme can be found in
   Section 6.2.  All nodes within the PCN-domain MUST be fully compliant
   with the ECN encapsulation rules set out in [RFC6040].  As such the
   encoding is not applicable in situations where legacy tunnels might
   exist.


4.  Definition of 3-in-1 PCN Encoding

   The 3-in-1 PCN encoding scheme is an extension of the baseline
   encoding scheme defined in [RFC5696].  The PCN requirements and the
   extension rules for baseline encoding presented in the previous
   section determine how PCN encoding states are carried in the IP
   headers.  This is shown in Figure 2.

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




Briscoe, et al.         Expires November 22, 2011               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft             3-in-1 PCN Encoding                  May 2011


                       Figure 2: 3-in-1 PCN Encoding

   Like baseline encoding, 3-in-1 PCN encoding also uses a PCN
   compatible DSCP n and the ECN field for the encoding of PCN-marks.
   The PCN-marks have the following meaning.

   Not-PCN:  indicates a non-PCN-packet, i.e., a packet that is not
      subject to PCN metering and marking.

   NM:  Not-marked.  Indicates a PCN-packet that has not yet been marked
      by any PCN marker.

   ThM:  Threshold-marked.  Indicates a PCN-packet that has been marked
      by a threshold-marker [RFC5670].

   ETM:  Excess-traffic-marked.  Indicates a PCN-packet that has been
      marked by an excess-traffic-marker [RFC5670].


5.  Behaviour of a PCN Node Compliant with the 3-in-1 PCN Encoding

   To be compliant with the 3-in-1 PCN Encoding, an PCN interior node
   behaves as follows:

   o  It MUST change NM to ThM if the threshold-meter function indicates
      a need to mark the packet;

   o  It MUST change NM or ThM to ETM if the excess-traffic-meter
      function indicates a need to mark the packet;

   o  It MUST NOT change not-PCN to NM, ThM, or ETM;

   o  It MUST NOT change a NM, ThM, or ETM to not-PCN;

   o  It MUST NOT change ThM to NM;

   o  It MUST NOT change ETM to ThM or to NM;

   In other words, a PCN interior node MUST NOT mark PCN-packets into
   non-PCN packets and vice-versa, and it may increase the severity of
   the PCN-mark of a PCN-packet, but it MUST NOT decrease it.


6.  Backward Compatibility

   Discussion of backward compatibility between PCN encoding schemes and
   previous uses of the ECN field is given in Section 6 of [RFC5696].




Briscoe, et al.         Expires November 22, 2011               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft             3-in-1 PCN Encoding                  May 2011


6.1.  Backward Compatibility with Pre-existing PCN Implementations

   This encoding complies with the rules for extending the baseline PCN
   encoding schemes in Section 5 of [RFC5696].

   The term "compatibility" is meant in the following sense.  It is
   possible to operate nodes with baseline encoding [RFC5696] and 3-in-1
   encoding in the same PCN domain.  The nodes with baseline encoding
   MUST perform excess-traffic-marking because the 11 codepoint of
   3-in-1 encoding also means excess-traffic-marked.  PCN-boundary-nodes
   of such domains are required to interpret the full 3-in-1 encoding
   and not just baseline encoding, otherwise they cannot interpret the
   01 codepoint.

   Using nodes that perform only excess-traffic-marking may make sense
   in networks using the CL edge behavior
   [I-D.ietf-pcn-cl-edge-behaviour].  Such nodes are able to notify the
   egress only about severe pre-congestion when traffic needs to be
   terminated.  This seems reasonable for locations that are not
   expected to see any pre-congestion, but excess-traffic-marking gives
   them a means to terminate traffic if unexpected overload occurs.

6.2.  Recommendations for the Use of PCN Encoding Schemes

   NOTE: This sub-section is informative not normative.

   When deciding which PCN encoding is suitable an operator needs to
   take account of how many PCN states need to be encoded.  The
   following table gives guidelines on which encoding to use with either
   threshold-marking, excess-traffic marking or both.

         +------------------------+--------------------------------+
         | Marking schemes in use |  Recommended encoding scheme   |
         +------------------------+--------------------------------+
         | Only threshold-marking |   Baseline encoding [RFC5696]  |
         +------------------------+--------------------------------+
         | Only excess-traffic-   |   Baseline encoding [RFC5696]  |
         |       marking          |     or 3-in-1 PCN encoding     |
         +------------------------+--------------------------------+
         | Threshold-marking and  |     3-in-1 PCN encoding        |
         | excess-traffic-marking |                                |
         +------------------------+--------------------------------+

          Figure 3: Guidelines for choosing PCN encoding schemes







Briscoe, et al.         Expires November 22, 2011               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft             3-in-1 PCN Encoding                  May 2011


6.2.1.  Use of Both Excess-Traffic-Marking and Threshold-Marking

   If both excess-traffic-marking and threshold-marking are enabled in a
   PCN-domain, 3-in-1 encoding should be used as described in this
   document.

6.2.2.  Unique Use of Excess-Traffic-Marking

   If only excess-traffic-marking is enabled in a PCN-domain, baseline
   encoding or 3-in-1 encoding may be used.  They lead to the same
   encoding because PCN-boundary nodes will interpret baseline "PCN-
   marked (PM)" as "excess-traffic-marked (ETM)".

6.2.3.  Unique Use of Threshold-Marking

   No scheme is currently proposed that solely uses threshold-marking.
   If such a scheme is proposed, the choice of encoding scheme will
   depend on whether nodes are compliant with [RFC6040] or not.  Where
   it is certain that all nodes in the PCN-domain are compliant then
   either 3-in-1 encoding or baseline encoding are suitable.  If legacy
   tunnel decapsulators exist within the PCN-domain then baseline
   encoding SHOULD be used.


7.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.

   Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
   RFC.


8.  Security Considerations

   The security concerns relating to this extended PCN encoding are the
   same as those in [RFC5696].  In summary, PCN-boundary nodes are
   responsible for ensuring inappropriate PCN markings do not leak into
   or out of a PCN domain, and the current phase of the PCN architecture
   assumes that all the nodes of a PCN-domain are entirely under the
   control of a single operator, or a set of operators who trust each
   other.

   Given the only difference between the baseline encoding and the
   present 3-in-1 encoding is the use of the 01 codepoint, no new
   security issues are raised, as this codepoint was already available
   for experimental use in the baseline encoding.





Briscoe, et al.         Expires November 22, 2011              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft             3-in-1 PCN Encoding                  May 2011


9.  Conclusions

   The 3-in-1 PCN encoding uses a PCN-compatible DSCP and the ECN field
   to encode PCN-marks.  One codepoint allows non-PCN traffic to be
   carried with the same PCN-compatible DSCP and three other codepoints
   support three PCN marking states with different levels of severity.
   The use of this PCN encoding scheme presupposes that any tunnels in
   the PCN region have been updated to comply with [RFC6040].


10.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Phil Eardley, Teco Boot, Kwok Ho Chan and Georgios
   Karaginannis for reviewing this document.


11.  Comments Solicited

   To be removed by RFC Editor: Comments and questions are encouraged
   and very welcome.  They can be addressed to the IETF Congestion and
   Pre-Congestion working group mailing list <pcn@ietf.org>, and/or to
   the authors.


12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

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

   [RFC2474]  Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
              "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
              Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
              December 1998.

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

   [RFC3540]  Spring, N., Wetherall, D., and D. Ely, "Robust Explicit
              Congestion Notification (ECN) Signaling with Nonces",
              RFC 3540, June 2003.

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

   [RFC4594]  Babiarz, J., Chan, K., and F. Baker, "Configuration



Briscoe, et al.         Expires November 22, 2011              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft             3-in-1 PCN Encoding                  May 2011


              Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes", RFC 4594,
              August 2006.

   [RFC5129]  Davie, B., Briscoe, B., and J. Tay, "Explicit Congestion
              Marking in MPLS", RFC 5129, January 2008.

   [RFC5559]  Eardley, P., "Pre-Congestion Notification (PCN)
              Architecture", RFC 5559, June 2009.

   [RFC5670]  Eardley, P., "Metering and Marking Behaviour of PCN-
              Nodes", RFC 5670, November 2009.

   [RFC5696]  Moncaster, T., Briscoe, B., and M. Menth, "Baseline
              Encoding and Transport of Pre-Congestion Information",
              RFC 5696, November 2009.

   [RFC5865]  Baker, F., Polk, J., and M. Dolly, "A Differentiated
              Services Code Point (DSCP) for Capacity-Admitted Traffic",
              RFC 5865, May 2010.

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

12.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-pcn-cl-edge-behaviour]
              Charny, A., Huang, F., Karagiannis, G., Menth, M., and T.
              Taylor, "PCN Boundary Node Behaviour for the Controlled
              Load (CL) Mode of Operation",
              draft-ietf-pcn-cl-edge-behaviour-08 (work in progress),
              December 2010.

   [I-D.ietf-pcn-encoding-comparison]
              Karagiannis, G., Chan, K., Moncaster, T., Menth, M.,
              Eardley, P., and B. Briscoe, "Overview of Pre-Congestion
              Notification Encoding",
              draft-ietf-pcn-encoding-comparison-05 (work in progress),
              April 2011.

   [I-D.ietf-pcn-sm-edge-behaviour]
              Charny, A., Karagiannis, G., Menth, M., and T. Taylor,
              "PCN Boundary Node Behaviour for the Single Marking (SM)
              Mode of Operation", draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-behaviour-05
              (work in progress), December 2010.







Briscoe, et al.         Expires November 22, 2011              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft             3-in-1 PCN Encoding                  May 2011


Appendix A.  Co-existence of ECN and PCN (informative)

   The PCN encoding described in this document re-uses the bits of the
   ECN field in the IP header.  Consequently, this disables ECN within
   the PCN domain.  Appendix B of [RFC5696] included advice on handling
   ECN traffic within a PCN-domain.  This appendix clarifies that
   advice.

   For the purposes of this appendix we define two forms of traffic that
   might arrive at a PCN-ingress node.  These are Admission-controlled
   traffic and Non-admission-controlled traffic.

   Admission-controlled traffic will be remarked to the PCN-compatible
   DSCP by the PCN-ingress node.  Two mechanisms can be used to identify
   such traffic:

   a.  flow signalling associates a filterspec with a need for admission
       control (e.g. through RSVP or some equivalent message down from a
       SIP server to the ingress), and the PCN-ingress remarks traffic
       matching that filterspec to a PCN-compatible DSCP, as its chosen
       admission control mechanism.

   b.  Traffic arrives with a DSCP that implies it requires admission
       control such as VOICE-ADMIT [RFC5865] or Interactive Real-Time,
       Broadcast TV when used for video on demand, and Multimedia
       Conferencing [RFC4594][RFC5865].

   All other traffic can be thought of as Non-admission-controlled.
   However such traffic may still need to share the same DSCP as the
   Admission-controlled traffic.  This may be due to policy (for
   instance if it is high priority voice traffic), or may be because
   there is a shortage of local DSCPs.

   ECN [RFC3168] is an end-to-end congestion notification mechanism.  As
   such it is possible that some traffic entering the PCN-domain may
   also be ECN capable The following lists the four cases for how e2e
   ECN traffic may wish to be treated while crossing a PCN domain:

   ECN capable traffic that does not require admission control and does
   not carry a DSCP that the PCN-ingress is using for PCN-capable
   traffic.  This requires no action.

   ECN capable traffic that does not require admission control but
   carries a DSCP that the  PCN-ingress is using for PCN-capable
   traffic.  There are two options.






Briscoe, et al.         Expires November 22, 2011              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft             3-in-1 PCN Encoding                  May 2011




      *  The ingress maps the DSCP to a local DSCP with the same
         scheduling PHB as the original DSCP, and the egress re-maps it
         to the original PCN-compatible DSCP.

      *  The ingress tunnels the traffic, setting not-PCN in the outer
         header; note that this turns off ECN for this traffic within
         the PCN domain.

      The first option is recommended unless the operator is short of
      local DSCPs.

   ECN-capable Admission-controlled traffic:  There are two options.



      *  The PCN-ingress places this traffic in a tunnel with a PCN-
         compatible DSCP in the outer header.  The PCN-egress zeroes the
         ECN-field before decapsulation.

      *  The PCN-ingress drops CE-marked packets and the PCN-egress
         zeros the ECN field of all PCN packets.

      The second option is not recommended unless tunnelling is not
      possible for some reason..

   ECN-capable Admission-controlled where the e2e transport somehow
   indicates that it wants to see PCN marks:  NOTE this is currently
      experimental only.

      Schemes have been suggested where PCN marks may be leaked out of
      the PCN-domain and used by the end hosts to modify realtime data
      rates.  Currently all such schemes are experimental and the
      following is for guidance only.

      The PCN-ingress needs to tunnel the traffic using [RFC6040].  The
      PCN-egress should not zero the ECN field, and the tunnel egress
      should use [RFC6040] normal mode (preserving any PCN-marking).
      Note that this may turn ECT(0) into ECT(1) and so is not
      compatible with the experimental ECN nonce [RFC3540].

   In the list above any form of IP-in-IP tunnel can be used unless
   specified otherwise.  NB, We assume a logical separation of tunneling
   and PCN actions in both PCN-ingress and PCN-egress nodes.  That is,
   any tunneling action happens wholly outside the PCN-domain as
   illustrated in the following figure:




Briscoe, et al.         Expires November 22, 2011              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft             3-in-1 PCN Encoding                  May 2011


                ,  .  .  .  .  .  PCN-domain  .  .  .  .  .  .
               .   ,--------.                   ,--------.    .
              .   _|  PCN-   |___________________|  PCN-  |_   .
              .  / | ingress |                   | egress | \  .
               .|  '---------'                   '--------'  |.
                | .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .|
           ,--------.                                     ,--------.
     _____| Tunnel  |                                     | Tunnel |____
          | Ingress | - - ECN preserved inside tunnel - - | Egress |
          '---------'                                     '--------'


             Figure 4: Separation of tunneling and PCN actions


Authors' Addresses

   Bob Briscoe
   BT
   B54/77, Adastral Park
   Martlesham Heath
   Ipswich  IP5 3RE
   UK

   Phone: +44 1473 645196
   Email: bob.briscoe@bt.com
   URI:   http://bobbriscoe.net/


   Toby Moncaster
   Moncaster Internet Consulting
   Dukes
   Layer Marney
   Colchester  CO5 9UZ
   UK

   Phone: +44 7764 185416
   Email: toby@moncaster.com
   URI:   http://www.moncaster.com/












Briscoe, et al.         Expires November 22, 2011              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft             3-in-1 PCN Encoding                  May 2011


   Michael Menth
   University of Tuebingen
   Sand 13
   Tuebingen  72076
   Germany

   Phone: +49 7071 2970505
   Email: menth@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de











































Briscoe, et al.         Expires November 22, 2011              [Page 16]


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