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

Versions: (draft-geib-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 RFC 8100

TSVWG                                                       R. Geib, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                          Deutsche Telekom
Intended status: Informational                                  D. Black
Expires: April 18, 2016                                  EMC Corporation
                                                        October 16, 2015


             Diffserv interconnection classes and practice
                 draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon-03

Abstract

   This document proposes a limited set of Diffserv PHBs and codepoints
   to be applied at (inter)connections of two separately administered
   and operated networks.  Many network providers operate MPLS using
   Treatment Aggregates for traffic marked with different Diffserv PHBs,
   and use MPLS for interconnection with other networks.  This document
   offers a simple interconnection approach that may simplify operation
   of Diffserv for network interconnection among providers that use MPLS
   and apply the Short-Pipe tunnel mode.

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 April 18, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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



Geib & Black             Expires April 18, 2016                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft              Diffserv Intercon               October 2015


   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Related work  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Applicability Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.3.  Document Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  MPLS and the Short Pipe tunnel model  . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Relationship to RFC 5127  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  RFC 5127 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Differences from RFC 5127 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  The Diffserv-Intercon Interconnection Classes . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  End-to-end QoS: PHB and DS CodePoint Transparency . . . .  12
     4.2.  Treatment of Network Control traffic at carrier
           interconnection interfaces  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   5.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Appendix A.  Appendix A The MPLS Short Pipe Model and IP traffic   17
   Appendix B.  Change log (to be removed by the RFC editor) . . . .  20
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21

1.  Introduction

   Diffserv has been deployed in many networks.  As described by section
   2.3.4.2 of RFC 2475, remarking of packets at domain boundaries is a
   Diffserv feature [RFC2475].  This draft proposes a set of standard
   QoS classes and code points at interconnection points to which and
   from which locally used classes and code points should be mapped.

   RFC2474 specifies the Diffserv Codepoint Field [RFC2474].
   Differentiated treatment is based on the specific DSCP.  Once set, it
   may change.  If traffic marked with unknown or unexpected DSCPs is
   received, RFC2474 recommends forwarding that traffic with default
   (best effort) treatment without changing the DSCP markings.  Many
   networks do not follow this recommendation, and instead remark
   unknown or unexpected DSCPs to the zero DSCP upon receipt for
   consistency with default (best effort) forwarding in accordance with
   the guidance in RFC 2475 [RFC2474] to ensure that appropriate DSCPs
   are used within a Diffserv domain.  Network providers applying the
   MPLS Short Pipe model are likely to remark unexpected DSCPs.



Geib & Black             Expires April 18, 2016                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft              Diffserv Intercon               October 2015


   This document is motivated by requirements for IP network
   interconnection with Diffserv support among providers that operate
   MPLS in their backbones, but is applicable to other technologies.
   The operational simplifications and methods in this document help
   align IP Diffserv functionality with MPLS limitations resulting
   especially from the Short Pipe model of operation [RFC3270].  The
   latter is widely deployed.  Further, limiting Diffserv to a small
   number of Treatment Aggregates can enable network traffic to leave a
   network with the same DSCPs that it was received with, even if a
   different DSCP is used within the network, thus providing an
   opportunity to extend consistent QoS treatment across network
   boundaries.

   In isolation, use of standard interconnection PHBs and DSCPs may
   appear to be additional effort for a network operator.  The primary
   offsetting benefit is that the mapping from or to the interconnection
   PHBs and DSCPs is specified once for all of the interconnections to
   other networks that can use this approach.  Otherwise, the PHBs and
   DSCPs have to be negotiated and configured independently for each
   network interconnection, which has poor scaling properties.  Further,
   consistent end-to-end QoS treatment is more likely to result when an
   interconnection code point scheme is used because traffic is remarked
   to the same PHBs at all network interconnections.  This document
   envisions one-to-one DSCP remarking at network interconnections (not
   n DSCP to one DSCP remarking).

   In addition to the standard interconnecting PHBs and DSCPs,
   interconnecting operators need to further agree on the tunneling
   technology used for interconnection (e.g., MPLS, if used) and control
   or mitigate the impacts of tunneling on reliability and MTU.

   The MPLS Short Pipe tunneling model motivated this work and is its
   main scope.  The approach proposed here may be also be applied for
   the Pipe tunneling model [RFC2983], [RFC3270].  The uniform model is
   out of scope of this document.

1.1.  Related work

   In addition to the activities that triggered this work, there are
   additional RFCs and Internet-drafts that may benefit from an
   interconnection PHB and DSCP scheme.  RFC 5160 suggests Meta-QoS-
   Classes to enable deployment of standardized end to end QoS classes
   [RFC5160].  The authors of that RFC agree that the proposed
   interconnection class- and codepoint scheme and its enablement of
   standardised end to end classes would complement their own work.

   Work on signaling Class of Service at interconnection interfaces by
   BGP [I-D.knoll-idr-cos-interconnect], [ID.idr-sla] is beyond the



Geib & Black             Expires April 18, 2016                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft              Diffserv Intercon               October 2015


   scope of this draft.  When the scheme in this document is used,
   signaled access to QoS classes may be of interest.  These two BGP
   documents focus on exchanging SLA and traffic conditioning parameters
   and assume that common PHBs identified by the signaled DSCPs have
   been established prior to BGP signaling of QoS.

1.2.  Applicability Statement

   This document is primarily applicable to use of Differentiated
   Services for interconnection traffic between networks, and in
   particular to interconnection of MPLS-based networks.  The approach
   described in this document is not intended for use within the
   interconnected (or other) networks, where the approach specified in
   RFC 5127 [RFC5127] is among the possible alternatives; see Section 3
   for further discussion.

   The Diffserv-Intercon approach described in this document simplifies
   IP based interconnection to domains operating the MPLS Short Pipe
   model to transport plain IP traffic terminating within or transiting
   through the receiving domain.  Transit traffic is received and sent
   with the same PHB and DSCP.  Terminating traffic maintains the PHB
   with which it was received, however the DSCP may change.

1.3.  Document Organization

   This document is organized as follows: section 2 reviews the MPLS
   Short Pipe tunnel model for Diffserv Tunnels [RFC3270]; effective
   support for that model is a crucial goal of this document.  Section 3
   provides background on RFC 5127's approach to traffic class
   aggregation within a Diffserv network domain and explains why this
   document uses a somewhat different approach.  Section 4 introduces
   Diffserv interconnection Treatment Aggregates, plus the PHBs and
   DSCPs that are mapped to these Treatment Aggregates.  Further,
   section 4 discusses treatment of non-tunneled and tunneled IP traffic
   and MPLS VPN QoS aspects.  Finally Network Management PHB treatment
   is described.  Appendix A describes the impact of the MPLS Short Pipe
   model (penultimate hop popping) on QoS for related IP
   interconnections.

2.  MPLS and the Short Pipe tunnel model

   The Pipe and Uniform models for Differentiated Services and Tunnels
   are defined in [RFC2983].  RFC3270 adds the MPLS Short Pipe model in
   order to support penultimate hop popping (PHP) of MPLS Labels,
   primarily for IP tunnels and VPNs.  The Short Pipe model and PHP have
   become popular with many network providers that operate MPLS networks
   and are now widely used to transport non-tunneled IP traffic, not




Geib & Black             Expires April 18, 2016                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft              Diffserv Intercon               October 2015


   just traffic encapsulated in IP tunnels and VPNs.  This has important
   implications for Diffserv functionality in MPLS networks.

   RFC 2474's recommendation to forward traffic with unrecognized DSCPs
   with Default (best effort) service without rewriting the DSCP has
   proven to be a poor operational practice.  Network operation and
   management are simplified when there is a 1-1 match between the DSCP
   marked on the packet and the forwarding treatment (PHB) applied by
   network nodes.  When this is done, CS0 (the all-zero DSCP) is the
   only DSCP used for Default forwarding of best effort traffic, so a
   common practice is to use CS0 to remark traffic received with
   unrecognized or unsupported DSCPs at network edges.

   MPLS networks are more subtle in this regard, as it is possible to
   encode the provider's DSCP in the MPLS Traffic Class (TC) field and
   allow that to differ from the PHB indicated by the DSCP in the MPLS-
   encapsulated IP packet.  That would allow an unrecognized DSCP to be
   carried edge-to-edge over an MPLS network, because the effective DSCP
   used by the MPLS network would be encoded in the MPLS label TC field
   (and also carried edge-to-edge); this approach assumes that a
   provider MPLS label with the provider's TC field is present at all
   hops within the provider's network.  But this is only true for the
   Pipe tunnel model.

   The Short Pipe tunnel model and PHP violate that assumption because
   PHP pops and discards the MPLS provider label carrying the provider's
   TC field.  That discard occurs one hop upstream of the MPLS tunnel
   endpoint (which is usually at the network edge), resulting in no
   provider TC info being available at tunnel egress.  To ensure
   consistent handling of traffic at the tunnel egress, the DSCP field
   in the MPLS-encapsulated IP header has to contain a DSCP that is
   valid for the provider's network; propagating another DSCP edge-to-
   edge requires an IP or MPLS tunnel of some form.  See Appendix A for
   a more detailed discussion.

   If transport of a large number (much greater than 4) DSCPs is
   required across a network that supports this Diffserv interconnection
   scheme, a tunnel or VPN can be provisioned for this purpose, so that
   the inner IP header carries the DSCP that is to be preserved not to
   be changed.  From a network operations perspective, the customer
   equipment (CE) is the preferred location for tunnel termination,
   although a receiving domains Provider Edge router is another viable
   option.








Geib & Black             Expires April 18, 2016                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft              Diffserv Intercon               October 2015


3.  Relationship to RFC 5127

   This document draws heavily upon RFC 5127's approach to aggregation
   of Diffserv traffic classes for use within a network, but there are
   some important differences caused by the characteristics of network
   interconnects.

3.1.  RFC 5127 Background

   Many providers operate MPLS-based backbones that employ backbone
   traffic engineering to ensure that if a major link, switch, or router
   fails, the result will be a routed network that continues to meet its
   Service Level Agreements (SLAs).  Based on that foundation, [RFC5127]
   introduced the concept of Diffserv Treatment Aggregates, which enable
   traffic marked with multiple DSCPs to be forwarded in a single MPLS
   Traffic Class (TC) based on robust provider backbone traffic
   engineering.  This enables differentiated forwarding behaviors within
   a domain in a fashion that does not consume a large number of MPLS
   Traffic Classes.

   RFC 5127 provides an example aggregation of Diffserv service classes
   into 4 Treatment Aggregates.  A small number of aggregates are used
   because:

   o  The available coding space for carrying QoS information (e.g.,
      Diffserv PHB) in MPLS (and Ethernet) is only 3 bits in size, and
      is intended for more than just QoS purposes (see e.g.  [RFC5129]).

   o  There should be unused codes for interconnection purposes.  This
      leaves space for future standards, for private bilateral
      agreements and for local use PHBs and DSCPs.

   o  Migrations from one code point scheme to another may require spare
      QoS code points.

   RFC 5127 also follows RFC 2474 in recommending transmission of DSCPs
   through a network as they are received at the network edge.

3.2.  Differences from RFC 5127

   Like RFC 5127, this document also uses four traffic aggregates, but
   differs from RFC 5127 in three important ways:

   o  It follows RFC 2475 in allowing the DSCPs used within a network to
      differ from those to exchange traffic with other networks (at
      network edges), but provides support to restore ingress DSCP
      values if one of the recommended interconnect DSCPs in this draft
      is used.  This results in DSCP remarking at both network ingress



Geib & Black             Expires April 18, 2016                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft              Diffserv Intercon               October 2015


      and network egress, and this draft assumes that such remarking at
      network edges is possible for all interface types.

   o  It treats network control traffic as a special case.  Within a
      network, the CS6 DSCP is used for local network control traffic
      (routing protocols and OAM traffic that is essential for network
      operation administration, control and management) that may be
      destined for any node within the network.  In contrast, network
      control traffic exchanged between networks (e.g., BGP traffic)
      usually terminates at or close to a network edge, and is not
      forwarded through the network because it is not part of internal
      routing or OAM for the receiving network.  In addition, such
      traffic is unlikely to be covered by standard interconnection
      agreements; it is more likely to be specifically configured (e.g.,
      most networks impose on exchange of BGP for obvious reasons).  See
      Section 4.2 for further discussion.

   o  Because network control traffic is treated as a special case, a
      fourth traffic aggregate is defined for use at network
      interconnections to replace the Network Control aggregate in RFC
      5127.  Network Control traffic may still be exchanged across
      network interconnections as further discussed in Section 4.2

4.  The Diffserv-Intercon Interconnection Classes

   At an interconnection, the networks involved need to agree on the
   PHBs used for interconnection and the specific DSCP for each PHB.
   This may involve remarking for the interconnection; such remarking is
   part of the Diffserv Architecture [RFC2475], at least for the network
   edge nodes involved in interconnection.  This draft proposes a
   standard interconnection set of 4 Treatment Aggregates with well-
   defined DSCPs to be aggregated by them.  A sending party remarks
   DSCPs from internal schemes to the interconnection code points.  The
   receiving party remarks DSCPs to her internal scheme.  The set of
   DSCPs and PHBs supported across the two interconnected domains and
   the treatment of PHBs and DSCPs not recognized by the receiving
   domain should be part of the interconnect SLA.

   RFC 5127's four treatment aggregates include a Network Control
   aggregate for routing protocols and OAM traffic that is essential for
   network operation administration, control and management.  Using this
   aggregate as one of the four in RFC 5127 implicitly assumes that
   network control traffic is forwarded in potential competition with
   all other network traffic, and hence Diffserv must favor such traffic
   (e.g., via use of the CS6 codepoint) for network stability.  That is
   a reasonable assumption for IP-based networks where routing and OAM
   protocols are mixed with all other types of network traffic;
   corporate networks are an example.



Geib & Black             Expires April 18, 2016                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft              Diffserv Intercon               October 2015


   In contrast, mixing of all traffic is not a reasonable assumption for
   MPLS-based provider or carrier networks, where customer traffic is
   usually segregated from network control (routing and OAM) traffic via
   other means, e.g., network control traffic use of separate LSPs that
   can be prioritized over customer LSPs (e.g., for VPN service) via
   other means.  This segregation of network control traffic from
   customer traffic is also used for MPLS-based network
   interconnections.  In addition, many customers of a network provider
   do not exchange Network Control traffic (e.g., routing) with the
   network provider.  For these reasons, a separate Network Control
   traffic aggregate is not important for MPLS-based carrier or provider
   networks; when such traffic is not segregated from other traffic, it
   may reasonably share the Assured Elastic treatment aggregate (as RFC
   5127 suggests for a situation in which only three treatment
   aggregates are supported).

   In contrast, VoIP is emerging as a valuable and important class of
   network traffic for which network-provided QoS is crucial, as even
   minor glitches are immediately apparent to the humans involved in the
   conversation.

   Similar approaches to use of a small number of traffic aggregates
   (including recognition of the importance of VoIP traffic) have been
   taken in related standards and recommendations from outside the IETF,
   e.g., Y.1566 [Y.1566], GSMA IR.34 [IR.34]and MEF23.1 [MEF23.1].

   The list of the four Diffserv Interconnect traffic aggregates
   follows, highlighting differences from RFC 5127 and suggesting
   mappings for all RFC 4594 traffic classes to Diffserv-Intercon
   Treatment Aggregates:

    Telephony Service Treatment Aggregate:  PHB EF, DSCP 101 110 and
           VOICE-ADMIT, DSCP 101100, see [RFC3246] , [RFC4594][RFC5865].
           This Treatment Aggregate corresponds to RFC 5127s real time
           Treatment Aggregate definition regarding the queuing, but it
           is restricted to transport Telephony Service Class traffic in
           the sense of RFC 4594.

   Bulk Real-Time Treatment Aggregate:  This Treatment Aggregate is
           designed to transport PHB AF41, DSCP 100 010 (the other AF4
           PHB group PHBs and DSCPs may be used for future extension of
           the set of DSCPs carried by this Treatment Aggregate).  This
           Treatment Aggregate is designed to transport the portions of
           RFC 5127's Real Time Treatment Aggregate, which consume large
           amounts of bandwidth, namely Broadcast Video, Real-Time
           Interactive and Multimedia Conferencing.  The treatment
           aggregate should be configured with a rate queue (which is in
           line with RFC 4594 for the mentioned traffic classes).  As



Geib & Black             Expires April 18, 2016                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft              Diffserv Intercon               October 2015


           compared to RFC 5127, the number of DSCPs has been reduced to
           one (initially).  The proposed queuing mechanism is in line
           with RFC4594 definitions for Broadcast Video and Real-Time
           Interactive.  If need for three-color marked Multimedia
           Conferencing traffic arises, AF42 and AF43 PHBs may be added.

   Assured Elastic Treatment Aggregate  This Treatment Aggregate
           consists of the entire AF3 PHB group AF3, i.e., DSCPs 011
           010, 011 100 and 011 110.  As compared to RFC5127, just the
           number of DSCPs, which has been reduced.  This document
           suggests to transport signaling marked by AF31.  RFC5127
           suggests to map Network Management traffic into this
           Treatment Aggregate, if no separate Network Control Treatment
           Aggregate is supported (for a more detailed discussion of
           Network Control PHB treatment see section 3.2).  GSMA IR.34
           proposes to transport signaling traffic by AF31 too.  The
           following RFC 4594 classes should also be mapped to the
           Assured Elastic Treatment Aggregate: the Signalling Service
           Class (being marked for lowest loss probability), Multimedia
           Streaming Service Class, the Low-Latency Data Service Class
           and the High-Throughput Data Service Class.

   Default / Elastic Treatment Aggregate:   transports the default PHB,
           CS0 with DSCP 000 000.  RFC 5127 example refers to this
           Treatment Aggregate as Aggregate Elastic.  An important
           difference as compared to RFC5127 is that any traffic with
           unrecognized or unsupported DSCPs may be remarked to this
           DSCP.  The RFC 4594 Standard Service Class and Low-priority
           data should be mapped to this Treatment Aggregate.  RFC 4594
           Low-priority data may be forwarded by a Lower Effort PHB in
           one domain (like the PHB proposed by Informational
           [RFC3662]).  If such traffic is sent to a domain not
           supporting a Lower Effort PHB, the lowest effort PHB there
           may be expected to be the Default PHB.  Marking such traffic
           with DSCP CS0 at an interconnection interface is a reasonable
           choice then.

   The overall approach to DSCP marking at network interconnections is
   illustrated by the following example.  Provider O and provider W are
   peered with provider T.  They have agreed upon a QoS interconnection
   SLA.

   Traffic of provider O terminates within provider Ts network, while
   provider W's traffic transits through the network of provider T to
   provider F.  Assume all providers run their own internal codepoint
   schemes for a PHB group with properties of the Diffserv-Intercon
   Assured Treatment Aggregate.




Geib & Black             Expires April 18, 2016                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft              Diffserv Intercon               October 2015


           Provider-O             Provider-W
           RFC5127                GSMA 34.1
               |                      |
          +----------+           +----------+
          |AF21, AF22|           | CS3, CS2 |
          +----------+           +----------+
               |                      |
               V                      V
           +++++++++              +++++++++
           |Rtr PrO|              |Rtr PrW|  Rtr Pr:
           +++++++++              +++++++++  Router Peering
               |        Diffserv      |
          +----------+           +----------+
          |AF31, AF32|           |AF31, AF32|
          +----------+           +----------+
               |        Intercon      |
               V                      V
           +++++++++                  |
           |RtrPrTI|------------------+
           +++++++++
               |     Provider-T domain
          +-----------+
          | MPLS TC 2 |
          | DSCP rew. |           rew. -> rewrite
          | AF21, AF22|
          +-----------+
             |      |  Local DSCPs Provider-T
             |      |  +----------+   +++++++++
             V      +->|AF21, AF22|->-|RtrDstH|
             |         +----------+   +++++++++
         +----------+                 RtrDst:
         |AF21, AF22|                 Router Destination
         +----------+
             |
          +++++++++
          |RtrPrTE|
          +++++++++
             |        Diffserv
         +----------+
         |AF31, AF32|
         +----------+
             |        Intercon
          +++++++++
          |RtrPrF|
          +++++++++
             |
         +----------+
         | CS4, CS3 |



Geib & Black             Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft              Diffserv Intercon               October 2015


         +----------+
             |
         Provider-F
         GSM IR.34



   Diffserv-Intercon example

                                 Figure 1

   Providers only need to deploy internal DSCP to Diffserv-Intercon DSCP
   mappings to exchange traffic in the desired classes.  Provider W has
   decided that the properties of his internal classes CS3 and CS2 are
   best met by the Diffserv-Intercon Assured Elastic Treatment
   Aggregate, PHBs AF31 and AF32 respectively.  At the outgoing peering
   interface connecting provider W with provider T the former's peering
   router remarks CS3 traffic to AF31 and CS2 traffic to AF32.  The
   domain internal PHBs of provider T that meet the requirements of
   Diffserv-Intercon Assured Elastic Treatment Aggregate are AF2x.
   Hence AF31 traffic received at the interconnection with provider T is
   remarked to AF21 by the peering router of domain T, and domain T has
   chosen to use MPLS TC value 2 for this aggregate.  Traffic received
   with AF32 is similarly remarked to AF22, but uses the same MPLS TC
   for the Treatment Aggregate, i.e. TC 2.  At the penultimate MPLS
   node, the top MPLS label is removed.  The packet should be forwarded
   as determined by the incoming MPLS TC.  The peering router connecting
   domain T with domain F classifies the packet by it's domain T
   internal DSCP AF21 for the Diffserv-Intercon Assured Elastic
   Treatment Aggregate.  As it leaves domain T on the interface to
   domain F, this causes the packet to be remarked to AF31.  The peering
   router of domain F classifies the packet for domain F internal PHB
   CS4, as this is the PHB with properties matching Diffserv-Intercon's
   Assured Elastic Treatment Aggregate.  Likewise, AF21 traffic is
   remarked to AF32 by the peering router od domain T when leaving it
   and from AF32 to CS3 by domain F's peering router when receiving it.

   This example can be extended.  Suppose Provider-O also supports a PHB
   marked by CS2 and this PHB is supposed to be transported by QoS
   within Provider-T domain.  Then Provider-O will remark it with a DSCP
   other than the AF31 DSCP in order to preserve the distinction from
   CS2; AF11 is one possibility that might be private to the
   interconnection between Provider-O and Provider-T; there's no
   assumption that Provider-W can also use AF11, as it may not be in the
   SLA with Provider-W.

   Now suppose Provider-W supports CS2 for internal use only.  Then no
   Diffserv- Intercon DSCP mapping may be configured at the peering



Geib & Black             Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft              Diffserv Intercon               October 2015


   router.  Traffic, sent by Provider-W to Provider-T marked by CS2 due
   to a misconfiguration may be remarked to CS0 by Provider-T.

   See section 4.1 for further discussion of this and DSCP transparency
   in general.

   RFC2575 states that Ingress nodes must condition all other inbound
   traffic to ensure that the DS codepoints are acceptable; packets
   found to have unacceptable codepoints must either be discarded or
   must have their DS codepoints modified to acceptable values before
   being forwarded.  For example, an ingress node receiving traffic from
   a domain with which no enhanced service agreement exists may reset
   the DS codepoint to the Default PHB codepoint.  As a consequence, an
   interconnect SLA needs to specify not only the treatment of traffic
   that arrives with a supported interconnect DSCP, but also the
   treatment of traffic that arrives with unsupported or unexpected
   DSCPs.

   The proposed interconnect class and code point scheme is designed for
   point to point IP layer interconnections among MPLS networks.  Other
   types of interconnections are out of scope of this document.  The
   basic class and code point scheme is applicable on Ethernet layer
   too, if a provider e.g. supports Ethernet priorities like specified
   by IEEE 802.1p.

4.1.  End-to-end QoS: PHB and DS CodePoint Transparency

   This section briefly discusses end-to-end QoS approaches related to
   the Uniform, Pipe and Short Pipe tunnel model.

   o  With the Uniform model, neither DCSP nor PHB change when an
      interconnected network is passed.  This would mean that a packet
      received with syntax network management, marked by CS6 is, if MPLS
      is applicable, forwarded with an MPLS label marked TC6.  The
      uniform model is not within scope of this document.

   o  With the Pipe model, the inner tunnel DCSP remains unchanged, but
      an outer tunnel DSCP and the PHB may change when an interconnected
      network is passed.  This would mean that a packet received with
      (private) syntax scavenger marked by DSCP CS1, is transported by
      default PHB and if MPLS is applicable, forwarded with an MPLS
      label marked TC0.  CS1 is not rewritten.  The Pipe model is not
      within scope of this document.

   o  With the Short Pipe model, the DCSP likely changes and the might
      PHB change when an interconnected network is passed.  This draft
      describes a method to speed up and simplify QoS interconnection if
      a DSCP rewrite can't be avoided.  It offers a set of PHBs and



Geib & Black             Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft              Diffserv Intercon               October 2015


      treatment aggregates as well as a set of interconnection DSCPs
      allowing straightforward rewriting to domain-internal DSCPs as
      well as defined forwarding and markings to the next domain.
      Diffserv-Intercon supports the Short Pipe model.  The solution
      described here can be used in other contexts benefitting from a
      defined interconnection QoS interface.

   The basic idea is that traffic sent with a Diffserv interconnect PHB
   and DSCP is restored to that PHB and DSCP at each network
   interconnection, even though a different PHB and DSCP may be used by
   each network involved.  The key requirement is that the network
   ingress interconnect DSCP be restored at network egress, and a key
   observation is that this is only feasible in general for a small
   number of DSCPs.

4.2.  Treatment of Network Control traffic at carrier interconnection
      interfaces

   As specified by RFC4594, section 3.2, Network Control (NC) traffic
   marked by CS6 is to be expected at some interconnection interfaces.
   This document does not change RFC4594, but observes that network
   control traffic received at network ingress is generally different
   from network control traffic within a network that is the primary use
   of CS6 envisioned by RFC 4594.  A specific example is that some CS6
   traffic exchanged across carrier interconnections is terminated at
   the network ingress node, e.g. if BGP is running between two routers
   on opposite ends of an interconnection link; in this case the
   operators would enter into a bilateral agreement to use CS6 for that
   BGP traffic.

   The end-to-end QoS discussion in the previous section (4.1) is
   generally inapplicable to network control traffic - network control
   traffic is generally intended to control a network, not be
   transported across it.  One exception is that network control traffic
   makes sense for a purchased transit agreement, and preservation of
   the CS6 DSCP marking for network control traffic that is transited is
   reasonable in some cases, although it is generally inappropriate to
   use CS6 for transiting traffic, including transiting network control
   traffic.  Use of an IP tunnel is suggested in order to reduce the
   risk of CS6 markings on transiting network control traffic being
   interpreted by the network providing the transit.  In this case, the
   CS6 marked traffic is forwarded based on the Uniform or Pipe model,
   Short Pipe doesn't apply.

   If the MPLS Short Pipe model is deployed for non-tunneled IPv4
   traffic, an IP network provider should limit access to the CS6 and
   CS7 DSCPs so that they are only used for network control traffic for
   the provider's own network.



Geib & Black             Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft              Diffserv Intercon               October 2015


   Interconnecting carriers should specify treatment of CS6 marked
   traffic received at a carrier interconnection which is to be
   forwarded beyond the ingress node.  An SLA covering the following
   cases is recommended when a provider wishes to send CS6 marked
   traffic across an interconnection link which isn't terminating at the
   interconnected ingress node:

   o  classification of traffic which is network control traffic for
      both domains.  This traffic should be classified and marked for
      the NC PHB.

   o  classification of traffic which is network control traffic for the
      sending domain only.  This traffic should be classified for a PHB
      offering similar properties as the NC class (e.g.  AF31 as
      specified by this document).  As an example GSMA IR.34 proposes an
      Interactive class / AF31 to carry SIP and DIAMETER traffic.  While
      this is service control traffic of high importance to the
      interconnected Mobile Network Operators, it is certainly not
      Network Control traffic for a fixed network providing transit
      between such operators, and hence should not receive CS6 treatment
      in such a network.

   o  any other CS6 marked traffic should be remarked or dropped.

5.  Acknowledgements

   Bob Briscoe reviewed the draft and provided rich feedback.  Fred
   Baker and Brian Carpenter provided intensive feedback and discussion.
   Al Morton and Sebastien Jobert provided feedback on many aspects
   during private discussions.  Mohamed Boucadair and Thomas Knoll
   helped adding awareness of related work.  James Polks discussion
   during IETF 89 helped to improve the relation of this draft to RFC
   4594 and RFC 5127.

6.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.

7.  Security Considerations

   This document does not introduce new features, it describes how to
   use existing ones.  The security considerations of RFC 2475 [RFC2475]
   and RFC 4594 [RFC4594] apply.








Geib & Black             Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft              Diffserv Intercon               October 2015


8.  References

8.1.  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,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [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,
              <http://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,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2475>.

   [RFC2597]  Heinanen, J., Baker, F., Weiss, W., and J. Wroclawski,
              "Assured Forwarding PHB Group", RFC 2597,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2597, June 1999,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2597>.

   [RFC3246]  Davie, B., Charny, A., Bennet, J., Benson, K., Le Boudec,
              J., Courtney, W., Davari, S., Firoiu, V., and D.
              Stiliadis, "An Expedited Forwarding PHB (Per-Hop
              Behavior)", RFC 3246, DOI 10.17487/RFC3246, March 2002,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3246>.

   [RFC3260]  Grossman, D., "New Terminology and Clarifications for
              Diffserv", RFC 3260, DOI 10.17487/RFC3260, April 2002,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3260>.

   [RFC3270]  Le Faucheur, F., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S., Vaananen,
              P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and J. Heinanen, "Multi-
              Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated
              Services", RFC 3270, DOI 10.17487/RFC3270, May 2002,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3270>.

   [RFC5129]  Davie, B., Briscoe, B., and J. Tay, "Explicit Congestion
              Marking in MPLS", RFC 5129, DOI 10.17487/RFC5129, January
              2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5129>.







Geib & Black             Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft              Diffserv Intercon               October 2015


   [RFC5462]  Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
              (MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic
              Class" Field", RFC 5462, DOI 10.17487/RFC5462, February
              2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5462>.

   [RFC5865]  Baker, F., Polk, J., and M. Dolly, "A Differentiated
              Services Code Point (DSCP) for Capacity-Admitted Traffic",
              RFC 5865, DOI 10.17487/RFC5865, May 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5865>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.knoll-idr-cos-interconnect]
              Knoll, T., "BGP Class of Service Interconnection", draft-
              knoll-idr-cos-interconnect-14 (work in progress), May
              2015.

   [ID.idr-sla]
              IETF, "Inter-domain SLA Exchange", IETF,
              http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/
              draft-ietf-idr-sla-exchange/, 2013.

   [IEEE802.1Q]
              IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
              Networks - Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks", 2005.

   [IR.34]    GSMA Association, "IR.34 Inter-Service Provider IP
              Backbone Guidelines Version 7.0", GSMA,  GSMA IR.34
              http://www.gsma.com/newsroom/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/
              ir.34.pdf, 2012.

   [MEF23.1]  MEF, "Implementation Agreement MEF 23.1 Carrier Ethernet
              Class of Service Phase 2", MEF,  MEF23.1
              http://metroethernetforum.org/PDF_Documents/technical-
              specifications/MEF_23.1.pdf, 2012.

   [RFC2983]  Black, D., "Differentiated Services and Tunnels",
              RFC 2983, DOI 10.17487/RFC2983, October 2000,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2983>.

   [RFC3662]  Bless, R., Nichols, K., and K. Wehrle, "A Lower Effort
              Per-Domain Behavior (PDB) for Differentiated Services",
              RFC 3662, DOI 10.17487/RFC3662, December 2003,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3662>.







Geib & Black             Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft              Diffserv Intercon               October 2015


   [RFC4594]  Babiarz, J., Chan, K., and F. Baker, "Configuration
              Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes", RFC 4594,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4594, August 2006,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4594>.

   [RFC5127]  Chan, K., Babiarz, J., and F. Baker, "Aggregation of
              Diffserv Service Classes", RFC 5127, DOI 10.17487/RFC5127,
              February 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5127>.

   [RFC5160]  Levis, P. and M. Boucadair, "Considerations of Provider-
              to-Provider Agreements for Internet-Scale Quality of
              Service (QoS)", RFC 5160, DOI 10.17487/RFC5160, March
              2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5160>.

   [Y.1566]   ITU-T, "Quality of service mapping and interconnection
              between Ethernet, IP and multiprotocol label switching
              networks", ITU,
               http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Y.1566-201207-I/en, 2012.

Appendix A.  Appendix A The MPLS Short Pipe Model and IP traffic

   The MPLS Short Pipe Model (or penultimate Hop Label Popping) is
   widely deployed in carrier networks.  If non-tunneled IPv4 traffic is
   transported using MPLS Short Pipe, IP headers appear inside the last
   section of the MPLS domain.  This impacts the number of PHBs and
   DSCPs that a network provider can reasonably support . See Figure 2
   (below) for an example.

   For tunneled IPv4 traffic, only the outer tunnel header is relevant
   for forwarding.  If the tunnel does not terminate within the MPLS
   network section, only the outer tunnel DSCP is involved, as the inner
   DSCP does not affect forwarding behavior.  In this case, the Pipe
   model applies.

   Non-tunneled IPv6 traffic as well as Layer 2 and Layer 3 VPN traffic
   all use an additional MPLS label; in this case, the MPLS tunnel
   follows the Pipe model.  Classification and queuing within an MPLS
   network is always based on an MPLS label, as opposed to the outer IP
   header.

   Carriers often select QoS PHBs and DSCP without regard to
   interconnection.  As a result PHBs and DSCPs typically differ between
   network carriers.  PHBs may be mapped.  With the exception of best
   effort traffic, a DSCP change should be expected at an
   interconnection at least for plain IP traffic, even if the PHB is
   suitably mapped by the carriers involved.





Geib & Black             Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft              Diffserv Intercon               October 2015


   Beyond RFC3270's suggestions that the Short Pipe Model is only
   applicable to VPNs, current network structures also use it to
   transport non tunneled IPv4 traffic.  This is shown in figure 2.

               |
       \|/           IPv4, DSCP_send
        V
        |
   Peering Router
        |
       \|/           IPv4, DSCP_send
        V
        |
   MPLS Edge Router
        |          Mark MPLS Label, TC_internal
       \|/         Remark DSCP to
        V            (Inner: IPv4, DSCP_d)
        |
   MPLS Core Router  (penultimate hop label popping)
        |                        \
        |            IPv4, DSCP_d |  The DSCP needs to be in network-
        |                 ^^^^^^^^|  internal QoS context. The Core
       \|/                         > Router might require or enforce
        V                         |  it. The Edge Router may wrongly
        |                         |  classify, if the DSCP is not in
        |                        /   network-internal Diffserv context.
   MPLS Edge Router
        |                        \   Traffic leaves the network marked
       \|/           IPv4, DSCP_d |  with the network-internal
        V                          > DSCP_d that must be dealt with
        |                         |  by the next network (downstream).
        |                        /
   Peer Router
        |          Remark DSCP to
       \|/           IPv4, DSCP_send
        V
        |


   Short-Pipe / penultimate hop popping example

                                 Figure 2

   The packets IP DSCP must be in a well understood Diffserv context for
   schedulers and classifiers on the interfaces of the ultimate MPLS
   link (last link traversed before leaving the network).  The necessary
   Diffserv context is network-internal and a network operating in this
   mode enforces DSCP usage in order to obtain robust QoS behavior.



Geib & Black             Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft              Diffserv Intercon               October 2015


   Without Diffserv-Intercon treatment, the traffic is likely to leave
   each network marked with network-internal DSCP.  DSCP_send of the
   figure above is remarked to the receiving network's Diffserv scheme.
   It leaves the domain marked by the domains DSCP_d.  This structure
   requires that every carrier deploys per-peer PHB and DSCP mapping
   schemes.

   If Diffserv-Intercon is applied DSCPs for traffic transiting the
   domain can be mapped from and remapped to an original DSCP.  This is
   shown in figure 3.  Internal traffic may continue to use internal
   DSCPs (e.g, DSCP_d) and those may also be used between a carrier and
   its direct customers.







































Geib & Black             Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft              Diffserv Intercon               October 2015


   Internal Router
        |
        |   Outer Header
       \|/    IPv4, DSCP_send
        V
        |
   Peering Router
        |  Remark DSCP to
       \|/    IPv4, DSCP_ds-int    Diffserv-Intercon DSCP and PHB
        V
        |
   MPLS Edge Router
        |
        |   Mark  MPLS Label, TC_internal
       \|/  Remark DSCP to
        V     (Inner: IPv4, DSCP_d)   domain internal DSCP for
        |                             the PHB
   MPLS Core Router  (penultimate hop label popping)
        |
        |     IPv4, DSCP_d
        |           ^^^^^^
       \|/
        V
        |
        |
   MPLS Edge Router--------------------+
        |                              |
       \|/  Remark DSCP to            \|/  IPv4, DSCP_d
        V     IPv4, DSCP_ds-int        V
        |                              |
        |                              |
   Peer Router              Domain internal Broadband
        |                        Access Router
       \|/  Remark DSCP to            \|/
        V     IPv4, DSCP_send          V  IPv4, DSCP_d
        |                              |


   Short-Pipe example with Diffserv-Intercon

                                 Figure 3

Appendix B.  Change log (to be removed by the RFC editor)

   00 to 01  Added an Applicability Statement.  Put the main part of the
           RFC5127 related discussion into a separate chapter.





Geib & Black             Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft              Diffserv Intercon               October 2015


   01 to 02  More emphasis on the Short-Pipe tunel model as compared to
           Pipe and Uniform tunnel models.  Further editorial
           improvements.

   02 to 03  Suggestions how to remark all RFC4594 classes to Diffserv-
           Intercon classes at interconnection.

Authors' Addresses

   Ruediger Geib (editor)
   Deutsche Telekom
   Heinrich Hertz Str. 3-7
   Darmstadt  64295
   Germany

   Phone: +49 6151 5812747
   Email: Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de


   David L. Black
   EMC Corporation
   176 South Street
   Hopkinton, MA
   USA

   Phone: +1 (508) 293-7953
   Email: david.black@emc.com
























Geib & Black             Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 21]


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