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

Versions: (draft-bless-tsvwg-le-phb) 00 01 02 03 04

Internet Engineering Task Force                                 R. Bless
Internet-Draft                   Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)
Obsoletes: 3662 (if approved)                              March 5, 2018
Updates: 4594,8325 (if approved)
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: September 6, 2018


                A Lower Effort Per-Hop Behavior (LE PHB)
                       draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-04

Abstract

   This document specifies properties and characteristics of a Lower
   Effort (LE) per-hop behavior (PHB).  The primary objective of this LE
   PHB is to protect best-effort (BE) traffic (packets forwarded with
   the default PHB) from LE traffic in congestion situations, i.e., when
   resources become scarce, best-effort traffic has precedence over LE
   traffic and may preempt it.  There are numerous uses for this PHB,
   e.g., for background traffic of low precedence, such as bulk data
   transfers with low priority in time, non time-critical backups,
   larger software updates, web search engines while gathering
   information from web servers and so on.  This document recommends a
   standard DSCP value for the LE PHB.  This specification updates the
   DSCP recommended in RFC 4594 and RFC 8325 to use the DSCP assigned in
   this specification.

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 September 6, 2018.








Bless                   Expires September 6, 2018               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft              Lower Effort PHB                  March 2018


Copyright Notice

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

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (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.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  PHB Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Traffic Conditioning Actions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Recommended DS Codepoint  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  Remarking to other DSCPs/PHBs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   9.  The Update to RFC 4594  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   10. The Update to RFC 8325  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   13. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     13.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     13.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Appendix A.  History of the LE PHB  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Appendix B.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Appendix C.  Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Appendix D.  Note to RFC Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15



Bless                   Expires September 6, 2018               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft              Lower Effort PHB                  March 2018


   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

1.  Introduction

   This document defines a Differentiated Services per-hop behavior
   [RFC2474] called "Lower Effort" (LE), which is intended for traffic
   of sufficiently low urgency that all other traffic takes precedence
   over the LE traffic in consumption of network link bandwidth.  Low
   urgency traffic has a low priority for timely forwarding, which does
   not necessarily imply that it is generally of minor importance.  From
   this viewpoint, it can be considered as a network equivalent to a
   background priority for processes in an operating system.  There may
   or may not be memory (buffer) resources allocated for this type of
   traffic.

   Some networks carry traffic for which delivery is considered
   optional; that is, packets of this type of traffic ought to consume
   network resources only when no other traffic is present.
   Alternatively, the effect of this type of traffic on all other
   network traffic is strictly limited ("no harm" property).  This is
   distinct from "best-effort" (BE) traffic since the network makes no
   commitment to deliver LE packets.  In contrast, BE traffic receives
   an implied "good faith" commitment of at least some available network
   resources.  This document proposes a Lower Effort Differentiated
   Services per-hop behavior (LE PHB) for handling this "optional"
   traffic in a differentiated services node.

2.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

3.  Applicability

   A Lower Effort PHB is applicable for many applications that otherwise
   use best-effort delivery.  More specifically, it is suitable for
   traffic and services that can tolerate strongly varying throughput
   for their data flows, especially periods of very low throughput or
   even starvation (i.e., long interruptions due to significant or even
   complete packet loss).  Therefore, an application sending an LE
   marked flow needs to be able to tolerate short or (even very) long
   interruptions due to the presence of severe congestion conditions
   during the transmission of the flow.  Thus, there ought to be an
   expectation that packets of the LE PHB could be excessively delayed
   or dropped when any other traffic is present.  The LE PHB is suitable



Bless                   Expires September 6, 2018               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft              Lower Effort PHB                  March 2018


   for sending traffic of low urgency across a Differentiated Services
   (DS) domain or DS region.

   LE traffic SHOULD be congestion controlled (i.e., use a congestion
   controlled transport or implement a congestion control method
   [RFC8085]).  Since LE traffic could be starved completely for a
   longer period of time, transport protocols or applications (and their
   related congestion control mechanisms) SHOULD be able to detect and
   react to such a situation and ought to resume the transfer as soon as
   possible.  Congestion control is not only useful to let the flows
   within the LE behavior aggregate adapt to the available bandwidth
   that may be highly fluctuating, but is also essential if LE traffic
   is mapped to the default PHB in DS domains that do not support LE.

   Use of the LE PHB might assist a network operator in moving certain
   kinds of traffic or users to off-peak times.  Alternatively, or in
   addition, packets can be designated for the LE PHB when the goal is
   to protect all other packet traffic from competition with the LE
   aggregate while not completely banning LE traffic from the network.
   An LE PHB SHOULD NOT be used for a customer's "normal internet"
   traffic nor should packets be "downgraded" to the LE PHB instead of
   being dropped, particularly when the packets are unauthorized
   traffic.  The LE PHB is expected to have applicability in networks
   that have at least some unused capacity at certain periods.

   The LE PHB allows networks to protect themselves from selected types
   of traffic as a complement to giving preferential treatment to other
   selected traffic aggregates.  LE ought not to be used for the general
   case of downgraded traffic, but could be used by design, e.g., to
   protect an internal network from untrusted external traffic sources.
   In this case there is no way for attackers to preempt internal (non
   LE) traffic by flooding.  Another use case in this regard is
   forwarding of multicast traffic from untrusted sources.  Multicast
   forwarding is currently enabled within domains only for specific
   sources within a domain, but not for sources from anywhere in the
   Internet.  A main problem is that multicast routing creates traffic
   sources at (mostly) unpredictable branching points within a domain,
   potentially leading to congestion and packet loss.  In the case of
   multicast traffic packets from untrusted sources are forwarded as LE
   traffic, they will not harm traffic from non-LE behavior aggregates.
   A further related use case is mentioned in [RFC3754]: preliminary
   forwarding of non-admitted multicast traffic.

   There is no intrinsic reason to limit the applicability of the LE PHB
   to any particular application or type of traffic.  It is intended as
   an additional traffic engineering tool for network administrators.
   For instance, it can be used to fill protection capacity of
   transmission links that is otherwise unused.  Some network providers



Bless                   Expires September 6, 2018               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft              Lower Effort PHB                  March 2018


   keep link utilization below 50% to ensure that all traffic is
   forwarded without loss after rerouting caused by a link failure.  LE
   marked traffic can utilize the normally unused capacity and will be
   preempted automatically in case of link failure when 100% of the link
   capacity is required for all other traffic.  Ideally, applications
   mark their packets as LE traffic, since they know the urgency of
   flows.

   Example uses for the LE PHB:

   o  For traffic caused by world-wide web search engines while they
      gather information from web servers.

   o  For software updates or dissemination of new releases of operating
      systems.

   o  For reporting errors or telemetry data from operating systems or
      applications.

   o  For backup traffic or non-time critical synchronization or
      mirroring traffic.

   o  For content distribution transfers between caches.

   o  For preloading or prefetching objects from web sites.

   o  For network news and other "bulk mail" of the Internet.

   o  For "downgraded" traffic from some other PHB when this does not
      violate the operational objectives of the other PHB.

   o  For multicast traffic from untrusted (e.g., non-local) sources.

4.  PHB Description

   The LE PHB is defined in relation to the default PHB (best-effort).
   A packet forwarded with the LE PHB SHOULD have lower precedence than
   packets forwarded with the default PHB, i.e., in the case of
   congestion, LE marked traffic SHOULD be dropped prior to dropping any
   default PHB traffic.  Ideally, LE packets SHOULD be forwarded only if
   no packet with any other PHB is awaiting transmission.

   A straightforward implementation could be a simple priority scheduler
   serving the default PHB queue with higher priority than the lower-
   effort PHB queue.  Alternative implementations may use scheduling
   algorithms that assign a very small weight to the LE class.  This,
   however, could sometimes cause better service for LE packets compared




Bless                   Expires September 6, 2018               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft              Lower Effort PHB                  March 2018


   to BE packets in cases when the BE share is fully utilized and the LE
   share not.

   If a dedicated LE queue is not available, an active queue management
   mechanism within a common BE/LE queue could also be used.  This could
   drop all arriving LE packets as soon as certain queue length or
   sojourn time thresholds are exceeded.

   Since congestion control is also useful within the LE traffic class,
   Explicit Congestion Notification [RFC3168] SHOULD be used for LE
   packets, too.

5.  Traffic Conditioning Actions

   If possible, packets SHOULD be pre-marked in DS-aware end systems by
   applications due to their specific knowledge about the particular
   precedence of packets.  There is no incentive for DS domains to
   distrust this initial marking, because letting LE traffic enter a DS
   domain causes no harm.  Thus, any policing such as limiting the rate
   of LE traffic is not necessary at the DS boundary.

   As for most other PHBs an initial classification and marking can be
   also performed at the first DS boundary node according to the DS
   domain's own policies (e.g., as protection measure against untrusted
   sources).  However, non-LE traffic (e.g., BE traffic) SHOULD NOT be
   remarked to LE on a regular basis without consent or knowledge of the
   user.  See also remarks with respect to downgrading in Section 3.

6.  Recommended DS Codepoint

   The RECOMMENDED codepoint for the LE PHB is '000001'.

   Earlier specifications [RFC4594] recommended to use CS1 as codepoint
   (as mentioned in [RFC3662]).  This is problematic since it may cause
   a priority inversion in DiffServ domains that treat CS1 as originally
   proposed in [RFC2474], resulting in forwarding LE packets with higher
   precedence than BE packets.  Existing implementations SHOULD
   transition to use the unambiguous LE codepoint '000001' whenever
   possible.

   This particular codepoint was chosen due to measurements on the
   currently observable DSCP remarking behavior in the Internet.  Since
   some network domains set the former IP precedence bits to zero, it is
   possible that some other standardized DSCPs get mapped to the LE PHB
   DSCP if it were taken from the DSCP standards action pool 1 (xxxxx0).






Bless                   Expires September 6, 2018               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft              Lower Effort PHB                  March 2018


7.  Deployment Considerations

   In order to enable LE support, DS nodes typically only need

   o  A BA classifier (Behavior Aggregate classifier, see [RFC2475])
      that classifies packets according to the LE DSCP

   o  A dedicated LE queue

   o  A suitable scheduling discipline, e.g., simple priority queueing

   Alternatively, implementations could use active queue management
   mechanisms instead of a dedicated LE queue, e.g., dropping all
   arriving LE packets when certain queue length or sojourn time
   thresholds are exceeded.

   Internet-wide deployment of the LE PHB is eased by the following
   properties:

   o  No harm to other traffic: since the LE PHB has the lowest
      forwarding priority it does not consume resources from other PHBs.
      Deployment across different provider domains with LE support
      causes no trust issues or attack vectors to existing (non LE)
      traffic.  Thus, providers can trust LE markings from end-systems,
      i.e., there is no need to police or remark incoming LE traffic.

   o  No PHB parameters or configuration of traffic profiles: the LE PHB
      itself possesses no parameters that need to be set or configured.
      Similarly, since LE traffic requires no admission or policing, it
      is not necessary to configure traffic profiles.

   o  No traffic conditioning mechanisms: the LE PHB requires no traffic
      meters, droppers, or shapers.  See also Section 5 for further
      discussion.

   Operators of DS domains that cannot or do not want to support the LE
   PHB should be aware that they violate the "no harm" property of LE.
   DS domains that do not offer support for the LE PHB support SHOULD
   NOT drop packets marked with the LE DSCP.  They SHOULD map packets
   with this DSCP to the default PHB and SHOULD preserve the LE DSCP
   marking.  See also Section 8 for further discussion of forwarding LE
   traffic with the default PHB instead.

8.  Remarking to other DSCPs/PHBs

   "DSCP bleaching", i.e., setting the DSCP to '000000' (default PHB) is
   NOT RECOMMENDED for this PHB.  This may cause effects that are in
   contrast to the original intent in protecting BE traffic from LE



Bless                   Expires September 6, 2018               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft              Lower Effort PHB                  March 2018


   traffic (no harm property).  In the case that a DS domain does not
   support the LE PHB, its nodes SHOULD treat LE marked packets with the
   default PHB instead (by mapping the LE DSCP to the default PHB), but
   they SHOULD do so without remarking to DSCP '000000'.  The reason for
   this is that later traversed DS domains may then have still the
   possibility to treat such packets according the LE PHB.

   Operators of DS domains that forward LE traffic within the BE
   aggregate need to be aware of the implications, i.e., induced
   congestion situations and quality-of-service degradation of the
   original BE traffic.  In this case, the LE property of not harming
   other traffic is no longer fulfilled.  To limit the impact in such
   cases, traffic policing of the LE aggregate MAY be used.

   In case LE marked packets are effectively carried within the default
   PHB (i.e., forwarded as best-effort traffic) they get a better
   forwarding treatment than expected.  For some applications and
   services, it is favorable if the transmission is finished earlier
   than expected.  However, in some cases it may be against the original
   intention of the LE PHB user to strictly send the traffic only if
   otherwise unused resources are available, i.e., LE traffic may
   compete with BE traffic for the same resources and thus adversely
   affect the original BE aggregate.  In some cases users want to be
   sure that their LE marked traffic actually fulfills the "no harm"
   property.  Applications that want to ensure the lower precedence
   compared to BE traffic SHOULD use additionally a corresponding Lower-
   than-Best-Effort transport protocol [RFC6297], e.g., LEDBAT
   [RFC6817].

   A DS domain that still uses DSCP CS1 for marking LE traffic
   (including Low Priority-Data as defined in [RFC4594] or the old
   definition in [RFC3662]) SHOULD remark traffic to the LE DSCP
   '000001' at the egress to the next DS domain.  This increases the
   probability that the DSCP is preserved end-to-end, whereas a CS1
   marked packet may be remarked by the default DSCP if the next domain
   is applying DiffServ-intercon [RFC8100].

9.  The Update to RFC 4594

   [RFC4594] recommended to use CS1 as codepoint in section 4.10,
   whereas CS1 was defined in [RFC2474] to have a higher precedence than
   CS0, i.e., the default PHB.  Consequently, DiffServ domains
   implementing CS1 according to [RFC2474] will cause a priority
   inversion for LE packets that contradicts with the original purpose
   of LE.  Therefore, every occurrence of the CS1 DSCP is replaced by
   the LE DSCP.

   Changes:



Bless                   Expires September 6, 2018               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft              Lower Effort PHB                  March 2018


   o  This update to RFC 4594 removes the following entry from figure 3:

    |---------------+---------+-------------+--------------------------|
    | Low-Priority  |  CS1    |   001000    | Any flow that has no BW  |
    |     Data      |         |             | assurance                |
     ------------------------------------------------------------------

      and replaces this by the following entry:

    |---------------+---------+-------------+--------------------------|
    | Low-Priority  |   LE    |   000001    | Any flow that has no BW  |
    |     Data      |         |             | assurance                |
     ------------------------------------------------------------------

   o  This update to RFC 4594 removes the following entry from figure 4:

    |---------------+------+-------------------+---------+--------+----|
    | Low-Priority  | CS1  | Not applicable    | RFC3662 |  Rate  | Yes|
    |     Data      |      |                   |         |        |    |
     ------------------------------------------------------------------

      and replaces this by the following entry:

    |---------------+------+-------------------+---------+--------+----|
    | Low-Priority  | LE   | Not applicable    | RFCXXXX |  Rate  | Yes|
    |     Data      |      |                   |         |        |    |
     ------------------------------------------------------------------

   o  Section 2.3 of [RFC4594] specifies: "In network segments that use
      IP precedence marking, only one of the two service classes can be
      supported, High-Throughput Data or Low-Priority Data.  We
      RECOMMEND that the DSCP value(s) of the unsupported service class
      be changed to 000xx1 on ingress and changed back to original
      value(s) on egress of the network segment that uses precedence
      marking.  For example, if Low-Priority Data is mapped to Standard
      service class, then 000001 DSCP marking MAY be used to distinguish
      it from Standard marked packets on egress."  This document removes
      this recommendation, because by using the herein defined LE DSCP
      such remarking is not necessary.  So even if Low-Priority Data is
      unsupported (i.e., mapped to the default PHB) the LE DSCP should
      be kept across the domain as RECOMMENDED in Section 8.

   o  This document removes the following line of RFC 4594,
      Section 4.10: "The RECOMMENDED DSCP marking is CS1 (Class Selector
      1)." and replaces this with the following text: "The RECOMMENDED
      DSCP marking is LE (Lower Effort)."





Bless                   Expires September 6, 2018               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft              Lower Effort PHB                  March 2018


10.  The Update to RFC 8325

   Section 4.2.10 of RFC 8325 [RFC8325] specifies "therefore, it is
   RECOMMENDED to map Low-Priority Data traffic marked CS1 DSCP to UP 1"
   which is updated to ""therefore, it is RECOMMENDED to map Low-
   Priority Data traffic marked with LE DSCP or CS1 DSCP to UP 1

   This update to RFC 8325 removes the following entry from figure 1:

  +---------------+------+----------+-------------+--------------------+
  | Low-Priority  | CS1  | RFC 3662 |     1       | AC_BK (Background) |
  |     Data      |      |          |             |                    |
  +--------------------------------------------------------------------+

   and replaces this by the following entry:

  +---------------+------+----------+-------------+--------------------+
  | Low-Priority  | LE   | RFCXXXX  |     1       | AC_BK (Background) |
  |     Data      |      |          |             |                    |
  +--------------------------------------------------------------------+

11.  IANA Considerations

   This document assigns the Differentiated Services Field Codepoint
   (DSCP) '000001' from the Differentiated Services Field Codepoints
   (DSCP) registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/dscp-registry/dscp-
   registry.xhtml) (Pool 3, Codepoint Space xxxx01, Standards Action) to
   the LE PHB.  This document suggests to use a DSCP from Pool 3 in
   order to avoid problems for other PHB marked flows to become
   accidentally remarked as LE PHB, e.g., due to partial DSCP bleaching.
   See [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-iana-dscp-registry] for the request to re-
   classify Pool 3 for Standards Action.

   IANA is requested to update the registry as follows:

   o  Name: LE

   o  Value (Binary): 000001

   o  Value (Decimal): 1

   o  Reference: [RFC number of this memo]

12.  Security Considerations

   There are no specific security exposures for this PHB.  Since it
   defines a new class of low forwarding priority, remarking other
   traffic as LE traffic may lead to quality-of-service degradation of



Bless                   Expires September 6, 2018              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft              Lower Effort PHB                  March 2018


   such traffic.  Thus, any attacker that is able to modify the DSCP of
   a packet to LE may carry out a downgrade attack.  See the general
   security considerations in [RFC2474] and [RFC2475].

   With respect to privacy, an attacker could use the information from
   the DSCP to infer that the transferred (probably even encrypted)
   content is considered of low priority or low urgency by a user, in
   case the DSCP was set on the user's request.  However, this disclosed
   information is only useful if some form of identification happened at
   the same time, see [RFC6973] for further details on general privacy
   threats.

13.  References

13.1.  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>.

13.2.  Informative References

   [draft-bless-diffserv-lbe-phb-00]
              Bless, R. and K. Wehrle, "A Lower Than Best-Effort Per-Hop
              Behavior", draft-bless-diffserv-lbe-phb-00 (work in
              progress), September 1999, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/
              draft-bless-diffserv-lbe-phb-00>.

   [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-iana-dscp-registry]
              Fairhurst, G., "IANA Assignment of DSCP Pool 3 (xxxx01)
              Values to require Publication of a Standards Track or Best
              Current Practice RFC", draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-dscp-
              registry-00 (work in progress), February 2018.






Bless                   Expires September 6, 2018              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft              Lower Effort PHB                  March 2018


   [RFC3168]  Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
              of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
              RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.

   [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>.

   [RFC3754]  Bless, R. and K. Wehrle, "IP Multicast in Differentiated
              Services (DS) Networks", RFC 3754, DOI 10.17487/RFC3754,
              April 2004, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3754>.

   [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>.

   [RFC6297]  Welzl, M. and D. Ros, "A Survey of Lower-than-Best-Effort
              Transport Protocols", RFC 6297, DOI 10.17487/RFC6297, June
              2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6297>.

   [RFC6817]  Shalunov, S., Hazel, G., Iyengar, J., and M. Kuehlewind,
              "Low Extra Delay Background Transport (LEDBAT)", RFC 6817,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6817, December 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6817>.

   [RFC6973]  Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,
              Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy
              Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6973, July 2013, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc6973>.

   [RFC8085]  Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage
              Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085,
              March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8085>.

   [RFC8100]  Geib, R., Ed. and D. Black, "Diffserv-Interconnection
              Classes and Practice", RFC 8100, DOI 10.17487/RFC8100,
              March 2017, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8100>.

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






Bless                   Expires September 6, 2018              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft              Lower Effort PHB                  March 2018


   [RFC8325]  Szigeti, T., Henry, J., and F. Baker, "Mapping Diffserv to
              IEEE 802.11", RFC 8325, DOI 10.17487/RFC8325, February
              2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8325>.

Appendix A.  History of the LE PHB

   A first version of this PHB was suggested by Roland Bless and Klaus
   Wehrle in 1999 [draft-bless-diffserv-lbe-phb-00].  After some
   discussion in the DiffServ Working Group Brian Carpenter and Kathie
   Nichols proposed a bulk handling per-domain behavior and believed a
   PHB was not necessary.  Eventually, Lower Effort was specified as
   per-domain behavior and finally became [RFC3662].  More detailed
   information about its history can be found in Section 10 of
   [RFC3662].

Appendix B.  Acknowledgments

   Since text is borrowed from earlier Internet-Drafts and RFCs the co-
   authors of previous specifications are acknowledged here: Kathie
   Nichols and Klaus Wehrle.  David Black and Ruediger Geib provided
   helpful comments and suggestions.

Appendix C.  Change History

   This section briefly lists changes between Internet-Draft versions
   for convenience.

   Changes in Version 04:

   o  Several editorial changes according to review from Gorry Fairhurst

   o  Changed the section structure a bit (moved subsections 1.1 and 1.2
      into own sections 3 and 7 respectively)

   o  updated section 2 on requirements language

   o  added updates to RFC 8325

   o  tried to be more explicit what changes are required to RFCs 4594
      and 8325

   Changes in Version 03:

   o  Changed recommended codepoint to 000001

   o  Added text to explain the reasons for the DSCP choice

   o  Removed LE-min,LE-strict discussion



Bless                   Expires September 6, 2018              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft              Lower Effort PHB                  March 2018


   o  Added one more potential use case: reporting errors or telemetry
      data from OSs

   o  Added privacy considerations to the security section (not worth an
      own section I think)

   o  Changed IANA considerations section

   Changes in Version 02:

   o  Applied many editorial suggestions from David Black

   o  Added Multicast traffic use case

   o  Clarified what is required for deployment in section 1.2
      (Deployment Considerations)

   o  Added text about implementations using AQMs and ECN usage

   o  Updated IANA section according to David Black's suggestions

   o  Revised text in the security section

   o  Changed copyright Notice to pre5378Trust200902

   Changes in Version 01:

   o  Now obsoletes RFC 3662.

   o  Tried to be more precise in section 1.1 (Applicability) according
      to R.  Geib's suggestions, so rephrased several paragraphs.  Added
      text about congestion control

   o  Change section 2 (PHB Description) according to R.  Geib's
      suggestions.

   o  Added RFC 2119 language to several sentences.

   o  Detailed the description of remarking implications and
      recommendations in Section 8.

   o  Added Section 9 to explicitly list changes with respect to RFC
      4594, because this document will update it.








Bless                   Expires September 6, 2018              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft              Lower Effort PHB                  March 2018


Appendix D.  Note to RFC Editor

   This section lists actions for the RFC editor during final
   formatting.

   o  Please replace the occurrences of RFCXXXX in Section 9 and
      Section 10 with the assigned RFC number for this document.

   o  Delete Appendix C.

   o  Delete this section.

Author's Address

   Roland Bless
   Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)
   Kaiserstr. 12
   Karlsruhe  76131
   Germany

   Phone: +49 721 608 46413
   Email: roland.bless@kit.edu





























Bless                   Expires September 6, 2018              [Page 15]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.127, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/