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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 RFC 7417

Internet Engineering Task Force                     Georgios Karagiannis
Internet-Draft                                       Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Experimental                            Anurag Bhargava
Expires: April 6, 2015                              Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                         October 6, 2014



        Generic Aggregation of Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)
              for IPv4 And IPv6 Reservations over PCN domains
                     draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-11

Abstract

   This document specifies extensions to Generic Aggregated RSVP
   RFC 4860 for support of the PCN Controlled Load (CL) and Single
   Marking (SM) edge behaviors over a Diffserv cloud using Pre-
   Congestion Notification.




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 6, 2015.


















Karagiannis, et al.      Expires April 6, 2015                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN             October 2014

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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.

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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

Table of Contents
1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   1.1. Objective   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   1.2. Overview and Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   1.3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   1.4. Organization of This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.  Overview of RSVP extensions and Operations . . . . . . . . . . .  11
2.1. Overview of RSVP Aggregation Procedures in PCN domains . . . . . 11
2.2. PCN Marking and encoding and transport of pre-congestion
     Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
2.3. Traffic Classification Within The Aggregation Region . . . . . . 13
2.4. Deaggregator (PCN-egress-node) Determination . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.5. Mapping E2E Reservations Onto Aggregate Reservations . . . . . . 13
2.6  Size of Aggregate Reservations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.7. E2E Path ADSPEC update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.8. Intra-domain Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
2.9.  Inter-domain Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.10. Reservations for Multicast Sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.11. Multi-level Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.12. Reliability Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
3. Elements of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
3.1.  Receipt of E2E Path Message by PCN-ingress-node
     (aggregating router) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2.  Handling Of E2E Path Message by Interior Routers . . . . . . .  16
3.3.  Receipt of E2E Path Message by PCN-egress-node
     (deaggregating router) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.4.  Initiation of new Aggregate Path Message By PCN-ingress-node
      (Aggregating Router) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
3.5.  Handling Of new Aggregate Path Message by Interior Routers . .  16
3.6   Handling Of Aggregate Path Message by Deaggregating Router . .  16
3.7.  Handling of E2E Resv Message by Deaggregating Router . . . . .  17
3.8.  Handling Of E2E Resv Message by Interior Routers . . . . . . .  17


Karagiannis, et al.      Expires April 6, 2015                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN            October 2014


3.9. Initiation of New Aggregate Resv Message By Deaggregating Router 17
3.10.  Handling of Aggregate Resv Message by Interior Routers  . . .  18
3.11.  Handling of E2E Resv Message by Aggregating Router . . . . . . 18
3.12.  Handling of Aggregated Resv Message by Aggregating Router . .  18
3.13.  Removal of E2E Reservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.14.  Removal of Aggregate Reservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.15.  Handling of Data On Reserved E2E Flow by Aggregating Router .  19
3.16.  Procedures for Multicast Sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
3.17.  Misconfiguration of PCN node  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
3.18.  PCN based Flow Termination .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
4.  Protocol Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.1 PCN object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
7.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
9.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
10. Appendix A: Example Signaling Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
11.  Authors' Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29



































Karagiannis, et al.      Expires April 6, 2015                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN            October 2014

1.  Introduction

1.1 Objective

   Pre-Congestion Notification (PCN) can support 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 and flow termination.  Admission control is used to decide
   whether to admit or block a new flow request, while flow termination
   is used in abnormal circumstances to decide whether to terminate some
   of the existing flows.  To support these two features, 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 congestion occurs (hence "pre-congestion" notification).  The
   PCN-egress-nodes measure the rates of differently marked PCN traffic
   in periodic intervals and report these rates to the Decision Points
   for admission control and flow termination; the Decision Points use
   these rates to make decisions.  The Decision Points may be collocated
   with the PCN-ingress-nodes, or their function may be implemented in a
   another node. For more details see [RFC5559], [RFC6661], and
   [RFC6662].

   The main objective of this document is to specify the signaling
   protocol that can be used within a Pre-Congestion Notification (PCN)
   domain to carry reports from a PCN-ingress-node to a PCN Decision
   point, considering that the PCN Decision Point and PCN-egress-node
   are collocated.
   If the PCN Decision Point is not collocated with the PCN-egress-node
   then additional signaling procedures are required that are out of
   the scope of this document. Moreover, as mentioned above this
   architecture conforms with PBAC (Policy-Based Admission Control),
   when the Decision Point is located in a another node then the PCN-
   ingress-node [RFC2753].

   Several signaling protocols can be used to carry information between
   PCN-boundary-nodes (PCN-ingress-node and PCN-egress-node). However,
   since (1) both PCN-egress-node and PCN-ingress-nodes are located on
   the data path and (2) the admission control procedure needs to be
   done at PCN-egress-node, a signaling protocol that follows the same
   path as the data path, like RSVP (Resource Reservation Protocol), is
   more suited for this purpose. In particular, this document specifies
   extensions to Generic Aggregated RSVP [RFC4860] for support of the
   PCN Controlled Load (CL) and Single Marking (SM) edge behaviors over
   a Diffserv cloud using Pre-Congestion Notification.

   This draft is intended to be published as Experimental in order to:

      o) validate industry interest by allowing implementation and
         deployment

      o) gather operational experience, in particular around dynamic
         interactions of RSVP signaling and PCN notification and

Karagiannis, et al.      Expires April 6, 2015                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN             October 2014

         corresponding levels of performance.

   Support for the techniques specified in this document involves RSVP
   functionality in boundary nodes of a PCN domain whose interior nodes
   forward RSVP traffic without performing RSVP functionality.

1.2 Overview and Motivation

   Two main Quality of Service (QoS) architectures have been specified
   by the IETF. These are the Integrated Services (Intserv) [RFC1633]
   architecture and the Differentiated Services (DiffServ) architecture
   ([RFC2475]).

   Intserv provides methods for the delivery of end-to-end Quality of
   Service (QoS) to applications over heterogeneous networks. One of the
   QoS signaling protocols used by the Intserv architecture is the
   Resource reServation Protocol (RSVP) [RFC2205], which can be used by
   applications to request per-flow resources from the network. These
   RSVP requests can be admitted or rejected by the network.
   Applications can express their quantifiable resource requirements
   using Intserv parameters as defined in [RFC2211] and [RFC2212]. The
   Controlled Load (CL) service [RFC2211] is a quality of service (QoS)
   closely approximating the QoS that the same flow would receive from a
   lightly loaded network element. The CL service is useful for
   inelastic flows such as those used for real-time media.

   The DiffServ architecture can support the differentiated treatment of
   packets in very large scale environments. While Intserv and RSVP
   classify packets per-flow, Diffserv networks classify packets into
   one of a small number of aggregated flows or "classes", based on the
   Diffserv codepoint (DSCP) in the packet IP header. At each Diffserv
   router, packets are subjected to a "per-hop behavior" (PHB), which is
   invoked by the DSCP.  The primary benefit of Diffserv is its
   scalability, since the need for per-flow state and per-flow
   processing, is eliminated.

   However, DiffServ does not include any mechanism for communication
   between applications and the network.  Several solutions have been
   specified to solve this issue. One of these solutions is Intserv over
   Diffserv [RFC2998] including resource-based admission control (RBAC),
   PBAC, assistance in traffic identification/classification, and
   traffic conditioning. Intserv over Diffserv can operate over a
   statically provisioned or a RSVP aware Diffserv region. When it is
   RSVP aware, several mechanisms may be used to support dynamic
   provisioning and topology-aware admission control, including
   aggregate RSVP reservations, per-flow RSVP, or a bandwidth broker.
   [RFC3175] specifies aggregation of Resource ReSerVation Protocol
   (RSVP) end-to-end reservations over aggregate RSVP reservations. In
   [RFC3175] the RSVP generic aggregated reservation is characterized by
   a RSVP SESSION object using the 3-tuple <source IP address,
   destination IP address, Diffserv Code Point>.

   Several scenarios require the use of multiple generic aggregate
   reservations that are established for a given PHB from a given source

Karagiannis, et al.       Expires April 6, 2015                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN             October 2014

   IP address to a given destination IP address, see [SIG-NESTED],
   [RFC4860]. For example, multiple generic aggregate reservations
   can be applied in the situation that multiple E2E reservations using
   different preemption priorities need to be aggregated through a PCN-
   domain using the same PHB. By using multiple aggregate reservations
   for the same PHB, it allows enforcement of the different preemption
   priorities within the aggregation region. This allows more efficient
   management of the Diffserv resources, and in periods of resource
   shortage, this allows sustainment of a larger number of E2E
   reservations with higher preemption priorities. In particular,
   [SIG-NESTED] discusses in detail how end-to-end RSVP reservations can
   be established in a nested VPN environment through RSVP aggregation.

   [RFC4860] provides generic aggregate reservations by extending
   [RFC3175] to support multiple aggregate reservations for the same
   source IP address, destination IP address, and PHB (or set of PHBs).
   In particular, multiple such generic aggregate reservations can be
   established for a given PHB from a given source IP address to a given
   destination IP address. This is achieved by adding the concept of a
   Virtual Destination Port and of an Extended Virtual Destination Port
   in the RSVP SESSION object. In addition to this, the RSVP SESSION
   object for generic aggregate reservations uses the PHB Identification
   Code (PHB-ID) defined in [RFC3140], instead of using the Diffserv
   Code Point (DSCP) used in [RFC3175]. The PHB-ID is used to identify
   the PHB, or set of PHBs, from which the Diffserv resources are to be
   reserved.
   The RSVP like signaling protocol required to carry (1) requests from
   a PCN-egress-node to a PCN-ingress-node and (2) reports from a
   PCN-ingress-node to a PCN-egress-node needs to follow the PCN
   signaling requirements defined in [RFC6663]. In addition to
   that the signaling protocol functionality supported by the PCN-
   ingress-nodes and PCN-egress-nodes needs to maintain logical
   aggregate constructs (i.e. ingress-egress-aggregate state) and be
   able to map E2E reservations to these aggregate constructs. Moreover,
   no actual reservation state is needed to be maintained inside the PCN
   domain, i.e., the PCN-interior-nodes are not maintaining any
   reservation state.

   This can be accomplished by two possible approaches:

   Approach (1):

     o) adapting the RFC 4860 aggregation procedures to fit the PCN
        requirements with as little change as possible over the RFC 4860
        functionality

     o) hence performing aggregate RSVP signaling (even if it is to be
        ignored by PCN interior nodes)

     o) using this aggregate RSVP signaling procedures to carry PCN
        information between the PCN-boundary-nodes (PCN-ingress-node and
        PCN-egress-node).



Karagiannis, et al.      Expires April 6, 2015                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2014

   Approach (2):

     o) adapting the RFC 4860 aggregation procedures to fit the PCN
        requirements with more significant changes over RFC4860 (i.e.
        the aspect of the procedures that have to do with maintaining
        aggregate states and to do with mapping the E2E reservations to
        aggregate constructs are kept, but the procedures that have to
        do with the aggregate RSVP signaling and aggregate reservation
        establishment/maintenance are dropped).

     o) hence not performing aggregate RSVP signaling

     o) piggy-backing of the PCN information inside the E2E RSVP
        signaling.

   Both approaches are probably viable, however, since the RFC 4860
   operations have been thoroughly studied and implemented, it can be
   considered that the RFC 4860 solution can better deal with the more
   challenging situations (rerouting in the PCN domain, failure of an
   PCN-ingress-node, failure of an PCN-egress-node, rerouting towards a
   different edge, etc.). This is the reason for choosing Approach (1)
   for the specification of the signaling protocol used to carry
   PCN information between the PCN-boundary-nodes (PCN-ingress-node and
   PCN-egress-node).

   In particular, this document specifies extensions to Generic
   Aggregated RSVP [RFC4860] for support of the PCN Controlled Load (CL)
   and Single Marking (SM) edge behaviors over a Diffserv cloud using
   Pre-Congestion Notification.

   This document follows the PCN signaling requirements defined in
   [RFC6663] and specifies extensions to Generic Aggregated RSVP
   [RFC4860] for support of PCN edge behaviors as specified in
   [RFC6661] and [RFC6662]. Moreover, this document specifies how RSVP
   aggregation can be used to setup and maintain: (1) Ingress Egress
   Aggregate (IEA) states at Ingress and Egress nodes and (2) generic
   aggregation of RSVP end-to-end RSVP reservations over PCN (Congestion
   and Pre-Congestion Notification) domains.

   To comply with this specification, PCN-nodes MUST be able to
   support the functionality specified in [RFC5670], [RFC5559],
   [RFC6660], [RFC6661], [RFC6662]. Furthermore, the PCN-boundary-nodes
   MUST support the RSVP generic aggregated reservation procedures
   specified in [RFC4860] which are augmented with procedures specified
   in this document.

1.3.  Terminology

   This document uses terms defined in [RFC4860], [RFC3175], [RFC5559],
   [RFC5670], [RFC6661], [RFC6662].

   For readability, a number of definitions from [RFC3175] as well as
   definitions for terms used in [RFC5559], [RFC6661], and [RFC6662] are
   provided here, where some of them are augmented with new meanings:

Karagiannis, et al.      Expires April 6, 2015                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2014

   Aggregator       This is the process in (or associated with) the
                    router at the ingress edge of the aggregation region
                    (with respect to the end-to-end RSVP reservation)
                    and behaving in accordance with [RFC4860].  In this
                    document, it is also the PCN-ingress-node. It is
                    important to notice that in the context of this
                    document the Aggregator must be able to determine
                    the Deaggregator using the procedures specified in
                    Section 4 of [RFC4860] and in Section 1.4.2 of
                    [RFC3175].

  Congestion level estimate (CLE):
                    The ratio of PCN-marked to total PCN-traffic
                    (measured in octets) received for a given ingress-
                    egress-aggregate during a given measurement period.
                    The CLE is used to derive the PCN-admission-state
                    and is also used by the report suppression procedure
                    if report suppression is activated.

   Deaggregator     This is the process in (or associated with) the
                    router at the egress edge of the aggregation region
                    (with respect to the end-to-end RSVP reservation)
                    and behaving in accordance with [RFC4860].  In this
                    document, it is also the PCN-egress-node and
                    Decision Point.

   E2E             end to end

   E2E Reservation  This is an RSVP reservation such that:

                    (i)   corresponding RSVP Path messages are initiated
                          upstream of the Aggregator and terminated
                          downstream of the Deaggregator, and

                    (ii)  corresponding RSVP Resv messages are initiated
                          downstream of the Deaggregator and terminated
                          upstream of the Aggregator, and

                    (iii) this RSVP reservation is aggregated over an
                          Ingress Egress Aggregate (IEA) between the
                          Aggregator and Deaggregator.
                    An E2E RSVP reservation may be a per-flow
                    reservation, which in this document is only
                    maintained at the PCN-ingress-node and PCN-egress-
                    node. Alternatively, the E2E reservation may itself
                    be an aggregate reservation of various types (e.g.,
                    Aggregate IP reservation, Aggregate IPsec
                    reservation, see [RFC4860]). As per regular RSVP
                    operations, E2E RSVP  reservations are
                    unidirectional.

   E2E microflow    a microflow where its associated packets are being
                    forwarded on an E2E path.


Karagiannis, et al.      Expires April 6, 2015                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2014

   Extended vDstPort (Extended Virtual Destination Port)

                     An identifier used in the SESSION that remains
                     constant over the life of the generic aggregate
                     reservation. The length of this identifier is 32-
                     bits when IPv4 addresses are used and 128 bits when
                     IPv6 addresses are used.
                     A sender(or Aggregator) that wishes to narrow the
                     scope of a SESSION to the sender-receiver pair (or
                     Aggregator-Deaggregator pair) should place its IPv4
                     or IPv6 address here as a network unique
                     identifier. A sender (or Aggregator) that wishes to
                     use a common session with other senders (or
                     Aggregators) in order to use a shared reservation
                     across senders (or Aggregators) must set this field
                     to all zeros. In this document, the Extended
                     vDstPort should contain the IPv4 or IPv6 address of
                     the Aggregator.

   ETM-rate
                     The rate of excess-traffic-marked PCN-traffic
                     received at a PCN-egress-node for a given ingress-
                     egress-aggregate in octets per second.

  Ingress-egress-aggregate (IEA):
                    The collection of PCN-packets from all PCN-flows
                    that travel in one direction between a specific pair
                    of PCN-boundary-nodes. In this document one RSVP
                    generic aggregated reservation is mapped to only
                    one ingress-egress-aggregate, while one
                    ingress-egress-aggregate is mapped to either
                    one or to more than one RSVP generic aggregated
                    reservations. PCN-flows and their PCN-traffic that
                    are mapped into a specific RSVP generic aggregated
                    reservation can also easily be mapped into their
                    corresponding ingress-egress-aggregate.

   Microflow:       a single instance of an application-to-application
 (from [RFC2474])   flow of packets which is identified by source
                    address, destination address, protocol id, and
                    source port, destination port (where applicable).

   PCN-domain:      a PCN-capable domain; a contiguous set of
                    PCN-enabled nodes that perform Diffserv scheduling
                    [RFC2474]; the complete set of PCN-nodes that in
                    principle can, through PCN-marking packets,
                    influence decisions about flow admission and
                    termination within the domain; includes the PCN-
                    egress-nodes, which measure these PCN-marks, and the
                    PCN-ingress-nodes.

   PCN-boundary-node: a PCN-node that connects one PCN-domain to a node
                    either in another PCN-domain or in a non-PCN-domain.


Karagiannis, et al.      Expires April 6, 2015                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN            October 2014

   PCN-interior-node: a node in a PCN-domain that is not a PCN-
                    boundary-node.

   PCN-node:        a PCN-boundary-node or a PCN-interior-node.

   PCN-egress-node: a PCN-boundary-node in its role in handling
                    traffic as it leaves a PCN-domain. In this
                    document the PCN-egress-node operates also as a
                    Decision Point and Deaggregator.

   PCN-ingress-node: a PCN-boundary-node in its role in handling
                    traffic as it enters a PCN-domain. In this
                    document the PCN-ingress-node operates also as a
                    Aggregator.

   PCN-traffic,
   PCN-packets,
   PCN-BA:          a PCN-domain carries traffic of different Diffserv
                    behavior aggregates (BAs) [RFC2474]. The PCN-BA
                    uses the PCN mechanisms to carry PCN-traffic, and
                    the corresponding packets are PCN-packets.
                    The same network will carry traffic of other
                    Diffserv BAs.  The PCN-BA is
                    distinguished by a combination of the Diffserv
                    codepoint (DSCP) and ECN fields.

   PCN-flow:        the unit of PCN-traffic that the PCN-boundary-node
                    admits (or terminates); the unit could be a single
                    E2E microflow (as defined in [RFC2474]) or some
                    identifiable collection of microflows.

   PCN-admission-state:
                    The state ("admit" or "block") derived by the
                    Decision Point for a given ingress-egress-aggregate
                    based on statistics about PCN-packet marking.  The
                    Decision Point decides to admit or block new flows
                    offered to the aggregate based on the current value
                    of the PCN-admission-state.

   PCN-sent-rate
                     The rate of PCN-traffic received at a PCN-ingress-
                     node and destined for a given ingress-egress-
                     aggregate in octets per second.

   PHB-ID (Per Hop Behavior Identification Code)
                     A 16-bit field containing the Per Hop Behavior
                     Identification Code of the PHB, or of the set of
                     PHBs, from which Diffserv resources
                     are to be reserved.  This field must be encoded as
                     specified in Section 2 of [RFC3140].

   RSVP generic aggregated reservation: an RSVP reservation that is
                    identified by using the RSVP SESSION object
                    for generic RSVP aggregated reservation. This RSVP

Karagiannis, et al.      Expires April 6, 2015                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2014

                    SESSION object is based on the RSVP SESSION object
                    specified in [RFC4860] augmented with the following
                    information:


                    o) the IPv4 DestAddress, IPv6 DestAddress should be
                       set to the IPv4 or IPv6 destination addresses,
                       respectively, of the Deaggregator (PCN-egress-
                       node)

                    o) PHB-ID (Per Hop Behavior Identification Code)
                       should be set equal to PCN-compatible Diffserv
                       codepoint(s).

                    o) Extended vDstPort should be set to the IPv4 or
                       IPv6 destination addresses, of the Aggregator
                       (PCN-ingress-node)

   VDstPort (Virtual Destination Port)

                     A 16-bit identifier used in the SESSION that
                     remains constant over the life of the generic
                     aggregate reservation.

1.4. Organization of This Document

   This document is organized as follows. Section 2 gives an overview of
   RSVP extensions and operations. The elements of the used procedures
   are specified in Section 3. Section 4 describes the protocol
   elements. The security considerations are given in section 5 and the
   IANA considerations are provided in Section 6.

2.  Overview of RSVP extensions and Operations

2.1 Overview of RSVP Aggregation Procedures in PCN domains

   The PCN-boundary-nodes, see Figure 1, can support RSVP SESSIONS for
   generic aggregated reservations {RFC4860], which are depending on
   ingress-egress-aggregates. In particular, one RSVP generic aggregated
   reservation matches to only one ingress-egress-aggregate.

   However, one ingress-egress-aggregate matches to either
   one, or more than one, RSVP generic aggregated reservations.
   In addition, to comply with this specification, the PCN-boundary
   nodes need to distinguish and process (1) RSVP SESSIONS for generic
   aggregated sessions and their messages according to [RFC4860], (2)
   E2E RSVP sessions and messages according to [RFC2205].

   This document locates all RSVP processing for a PCN domain at PCN-
   Boundary nodes. PCN-interior-nodes do not perform any RSVP
   functionality or maintain RSVP-related state information. Rather,
   PCN-interior nodes forward all RSVP messages (for both generic
   aggregated reservations[RFC4860] and end to end reservations
   [RFC2205]) as if they were ordinary network traffic.

Karagiannis, et al.       Expires April 6, 2015               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2014

   Moreover, each Aggregator and Deaggregator (i.e., PCN-boundary-nodes)
   need to support policies to initiate and maintain for each pair of
   PCN-boundary-nodes of the same PCN-domain one ingress-egress-
   aggregate.

                    --------------------------
                   /       PCN-domain         \
      |----|      |                            |      |----|
   H--| R  |\ |-----|                       |------| /| R  |-->H
   H--|    |\\|     |   |---|     |---|     |      |//|    |-->H
      |----| \|     |   | I |     | I |     |      |/ |----|
              | Agg |======================>| Deag |
             /|     |   |   |     |   |     |      |\
   H--------//|     |   |---|     |---|     |      |\\-------->H
   H--------/ |-----|                       |------| \-------->H
                  |                            |
                   \                          /
                    --------------------------

   H       = Host requesting end-to-end RSVP reservations
   R       = RSVP router
   Agg     = Aggregator (PCN-ingress-node)
   Deag    = Deaggregator (PCN-egress-node)
   I       = Interior Router (PCN-interior-node)
   -->   = E2E RSVP reservation
   ==>   = Aggregate RSVP reservation

           Figure 1 : Aggregation of E2E Reservations
            over Generic Aggregate RSVP Reservations
               in PCN domains, based on [RFC4860]

   Both the Aggregator and Deaggregator can maintain one or
   more RSVP generic aggregated Reservations, but the Deaggregator is
   the entity that initiates these RSVP generic aggregated reservations.
   Note that one RSVP generic aggregated reservation  matches to only
   one ingress-egress-aggregate, while one ingress-egress-aggregate
   matches to either one or to more than one RSVP generic aggregated
   reservations. This can be accomplished by using for the different
   RSVP generic aggregated reservations the same  combinations of
   ingress and egress identifiers, but with a different PHB-ID value
   (see [RFC4860]). The procedures for aggregation of E2E reservations
   over generic aggregate RSVP reservations are the same as the
   procedures specified in Section 4 of [RFC4860], augmented with the
   ones specified in Section 2.5.

   One significant difference between this document and [RFC4860] is the
   fact that in this document the admission control of E2E RSVP
   reservations over the PCN core is performed according to the PCN
   procedures, while in [RFC4860] this is achieved via first admitting
   aggregate RSVP reservations over the aggregation region and then
   admitting the E2E reservations over the aggregate RSVP reservations.
   Therefore, in this document, the RSVP generic aggregate RSVP
   reservations are not subject to admission control in the PCN-core,
   and the E2E RSVP reservations are not subject to admission control

Karagiannis, et al.     Expires April 6, 2015                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2014

   over the aggregate reservations. In turn, this means that several
   procedures of [RFC4860] are significantly simplified in this
   document:
      o) unlike [RFC4860], the generic aggregate RSVP reservations need
         not be admitted in the PCN core.
      o) unlike [RFC4860], the RSVP aggregated traffic does not need to
         be tunneled between Aggregator and Deaggregator, see Section
         2.3.
      o) unlike [RFC4860], the Deaggregator need not perform admission
         control of E2E reservations over the aggregate RSVP
         reservations.
      o) unlike [RFC4860], there is no need for dynamic adjustment of
         the RSVP generic aggregated reservation size, see Section 2.6.

2.2   PCN Marking and encoding and transport of pre-congestion
        information

   The method of PCN marking within the PCN domain is specified in
   [RFC5670]. In addition, the method of encoding and transport of pre-
   congestion information is specified in [RFC6660]. The PHB-ID (Per Hop
   Behavior Identification Code) used SHOULD be set equal
   to PCN-compatible Diffserv codepoint(s).

2.3.  Traffic Classification Within The Aggregation Region

   The PCN-ingress marks a PCN-BA using PCN-marking (i.e., combination
   of the DSCP and ECN fields), which interior nodes use to
   classify PCN-traffic. The PCN-traffic (e.g., E2E microflows)
   belonging to a RSVP generic aggregated reservation can be
   classified only at the PCN-boundary-nodes (i.e., Aggregator and
   Deaggregator) by using the RSVP SESSION object for RSVP generic
   aggregated reservations, see Section 2.1 of [RFC4860]. Note that the
   DSCP value included in the SESSION object, SHOULD be set equal
   to a PCN-compatible Diffserv codepoint. Since no admission control
   procedures over the RSVP generic aggregated reservations in the PCN-
   core are required, unlike [RFC4860], the RSVP aggregated traffic need
   not to be tunneled between Aggregator and Deaggregator. In this
   document one RSVP generic aggregated reservation is mapped to only
   one ingress-egress-aggregate, while one ingress-egress-aggregate is
   mapped to either one or to more than one RSVP generic aggregated
   reservations. PCN-flows and their PCN-traffic that are mapped into a
   specific RSVP generic aggregated reservation can also easily be
   classified into their corresponding ingress-egress-aggregate. The
   method of traffic conditioning of PCN-traffic and non-PCN traffic and
   PHB configuration is described in [RFC6661] and [RFC6662].

2.4.  Deaggregator Determination

   The present document assumes the same dynamic Deaggregator
   determination method as used in [RFC4860].

2.5.  Mapping E2E Reservations Onto Aggregate Reservations

   To comply with this specification for the mapping of E2E reservations

Karagiannis, et al.      Expires April 6, 2015                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2014

   onto aggregate reservations, the same methods MUST be used as the
   ones described in Section 4 of [RFC4860], augmented by the following
   rules:

   o) An Aggregator (also PCN-ingress-node in this document) or
      Deaggregator (also PCN-egress-node and Decision Point in this
      document) MUST use one or more policies to determine whether a
      RSVP generic aggregated reservation can be mapped into an ingress-
      Egress-aggregate. This can be accomplished by using for the
      different RSVP generic aggregated reservations the same
      combinations of ingress and egress identifiers, but with a
      different PHB-ID value (see [RFC4860]) corresponding to the PCN
      specifications. In particular, the RSVP SESSION object specified
      in [RFC4860] augmented with the following information:

         o) the IPv4 DestAddress, IPv6 DestAddress MUST be set to the
         IPv4 or IPv6 destination addresses, respectively, of the
         Deaggregator (PCN-egress-node), see [RFC4860]. Note that the
         PCN-domain is considered as being only one RSVP hop (for
         Generic aggregated RSVP or E2E RSVP). This means that the next
         RSVP hop for the Aggregator in the downstream direction is the
         Deaggregator and the next RSVP hop for the Deaggregator in the
         upstream direction is the Aggregator.

         o) PHB-ID (Per Hop Behavior Identification Code) SHOULD be set
         equal to PCN-compatible Diffserv codepoint(s).

         o) Extended vDstPort SHOULD be set to the IPv4 or IPv6
         destination addresses, of the Aggregator (PCN-ingress-node),
         see [RFC4860].

2.6.  Size of Aggregate Reservations

   Since:(i) no admission control of E2 reservations over the RSVP
   aggregated reservations is required, and (ii) no admission control of
   the RSVP aggregated reservation over the PCN core is required,
   the size of the generic aggregate reservation is irrelevant and can
   be set to any arbitrary value by the Deaggreagtor. The Deaggregator
   SHOULD set the value of a generic aggregate reservation to a null
   bandwidth. We also observe that there is no need for dynamic
   adjustment of the RSVP aggregated reservation size.

2.7.  E2E Path ADSPEC update

   To comply with this specification, for the update of the E2E Path
   ADSPEC, the same methods can be used as the ones described in
   [RFC4860].

2.8.  Intra-domain Routes

   The PCN-interior-nodes are neither maintaining E2E RSVP nor RSVP
   generic aggregation states and reservations. Therefore, intra-domain
   route changes will not affect intra-domain reservations since such
   reservations are not maintained by the PCN-interior-nodes.

Karagiannis, et al.   Expires April 6, 2015                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2014

   Furthermore, it is considered that by configuration, the PCN-
   interior-nodes are not able to distinguish neither RSVP generic
   aggregated sessions and their associated messages [RFC4860], nor E2E
   RSVP sessions and their associated messages [RFC2205].


2.9.  Inter-domain Routes

   The PCN-charter scope precludes inter-domain considerations. However,
   for solving inter-domain routes changes associated with the operation
   of the RSVP messages, the same methods SHOULD be used as the ones
   described in [RFC4860] and in Section 1.4.7 of
   [RFC3175].


2.10.  Reservations for Multicast Sessions

   PCN does not consider reservations for multicast sessions.


2.11.  Multi-level Aggregation

   PCN does not consider multi-level aggregations within the PCN domain.
   Therefore, the PCN-interior-nodes are not supporting multi-level
   aggregation procedures. However, the Aggregator and Deaggregator
   SHOULD support the multi-level aggregation procedures specified in
   [RFC4860] and in Section 1.4.9 of [RFC3175].


2.12.  Reliability Issues

   To comply with this specification, for solving possible reliability
   issues, the same methods MUST used as the ones described in Section 4
   of [RFC4860].


3. Elements of Procedure

   This section describes the procedures used to implement the
   aggregated RSVP procedure over PCN. It is considered that the
   procedures for aggregation of E2E reservations over generic aggregate
   RSVP reservations are same as the procedures specified in Section
   4 of [RFC4860] except where a departure from these procedures is
   explicitly described in the present section. Please refer to
   [RFC4860] for all the below error
   cases:
      o) Incomplete message
      o) Unexpected objects

3.1.  Receipt of E2E Path Message by Aggregating router

   When the E2E Path message arrives at the exterior interface of the
   Aggregator, (also PCN-ingress-node in this document), then standard
   RSVP generic aggregation [RFC4860] procedures are used.

Karagiannis, et al.     Expires April 6, 2015                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2014

3.2.  Handling Of E2E Path Message by Interior Routers

   The E2E Path messages traverse zero or more PCN-interior-nodes.
   The PCN-interior-nodes receive the E2E Path message on an interior
   interface and forward it on another interior interface.
   It is considered that, by configuration, the PCN-interior-nodes
   ignore the E2E RSVP signaling messages [RFC2205]. Therefore, the E2E
   Path messages are simply forwarded as normal IP datagrams.

3.3.  Receipt of E2E Path Message by Deaggregating router

   When receiving the E2E Path message the Deaggregator (also PCN-
   egress-node and Decision Point in this document) performs the
   regular [RFC4860] procedures, augmented with the following rules:

     o) The Deaggregator MUST NOT perform the RSVP-TTL vs IP TTL-
        check and MUST NOT update the ADspec Break bit. This is because
        the whole PCN-domain is effectively handled by E2E RSVP as a
        virtual link on which integrated service is indeed supported
        (and admission control performed) so that the Break bit MUST
        NOT be set, see also [draft-lefaucheur-rsvp-ecn-01].

    The Deaggregator forwards the E2E Path message towards the
    receiver.

3.4.  Initiation of new Aggregate Path Message by Aggregating Router

   To comply with this specification, for the initiation of the new RSVP
   generic aggregated Path message by the Aggregator (also PCN-ingress-
   node in this document), the same methods MUST be used as the ones
   described in [RFC4860].

3.5.  Handling Of Aggregate Path Message By Interior Routers

   The Aggregate Path messages traverse zero or more PCN-interior-nodes.
   The PCN-interior-nodes receive the Aggregated Path message on an
   interior interface and forward it on another interior interface.
   It is considered that, by configuration, the PCN-interior-nodes
   ignore the Aggregated Path signaling messages. Therefore, the
   Aggregated Path messages are simply forwarded as normal IP datagrams.

3.6.  Handling Of Aggregate Path Message By Deaggregating Router

   When receiving the Aggregated Path message, the Deaggregator (also
   PCN-egress-node and Decision Point in this document) performs the
   regular [RFC4860] procedures, augmented with the following rules:

   o) When the received Aggregated Path message by the Deaggregator
      contains the RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-response or
      RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-response PCN objects, which carry the
      PCN-sent-rate, then the procedures specified in Section 3.18 of
      this document MUST be followed.



Karagiannis, et al.      Expires April 6, 2015                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2014

3.7.  Handling of E2E Resv Message by Deaggregating Router

   When the E2E Resv message arrives at the exterior interface of the
   Deaggregator, (also PCN-egress-node and Decision Point in this
   document) then standard RSVP aggregation [RFC4860] procedures are
   used, augmented with the following rules:

  o) The E2E RSVP session associated with an E2E Resv
     message that arrives at the external interface of the Deaggregator
     is mapped/matched with an RSVP generic aggregate and with a PCN
     ingress-egress-aggregate.

  o) Depending on the type of the PCN edge behavior supported by the
     Deaggregator, the PCN admission control procedures specified in
     Section 3.3.1 of [RFC6661] or [RFC6662] MUST be followed. Since no
     admission control procedures over the RSVP aggregated reservations
     in the PCN-core are required, unlike [RFC4860], the Deaggregator
     does not perform any admission control of the E2E Reservation over
     the mapped generic aggregate RSVP reservation. If the PCN based
     admission control procedure is successful then the Deaggregator
     MUST allow the new flow to be admitted onto the associated RSVP
     generic aggregation reservation and onto the PCN ingress-egress-
     aggregate, see [RFC6661] and [RFC6662]. If the PCN based admission
     control procedure is not successful, then the E2E Resv MUST NOT be
     admitted onto the associated RSVP generic aggregate reservation and
     onto the PCN ingress-egress-aggregation. The E2E Resv message is
     further processed according to [RFC4860].

   The way of how the PCN-admission-state is maintained is specified in
   [RFC6661] and [RFC6662].

3.8.  Handling Of E2E Resv Message By Interior Routers

   The E2E Resv messages traversing the PCN core are IP addressed to the
   Aggregating router and are not marked with Router Alert, therefore
   the E2E Resv messages are simply forwarded as normal IP datagrams.

3.9.  Initiation of New Aggregate Resv Message By Deaggregating Router

   To comply with this specification, for the initiation of the new RSVP
   generic aggregated Resv message by the Deaggregator (also PCN-egress-
   node and Decision Point in this document), the same methods MUST be
   used as the ones described in
   Section 4 of [RFC4860] augmented with the following rules:

   o) The size of the generic aggregate reservation is irrelevant, see
      Section 2.6, and can be set to any arbitrary value by the PCN-
      egress node. The Deaggregator SHOULD set the value of a RSVP
      generic aggregate reservation to a null bandwidth. We also
      observe that there is no need for dynamic adjustment of the RSVP
      generic aggregated reservation size.




Karagiannis, et al.      Expires April 6, 2015                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2014

   o) When [RFC6661] is used and the ETM-rate measured by the
      Deaggregator contains a non-zero value for some
      ingress-egress-aggregate, see [RFC6661] and [RFC6662], the
      Deagregator MUST request the PCN-ingress-node to provide an
      estimate of the rate (PCN-sent-rate) at which the Aggregator
      (also PCN-ingress-node in this document) is receiving PCN-traffic
      that is destined for the given ingress-egress-aggregate.

   o) When [RFC6662] is used and the PCN-admission-state computed by the
      Deaggregator, on the basis of the CLE is "block" for the given
      ingress-egress-aggregate, the Deaggregator MUST request the PCN-
      ingress-node to provide an estimate of the rate (PCN-sent-rate) at
      which the Aggregator is receiving PCN-traffic that is
      destined for the given ingress-egress-aggregate.

   o) In the above two cases and when the PCN-sent-rate needs to be
      requested from the Aggregator, the Deaggregator MUST generate
      and send an (refresh) Aggregated Resv message to the Aggregator
      that MUST carry one of the following PCN objects, see Section 4.1,
      depending on whether IPv4 or IPv6 is supported:
       o) RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-request
       o) RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-request.

3.10.  Handling of Aggregate Resv Message by Interior Routers

   The Aggregated Resv messages traversing the PCN core are IP addressed
   to the Aggregating router and are not marked with Router Alert,
   therefore the Aggregated Resv messages are simply forwarded as normal
   IP datagrams.

3.11.  Handling of E2E Resv Message by Aggregating Router

   When the E2E Resv message arrives at the interior interface of the
   Aggregator (also PCN-ingress-node in this document), then standard
   RSVP aggregation [RFC4860] procedures are used.

3.12.  Handling of Aggregated Resv Message by Aggregating Router

   When the Aggregated Resv message arrives at the interior interface of
   the Aggregator, (also PCN-ingress-node in this document),
   then standard RSVP aggregation [RFC4860] procedures are used,
   augmented with the following rules:
   o) the Aggregator SHOULD use the information carried by the PCN
      objects, see Section 4, and follow the steps specified in
      [RFC6661], [RFC6662]. If the "R" flag carried by the
      RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-request or RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-request
      PCN objects is set to ON, see Section 4.1, then the Aggregator
      follows the steps described in Section 3.4 of [RFC6661] and
      [RFC6662] on calculating the PCN-sent-rate. In particular, the
      Aggregator MUST provide the estimated current rate of PCN-traffic
      received at that node and destined for a given ingress-egress-
      aggregate in octets per second (the PCN-sent-rate). The way this
      rate estimate is derived is a matter of implementation, see
      [RFC6661] or [RFC6662].

Karagiannis, et al.      Expires April 6, 2015                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2014

   o) the Aggregator initiates an Aggregated Path message. In
      particular, when the Aggregator receives an Aggregated Resv
      message which carries one of the following PCN objects:
      RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-request or RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-
      request, with the flag "R" set to ON, see Section 4.1, the
      Aggregator initiates an Aggregated Path message, and includes the
      calculated PCN-sent-rate into the RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-response
      or RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-response PCN objects, see Section 4.1,
      which that MUST be carried by the Aggregated Path message. This
      Aggregated Path message is sent towards the Deaggregator (also
      PCN-egress-node and Decision Point in this document) that
      requested the calculation of the PCN-sent-rate.

3.13.  Removal of E2E Reservation

   To comply with this specification, for the removal of E2E
   reservations, the same methods MUST be used as the ones described in
   Section 4 of [RFC4860] and [RFC4495].

3.14.  Removal of Aggregate Reservation

   To comply with this specification, for the removal of RSVP generic
   aggregated reservations, the same methods MUST be used as the ones
   described in Section 4 of [RFC4860] and Section 2.10 of [RFC3175]. In
   particular, should an aggregate reservation go away (presumably due
   to a configuration change, route change, or policy event), the E2E
   reservations it supports are no longer active.
   They MUST be treated accordingly.

3.15.  Handling of Data On Reserved E2E Flow by Aggregating Router

   The handling of data on the reserved E2E flow by Aggregator (also
   PCN-ingress-node in this document) uses the procedures described
   in [RFC4860] augmented with:
   o)  Regarding, PCN marking and traffic classification the procedures
       defined in Section 2.2 and 2.3 of this document are used.

3.16.  Procedures for Multicast Sessions

   In this document no multicast sessions are considered.

3.17.  Misconfiguration of PCN-node

   In an event where a PCN-node is misconfigured within a PCN-domain,
   the desired behavior is same as described in Section 3.10.

3.18 PCN based Flow Termination

   When the Deaggregator (also PCN-egress-node and Decision Point in
   this document) needs to terminate an amount of traffic associated
   with one ingress-egress-aggregate (see Section 3.3.2 of [RFC6661] and
   [RFC6662]), then several procedures of terminating E2E microflows can
   be deployed. The default procedure of terminating E2E microflows
   (i.e., PCN-flows) is as follows, see i.e., [RFC6661] and [RFC6662].

Karagiannis, et al.      Expires April 6, 2015                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft         Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2014

   For the same ingress-egress-aggregate, select a number of E2E
   microflows to be terminated in order to decrease the total incoming
   amount of bandwidth associated with one ingress-egress-aggregate by
   the amount of traffic to be terminated, see above. In this situation
   the same mechanisms for terminating an E2E microflow can be followed
   as specified in [RFC2205]. However, based on a local policy, the
   Deaggregator could use other ways of selecting which microflows
   should be terminated. For example, for the same ingress-egress-
   aggregate, select a number of E2E microflows to be terminated or to
   reduce their reserved bandwidth in order to decrease the total
   incoming amount of bandwidth associated with one ingress-egress-
   aggregate by the amount of traffic to be terminated. In this
   situation the same mechanisms for terminating an E2E microflow or
   reducing bandwidth associated with an E2E microflow can be followed
   as specified in [RFC4495].

4.  Protocol Elements

   The protocol elements in this document are using the ones defined in
   Section 4 of [RFC4860] and Section 3 of [RFC3175] augmented with the
   following rules:
   o) the DSCP value included in the SESSION object, SHOULD be set equal
      to a PCN-compatible Diffserv codepoint.

   o) Extended vDstPort SHOULD be set to the IPv4 or IPv6 destination
      addresses, of the Aggregator (also PCN-ingress-node in this
      document), see [RFC4860].

   o) When the Deaggregator (also PCN-egress-node and Decision Point
      in this document) needs to request the PCN-sent-rate from the
      PCN-ingress-node, see Section 3.9 of this document, the
      Deaggregator MUST generate and send an (refresh) Aggregate
      Resv message to the Aggregator that MUST carry one of the
      following PCN objects, see Section 4.1, depending on whether IPv4
      or IPv6 is supported:
       o) RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-request
       o) RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-request.

  o) When the Aggregator receives an Aggregate Resv message which
      carries one of the following PCN objects:
      RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-request or
      RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-request, with the flag "R" set to ON, see
      Section 4.1, then the Aggregator MUST generate and send to the
      Deaggregator an Aggregated Path message which carries one of the
      following PCN objects, see Section 4.1, depending on whether IPv4
      or IPv6 is supported:
       o) RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-response,
       o) RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-response.

4.1 PCN objects

   This section describes four types of PCN objects that can be carried
   by the (refresh) Aggregate Path or the (refresh) Aggregate Resv
   messages specified in [RFC4860].

Karagiannis, et al.     Expires April 6, 2015              [Page 20]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN            October 2014

   These objects are:
      o RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-request,
       o RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-request,
       o RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-response,
       o RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-response.

   o) RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-request: PCN request object, when
      IPv4 addresses are used:
      Class = 248 (PCN)
      C-Type = 1 (RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-request

        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
        |     IPv4 PCN-ingress-node Address (4 bytes)           |
        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
        |     IPv4 PCN-egress-node Address (4 bytes)            |
        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
        |     IPv4 Decision Point Address (4 bytes)             |
        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
        |R|     Reserved                                        |
        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------|

   o) RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-request: PCN object, when
      IPv6 addresses are used:

      Class = 248 (PCN)
      C-Type = 2 (RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-request

        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
        |                                                       |
        +                                                       +
        |                                                       |
        +     IPv6 PCN-ingress-node Address (16 bytes)          +
        |                                                       |
        +                                                       +
        |                                                       |
        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
        |                                                       |
        +                                                       +
        |                                                       |
        +     IPv6 PCN-egress-node Address (16 bytes)           +
        |                                                       |
        +                                                       +
        |                                                       |
        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
        |                                                       |
        +                                                       +
        |                                                       |
        +     Decision Point Address (16 bytes)                 +
        |                                                       |
        +                                                       +
        |                                                       |
        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
        |R|     Reserved                                        |
        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

Karagiannis, et al.     Expires April 6, 2015                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2014

   o) RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-response: PCN object, IPv4
      addresses are used:
      Class = 248 (PCN)
      C-Type = 3 (RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-response)

        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
        |     IPv4 PCN-ingress-node Address (4 bytes)           |
        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
        |     IPv4 PCN-egress-node Address (4 bytes)            |
        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
        |     IPv4 Decision Point Address (4 bytes)             |
        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
        | PCN-sent-rate                                         |
        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

   o) RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-response: PCN object, IPv6
      addresses are used:
      Class = 248 (PCN)
      C-Type = 4 (RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-response)

        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
        |                                                       |
        +                                                       +
        |                                                       |
        +     IPv6 PCN-ingress-node Address (16 bytes)          +
        |                                                       |
        +                                                       +
        |                                                       |
        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
        |                                                       |
        +                                                       +
        |                                                       |
        +     IPv6 PCN-egress-node Address (16 bytes)           +
        |                                                       |
        +                                                       +
        |                                                       |
        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
        |                                                       |
        +                                                       +
        |                                                       |
        +     Decision Point Address (16 bytes)                 +
        |                                                       |
        +                                                       +
        |                                                       |
        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
        | PCN-sent-rate                                         |
        +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+




  The fields carried by the PCN object are specified in
   [RFC6663], [RFC6661] and [RFC6662]:

Karagiannis, et al.   Expires April 6, 2015                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2014

     o the IPv4 or IPv6 address of the PCN-ingress-node (Aggregator) and
       the IPv4 or IPv6 address of the PCN-egress-node (Deaggregator);
       together they specify the ingress-egress-aggregate to which the
       report refers. According to [RFC6663] the report should carry the
       identifier of the PCN-ingress-node (Aggregator) and the
       identifier of the PCN-egress-node (Deaggregator) (typically
       their IP addresses);

     o Decision Point address specify the IPv4 or IPv6 address of the
       Decision Point. In this document this field MUST contain the IP
       address of the Deaggregator.

     o "R": 1 bit flag that when set to ON, signifies, according to
       [RFC6661] and [RFC6662], that the PCN-ingress-node (Aggregator)
       MUST provide an estimate of the rate (PCN-sent-rate) at which the
       PCN-ingress-node (Aggregator) is receiving PCN-traffic that is
       destined for the given ingress-egress-aggregate.

     O "Reserved": 31 bits that are currently not used by this
       document and are reserved. These SHALL be set to 0 and SHALL be
       ignored on reception.

     o PCN-sent-rate: the PCN-sent-rate for the given
       ingress-egress-aggregate. It is expressed in octets/second; its
       format is a 32-bit IEEE floating point number; The PCN-sent-rate
       is specified in [RFC6661] and [RFC6662] and it represents the
       estimate of the rate at which the PCN-ingress-node (Aggregator)
       is receiving PCN-traffic that is destined for the given
       ingress-egress-aggregate.

5.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations specified in [RFC2205], [RFC4860] and
   [RFC5559] apply to this document.  In addition, [RFC4230] and
   [RFC6411] provide useful guidance on RSVP security mechanisms.

   Security within a PCN domain is fundamentally based on the controlled
   environment trust assumption stated in Section 6.3.1 of [RFC5559], in
   particular that all PCN-nodes are PCN-enabled and are trusted
   to perform accurate PCN-metering and PCN-marking.

   In the PCN domain environments addressed by this document, Generic
   Aggregate Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) messages specified in
   [RFC4860] are used for support of the PCN Controlled Load (CL) and
   Single Marking (SM) edge behaviors over a Diffserv cloud using Pre-
   Congestion Notification.  Hence the security mechanisms discussed
   in [RFC4860] are applicable.  Specifically, the INTEGRITY object
   [RFC2747][RFC3097] can be used to provide hop-by-hop RSVP message
   integrity, node authentication and replay protection, thereby
   protecting against corruption and spoofing of RSVP messages and
   PCN feedback conveyed by RSVP messages.

   For these reasons, this document does not introduce significant
   additional security considerations beyond those discussed in

Karagiannis, et al.      Expires April 6, 2015                [Page 23]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2014

   [RFC5559] and [RFC4860].

6.  IANA Considerations

   IANA has modified the RSVP parameters registry, 'Class Names,
   Class Numbers, and Class Types' subregistry, to add a new
   Class Number and assign 4 new C-Types under this new Class
   Number, as described below, see Section 4.1:

   Class
   Number  Class Name                                       Reference
   ------  ----------------------                           ---------
   248 PCN                                              this document

           Class Types or C-Types:
   1 RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-request                    this document
   2 RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-request                    this document
   3 RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-response                   this document
   4 RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-response                   this document

   When this draft is published as an RFC, IANA should update the
   reference for the above 5 items to that published RFC (and the RFC
   Editor should remove this sentence).

7.  Acknowledgments

   We would like to thank the authors of [draft-lefaucheur-rsvp-ecn-
   01.txt], since some ideas used in this document are based on the work
   initiated in [draft-lefaucheur-rsvp-ecn-01.txt]. Moreover, we would
   like to thank Bob Briscoe, David Black, Ken Carlberg, Tom Taylor,
   Philip Eardley, Michael Menth, Toby Moncaster, James Polk, Scott
   Bradner, Lixia Zhang and Robert Sparks for the provided comments. In
   particular, we would like to thank Francois Le Faucheur for
   contributing in addition to comments also to a significant amount of
   text.

8.  Normative References

   [RFC6661] T. Taylor, A, Charny, F. Huang,
   G. Karagiannis, M. Menth, "PCN Boundary Node Behaviour for the
   Controlled Load (CL) Mode of Operation", July
   2012.

   [RFC6662] A. Charny, J. Zhang,
   G.  Karagiannis, M. Menth, T. Taylor, "PCN Boundary Node Behaviour
   for the Single Marking (SM) Mode of Operation",
   July 2012.

   [RFC6663] G. Karagiannis, T. Taylor,
   K. Chan, M. Menth, P. Eardley, " Requirements for Signaling of (Pre-)
   Congestion Information in a DiffServ Domain",
   July 2012.


Karagiannis, et al.   Expires April 6, 2015                [Page 24]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2014

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

   [RFC2205] Braden, R., ed., et al., "Resource ReSerVation Protocol
   (RSVP)- Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.

   [RFC3140] Black, D., Brim, S., Carpenter, B., and F. Le
   Faucheur, "Per Hop Behavior Identification Codes",
   RFC 3140, June 2001.

   [RFC3175] Baker, F., Iturralde, C., Le Faucheur, F., and B. Davie,
   "Aggregation of RSVP for IPv4 and IPv6 Reservations", RFC 3175,
   September 2001.

   [RFC4495] Polk, J. and S. Dhesikan, "A Resource Reservation
   Protocol (RSVP) Extension for the Reduction of
   Bandwidth of a Reservation Flow", RFC 4495, May 2006.

   [RFC4860] F. Le Faucheur, B. Davie, P. Bose, C. Christou, M.
   Davenport, "Generic Aggregate Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)
   Reservations", RFC4860, May 2007.

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

   [RFC6660]  Moncaster, T., Briscoe, B., and M. Menth, "Baseline
    Encoding and Transport of Pre-Congestion Information", RFC 6660,
    July 2012.

9.  Informative References

   [draft-lefaucheur-rsvp-ecn-01.txt] Le Faucheur, F., Charny, A.,
   Briscoe, B., Eardley, P., Chan, K., and J. Babiarz, "RSVP Extensions
   for Admission Control over Diffserv using Pre-congestion
   Notification (PCN) (Work in progress)", June 2006.

   [RFC1633]  Braden, R., Clark, D., and S. Shenker, "Integrated
   Services in the Internet Architecture: an Overview", RFC 1633, June
   1994.

   [RFC2211] J. Wroclawski, Specification of the Controlled-Load Network
   Element Service, September 1997

   [RFC2212] S. Shenker et al., Specification of Guaranteed Quality of
   Service, September 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.

   [RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z. and
   W. Weiss, "A framework for Differentiated Services", RFC 2475,
   December 1998.


Karagiannis, et al.   Expires April 6, 2015                  [Page 25]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2014

   [RFC2747] Baker, F., Lindell, B., and M. Talwar, "RSVP Cryptographic
   Authentication", RFC 2747, January 2000.

   [RFC2753] Yavatkar, R., D. Pendarakis and R. Guerin, "A Framework for
   Policy-based Admission Control", January 2000.

   [RFC2998] Bernet, Y., Yavatkar, R., Ford, P., Baker, F., Zhang, L.,
   Speer, M., Braden, R., Davie, B., Wroclawski, J. and E. Felstaine, "A
   Framework for Integrated Services Operation Over DiffServ Networks",
   RFC 2998, November 2000.

   [RFC3097] Braden, R. and L. Zhang, "RSVP Cryptographic Authentication
   -- Updated Message Type Value", RFC 3097, April 2001.

   [RFC4230] H. Tschofenig, R. Graveman, "RSVP Security Properties",
   RFC 4230, December 2005.

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

   [RFC6411] M. Behringer, F. Le Faucheur, B. Weis, "Applicability of
   Keying Methods for RSVP Security", RFC 6411, October 2011.

   [SIG-NESTED] Baker, F. and P. Bose, "QoS Signaling in a Nested
   Virtual Private Network", Work in Progress, July 2007.


10. Appendix A:  Example Signaling Flow

   This appendix is based on the appendix provided in [RFC4860]. In
   particular, it provides an example signaling flow of the
   specification detailed in Section 3 and 4.
   This signaling flow assumes an environment where E2E reservations are
   aggregated over generic aggregate RSVP reservations and applied over
   a PCN domain. In particular the Aggregator (PCN-ingress-node) and
   Deaggregator (PCN-egress-node) are located at the boundaries of the
   PCN domain. The PCN-interior-nodes are located within the PCN-domain,
   between the PCN-boundary nodes, but are not shown in this Figure. It
   illustrates a possible RSVP message flow that could take place in the
   successful establishment of a unicast E2E reservation that is the
   first between a given pair of Aggregator/Deaggregator.














Karagiannis, et al.   Expires April 6, 2015                [Page 26]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2014


      Aggregator (PCN-ingress-node)     Deaggregator (PCN-egress-node)

    E2E Path
   ----------->
                (1)
                           E2E Path
                   ------------------------------->
                                                       (2)
                    E2E PathErr(New-agg-needed,SOI=GApcn)
                   <----------------------------------
(3)
                         AggPath(Session=GApcn)
                   ------------------------------->
(4)
                                                           E2E Path
                                                          ----------->
                                                       (5)
                         AggResv (Session=GApcn) (PCN object)
                   <-------------------------------
(6)
                     AggResvConfirm (Session=GApcn)
                   ------------------------------>
(7)
                                                           E2E Resv
                                                          <---------
                                                       (8)
                           E2E Resv (SOI=GApcn)
                   <-----------------------------
                (9)
      E2E Resv
   <-----------

   (1) The Aggregator forwards E2E Path into the aggregation region
     after modifying its IP protocol number to RSVP-E2E-IGNORE

   (2) Let's assume no Aggregate Path exists.  To be able to accurately
       update the ADSPEC of the E2E Path, the Deaggregator needs the
       ADSPEC of Aggregate Path.  In this example, the Deaggregator
       elects to instruct the Aggregator to set up an Aggregate Path
       state for the PCN PHB-ID.  To do that, the Deaggregator
       sends an E2E PathErr message with a New-Agg-Needed PathErr
       code.

       The PathErr message also contains a SESSION-OF-INTEREST
       (SOI) object. The SOI contains a GENERIC-AGGREGATE SESSION
       (GApcn) whose PHB-ID is set to the PCN PHB-ID. The GENERIC-
       AGGREGATE SESSION contains an interface-independent Deaggregator
       address inside the DestAddress and appropriate values inside the
       vDstPort and Extended vDstPort fields. In this document, the
       Extended vDstPort SHOULD contain the IPv4 or IPv6 address of
       the Aggregator.

   (3) The Aggregator follows the request from the Deaggregator and

Karagiannis, et al.   Expires April 6, 2015                [Page 27]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2014

       signals an Aggregate Path for the GENERIC-AGGREGATE Session
       (GApcn).

   (4) The Deaggregator takes into account the information contained in
       the ADSPEC from both Aggregate Paths and updates the E2E Path
       ADSPEC accordingly. The PCN-egress-node MUST NOT perform the
       RSVP-TTL vs IP TTL-check and MUST NOT update the ADspec Break
       bit. This is because the whole PCN-domain is effectively handled
       by E2E RSVP as a virtual link on which integrated service is
       indeed supported (and admission control performed) so that the
       Break bit MUST NOT be set, see also
       [draft-lefaucheur-rsvp-ecn-01]. The Deaggregator also modifies
       the E2E Path IP protocol number to RSVP before forwarding it.

   (5) In this example, the Deaggregator elects to immediately proceed
       with establishment of the generic aggregate reservation. In
       effect, the Deaggregator can be seen as anticipating
       the actual demand of E2E reservations so that the generic
       aggregate reservation is in place when the E2E Resv
       request arrives, in order to speed up establishment of E2E
       reservations. Here it is also assumed that the Deaggregator
       includes the optional Resv Confirm Request in the Aggregate
       Resv message.

   (6) The Aggregator merely complies with the received ResvConfirm
       Request and returns the corresponding Aggregate ResvConfirm.

   (7) The Deaggregator has explicit confirmation that the generic
       aggregate reservation is established.

   (8) On receipt of the E2E Resv, the Deaggregator applies the mapping
       policy defined by the network administrator to map the E2E Resv
       onto a generic aggregate reservation.  Let's assume that this
       policy is such that the E2E reservation is to be mapped onto the
       generic aggregate reservation with the PCN PHB-ID=x. The
       Deaggregator knows that a generic aggregate reservation (GApcn)
       is in place for the corresponding PHB-ID since (7).  At this step
       the Deaggregator maps the generic aggregated reservation onto one
       ingress-egress-aggregate maintained by the Deaggregator (as a
       PCN-egress-node), see Section 3.7. The Deaggregator performs
       admission control of the E2E Resv onto the generic Aggregate
       reservation for the PCN PHB-ID (GApcn).  The Deaggregator takes
       also into account the PCN admission control procedure as
       as specified in [RFC6661] and [RFC6662], see Section 3.7.
       If one or both the admission control procedures (PCN based
       admission control procedure and admission control procedure
       specified in [RFC4860]) are not successful, then the E2E Resv is
       not admitted onto the associated RSVP generic aggregate
       reservation for the PCN PHB-ID (GApcn). Otherwise, assuming that
       the generic aggregate reservation for the PCN (GApcn) had been
       established with sufficient bandwidth to support the E2E Resv,
       the Deaggregator adjusts its counter, tracking the unused
       bandwidth on the generic aggregate reservation. Then it forwards
       the E2E Resv to the Aggregator including a SESSION-OF-INTEREST

Karagiannis, et al.   Expires April 6, 2015                [Page 28]


Internet-Draft       Aggregated RSVP over PCN           October 2014

       object conveying the selected mapping onto GApcn (and hence onto
       the PCN PHB-ID).

   (9) The Aggregator records the mapping of the E2E Resv onto GApcn
       (and onto the PCN PHB-ID). The Aggregator removes the SOI object
       and forwards the E2E Resv towards the sender.


11.  Authors' Address

   Georgios Karagiannis
   Huawei Technologies
   Hansaallee 205,
   40549 Dusseldorf,
   Germany
   Email: Georgios.Karagiannis@huawei.com

   Anurag Bhargava
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   7100-9 Kit Creek Road
   PO Box 14987
   RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27709-4987
   USA
   Email: anuragb@cisco.com































Karagiannis, et al.   Expires April 6, 2015                [Page 29]


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