--- 1/draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11-06.txt 2017-09-08 12:13:37.335338169 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11-07.txt 2017-09-08 12:13:37.423340291 -0700 @@ -1,56 +1,56 @@ Transport Working Group T. Szigeti Internet-Draft J. Henry Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems -Expires: February 17, 2018 F. Baker - August 16, 2017 +Expires: March 12, 2018 F. Baker + September 8, 2017 Diffserv to IEEE 802.11 Mapping - draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11-06 + draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11-07 Abstract As internet traffic is increasingly sourced-from and destined-to wireless endpoints, it is crucial that Quality of Service be aligned between wired and wireless networks; however, this is not always the case by default. This document specifies a set Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) to IEEE 802.11 User Priority (UP) mappings to reconcile the marking recommendations offered by the IETF and the IEEE so as to maintain consistent QoS treatment between wired and IEEE 802.11 wireless networks. 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/. + Drafts is at https://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 February 17, 2018. + This Internet-Draft will expire on March 12, 2018. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2017 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 + (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 @@ -226,23 +226,22 @@ the shared, half-duplex nature of the wireless medium. o Section 7 on notes IANA considerations o Section 8 presents security considerations relative to DSCP-to-UP, UP-to-DSCP mapping and remarking 1.5. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", - "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", "OPTIONAL", and "NOT - RECOMMENDED" in this document are to be interpreted as described in - [RFC2119]. + "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this + document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 1.6. Terminology Used in this Document Key terminology used in this document includes: AC: Access Category. A label for the common set of enhanced distributed channel access (EDCA) parameters that are used by a quality-of-service (QoS) station (STA) to contend for the channel in order to transmit medium access control (MAC) service data units (MSDUs) with certain priorities. [IEEE.802.11-2016] @@ -351,22 +350,22 @@ typically extended at Layer 3 (by accepting the DSCP), but may also be extended at lower layers, such as at Layer 2 by accepting User Priority markings. For example, if an access point is configured to trust DSCP markings and it receives a packet marked EF, then it would treat the packet with the Expedite Forwarding PHB and propagate the EF marking value (DSCP 46) as it transmits the packet. Alternatively, if a network device is configured to operate in an untrusted manner, then it would remark packets as these entered the device, typically to DF (or to a different marking value at the network administrator's preference). Note: - The terms "trusted" and "untrusted" are used extensively in RFC - 4594. + The terms "trusted" and "untrusted" are used extensively in + [RFC4594]. UP: User Priority. A value associated with a medium access control (MAC) service data unit (MSDU) that indicates how the MSDU is to be handled. The UP is assigned to an MSDU in the layers above the MAC [IEEE.802.11-2016] Section 3.1. The UP defines a level of priority for the associated frame, on a scale of 0 to 7. Wi-Fi: An interoperability certification defined by the Wi-Fi Alliance. However, this term is commonly used, including in the present document, to be the equivalent of IEEE 802.11. @@ -633,21 +632,21 @@ protocols, again, per [RFC4594] Section 3.2. By default (as described in Section 2.2), packets marked DSCP CS7 will be mapped to UP 7 and serviced within the Voice Access Category (AC_VO). This represents the RECOMMENDED mapping for CS7, that is, packets marked to CS7 DSCP are RECOMMENDED to be mapped to UP 7. However, by default (as described in Section 2.2), packets marked DSCP CS6 will be mapped to UP 6 and serviced within the Voice Access Category (AC_VO); such mapping and servicing is a contradiction to - the intent expressed in [RFC 4594] section 3.2. As such, it is + the intent expressed in [RFC4594] Section 3.2. As such, it is RECOMMENDED to map Network Control traffic marked CS6 to UP 7 (per [IEEE.802.11-2016] Section 10.2.4.2, Table 10-1), thereby admitting it to the Voice Access Category (AC_VO), albeit with a marking distinguishing it from (data-plane) voice traffic. It should be noted that encapsulated routing protocols for encapsulated or overlay networks (e.g., VPN, NVO3) are not network control traffic for any physical network at the AP, and hence SHOULD NOT be marked with CS6 in the first place. @@ -1521,92 +1520,92 @@ information exchange between systems - Local and metropolitan area networks - Specific requirements - Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) specifications", IEEE Standard 802.11, 2016, . [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, - . + . [RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black, "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998, - . - - [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, - . + . [RFC2597] Heinanen, J., Baker, F., Weiss, W., and J. Wroclawski, "Assured Forwarding PHB Group", RFC 2597, DOI 10.17487/RFC2597, June 1999, - . + . [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, - . + . [RFC3246] Davie, B., Charny, A., Bennet, J., Benson, K., Le Boudec, J., Courtney, W., Davari, S., Firoiu, V., and D. Stiliadis, "An Expedited Forwarding PHB (Per-Hop Behavior)", RFC 3246, DOI 10.17487/RFC3246, March 2002, - . + . [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, - . + . [RFC4594] Babiarz, J., Chan, K., and F. Baker, "Configuration Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes", RFC 4594, DOI 10.17487/RFC4594, August 2006, - . - - [RFC5127] Chan, K., Babiarz, J., and F. Baker, "Aggregation of - Diffserv Service Classes", RFC 5127, DOI 10.17487/RFC5127, - February 2008, . + . [RFC5865] Baker, F., Polk, J., and M. Dolly, "A Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) for Capacity-Admitted Traffic", RFC 5865, DOI 10.17487/RFC5865, May 2010, - . - - [RFC8100] Geib, R., Ed. and D. Black, "Diffserv-Interconnection - Classes and Practice", RFC 8100, DOI 10.17487/RFC8100, - March 2017, . + . 10.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-le-phb] Bless, R., "A Lower Effort Per-Hop Behavior (LE PHB)", draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-02 (work in progress), June 2017. [IEEE.802-11u.2011] "Information technology - Telecommunications and information exchange between systems - Local and metropolitan area networks - Specific requirements - Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) specifications", IEEE Standard 802.11, 2011, . + [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, + . + + [RFC5127] Chan, K., Babiarz, J., and F. Baker, "Aggregation of + Diffserv Service Classes", RFC 5127, DOI 10.17487/RFC5127, + February 2008, . + [RFC7561] Kaippallimalil, J., Pazhyannur, R., and P. Yegani, "Mapping Quality of Service (QoS) Procedures of Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) and WLAN", RFC 7561, DOI 10.17487/RFC7561, June 2015, - . + . + + [RFC8100] Geib, R., Ed. and D. Black, "Diffserv-Interconnection + Classes and Practice", RFC 8100, DOI 10.17487/RFC8100, + March 2017, . Appendix A. Change Log Initial Version: July 2015 Authors' Addresses Tim Szigeti Cisco Systems Vancouver, British Columbia V6K 3L4