draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-10.txt   draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-11.txt 
Internet Engineering Task Force Georgios Karagiannis Internet Engineering Task Force Georgios Karagiannis
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Experimental Anurag Bhargava Intended status: Experimental Anurag Bhargava
Expires: March 14, 2015 Cisco Systems, Inc. Expires: April 6, 2015 Cisco Systems, Inc.
September 14, 2014 October 6, 2014
Generic Aggregation of Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) Generic Aggregation of Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)
for IPv4 And IPv6 Reservations over PCN domains for IPv4 And IPv6 Reservations over PCN domains
draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-10 draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-11
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies extensions to Generic Aggregated RSVP This document specifies extensions to Generic Aggregated RSVP
RFC 4860 for support of the PCN Controlled Load (CL) and Single RFC 4860 for support of the PCN Controlled Load (CL) and Single
Marking (SM) edge behaviors over a Diffserv cloud using Pre- Marking (SM) edge behaviors over a Diffserv cloud using Pre-
Congestion Notification. Congestion Notification.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 34 skipping to change at page 1, line 34
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 14, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 6, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 46 skipping to change at page 2, line 46
2.3. Traffic Classification Within The Aggregation Region . . . . . . 13 2.3. Traffic Classification Within The Aggregation Region . . . . . . 13
2.4. Deaggregator (PCN-egress-node) Determination . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.4. Deaggregator (PCN-egress-node) Determination . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.5. Mapping E2E Reservations Onto Aggregate Reservations . . . . . . 13 2.5. Mapping E2E Reservations Onto Aggregate Reservations . . . . . . 13
2.6 Size of Aggregate Reservations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.6 Size of Aggregate Reservations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.7. E2E Path ADSPEC update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.7. E2E Path ADSPEC update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.8. Intra-domain Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 2.8. Intra-domain Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
2.9. Inter-domain Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.9. Inter-domain Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.10. Reservations for Multicast Sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.10. Reservations for Multicast Sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.11. Multi-level Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.11. Multi-level Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.12. Reliability Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.12. Reliability Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.13. Message Integrity and Node Authentication . . . . . . . . . . 15
3. Elements of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3. Elements of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.1. Receipt of E2E Path Message by PCN-ingress-node 3.1. Receipt of E2E Path Message by PCN-ingress-node
(aggregating router) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 (aggregating router) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2. Handling Of E2E Path Message by Interior Routers . . . . . . . 16 3.2. Handling Of E2E Path Message by Interior Routers . . . . . . . 16
3.3. Receipt of E2E Path Message by PCN-egress-node 3.3. Receipt of E2E Path Message by PCN-egress-node
(deaggregating router) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 (deaggregating router) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.4. Initiation of new Aggregate Path Message By PCN-ingress-node 3.4. Initiation of new Aggregate Path Message By PCN-ingress-node
(Aggregating Router) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 (Aggregating Router) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.5. Handling Of new Aggregate Path Message by Interior Routers . . 16 3.5. Handling Of new Aggregate Path Message by Interior Routers . . 16
3.6 Handling Of Aggregate Path Message by Deaggregating Router . . 16 3.6 Handling Of Aggregate Path Message by Deaggregating Router . . 16
skipping to change at page 5, line 6 skipping to change at page 5, line 6
This draft is intended to be published as Experimental in order to: This draft is intended to be published as Experimental in order to:
o) validate industry interest by allowing implementation and o) validate industry interest by allowing implementation and
deployment deployment
o) gather operational experience, in particular around dynamic o) gather operational experience, in particular around dynamic
interactions of RSVP signaling and PCN notification and interactions of RSVP signaling and PCN notification and
corresponding levels of performance. 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 1.2 Overview and Motivation
Two main Quality of Service (QoS) architectures have been specified Two main Quality of Service (QoS) architectures have been specified
by the IETF. These are the Integrated Services (Intserv) [RFC1633] by the IETF. These are the Integrated Services (Intserv) [RFC1633]
architecture and the Differentiated Services (DiffServ) architecture architecture and the Differentiated Services (DiffServ) architecture
([RFC2475]). ([RFC2475]).
Intserv provides methods for the delivery of end-to-end Quality of Intserv provides methods for the delivery of end-to-end Quality of
Service (QoS) to applications over heterogeneous networks. One of the Service (QoS) to applications over heterogeneous networks. One of the
QoS signaling protocols used by the Intserv architecture is the QoS signaling protocols used by the Intserv architecture is the
skipping to change at page 11, line 46 skipping to change at page 11, line 49
The PCN-boundary-nodes, see Figure 1, can support RSVP SESSIONS for The PCN-boundary-nodes, see Figure 1, can support RSVP SESSIONS for
generic aggregated reservations {RFC4860], which are depending on generic aggregated reservations {RFC4860], which are depending on
ingress-egress-aggregates. In particular, one RSVP generic aggregated ingress-egress-aggregates. In particular, one RSVP generic aggregated
reservation matches to only one ingress-egress-aggregate. reservation matches to only one ingress-egress-aggregate.
However, one ingress-egress-aggregate matches to either However, one ingress-egress-aggregate matches to either
one, or more than one, RSVP generic aggregated reservations. one, or more than one, RSVP generic aggregated reservations.
In addition, to comply with this specification, the PCN-boundary In addition, to comply with this specification, the PCN-boundary
nodes need to distinguish and process (1) RSVP SESSIONS for generic nodes need to distinguish and process (1) RSVP SESSIONS for generic
aggregated sessions and their messages according to [RFC4860], (2) aggregated sessions and their messages according to [RFC4860], (2)
E2E RSVP sessions and messages according to [RFC2205]. Furthermore, E2E RSVP sessions and messages according to [RFC2205].
it is considered that by configuration the PCN-interior-nodes do not
intercept (nor process) RSVP messages associated with generic This document locates all RSVP processing for a PCN domain at PCN-
aggregated reservation [RFC4860], or with end to end RSVP Boundary nodes. PCN-interior-nodes do not perform any RSVP
reservations [RFC2205]. Moreover, each Aggregator and Deaggregator functionality or maintain RSVP-related state information. Rather,
(i.e., PCN-boundary-nodes) need to support policies to initiate and PCN-interior nodes forward all RSVP messages (for both generic
maintain for each pair of PCN-boundary-nodes of the same PCN-domain aggregated reservations[RFC4860] and end to end reservations
one ingress-egress-aggregate. [RFC2205]) as if they were ordinary network traffic.
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 \ / PCN-domain \
|----| | | |----| |----| | | |----|
H--| R |\ |-----| |------| /| R |-->H H--| R |\ |-----| |------| /| R |-->H
H--| |\\| | |---| |---| | |//| |-->H H--| |\\| | |---| |---| | |//| |-->H
|----| \| | | I | | I | | |/ |----| |----| \| | | I | | I | | |/ |----|
| Agg |======================>| Deag | | Agg |======================>| Deag |
/| | | | | | | |\ /| | | | | | | |\
H--------//| | |---| |---| | |\\-------->H H--------//| | |---| |---| | |\\-------->H
skipping to change at page 15, line 31 skipping to change at page 15, line 36
aggregation procedures. However, the Aggregator and Deaggregator aggregation procedures. However, the Aggregator and Deaggregator
SHOULD support the multi-level aggregation procedures specified in SHOULD support the multi-level aggregation procedures specified in
[RFC4860] and in Section 1.4.9 of [RFC3175]. [RFC4860] and in Section 1.4.9 of [RFC3175].
2.12. Reliability Issues 2.12. Reliability Issues
To comply with this specification, for solving possible reliability To comply with this specification, for solving possible reliability
issues, the same methods MUST used as the ones described in Section 4 issues, the same methods MUST used as the ones described in Section 4
of [RFC4860]. of [RFC4860].
2.13. Message Integrity and Node Authentication
To comply with this specification, for message integrity and node
authentication, the same methods MUST be used as the ones described
in Section 4 of [RFC4860] and [RFC5559].
3. Elements of Procedure 3. Elements of Procedure
This section describes the procedures used to implement the This section describes the procedures used to implement the
aggregated RSVP procedure over PCN. It is considered that the aggregated RSVP procedure over PCN. It is considered that the
procedures for aggregation of E2E reservations over generic aggregate procedures for aggregation of E2E reservations over generic aggregate
RSVP reservations are same as the procedures specified in Section RSVP reservations are same as the procedures specified in Section
4 of [RFC4860] except where a departure from these procedures is 4 of [RFC4860] except where a departure from these procedures is
explicitly described in the present section. Please refer to explicitly described in the present section. Please refer to
[RFC4860] for all the below error [RFC4860] for all the below error
cases: cases:
skipping to change at page 23, line 37 skipping to change at page 23, line 37
o PCN-sent-rate: the PCN-sent-rate for the given o PCN-sent-rate: the PCN-sent-rate for the given
ingress-egress-aggregate. It is expressed in octets/second; its ingress-egress-aggregate. It is expressed in octets/second; its
format is a 32-bit IEEE floating point number; The PCN-sent-rate format is a 32-bit IEEE floating point number; The PCN-sent-rate
is specified in [RFC6661] and [RFC6662] and it represents the is specified in [RFC6661] and [RFC6662] and it represents the
estimate of the rate at which the PCN-ingress-node (Aggregator) estimate of the rate at which the PCN-ingress-node (Aggregator)
is receiving PCN-traffic that is destined for the given is receiving PCN-traffic that is destined for the given
ingress-egress-aggregate. ingress-egress-aggregate.
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
The same security considerations specified in [RFC2205], [RFC4230], The security considerations specified in [RFC2205], [RFC4860] and
[RFC4860], [RFC5559] and [RFC6411]. [RFC5559] apply to this document. In addition, [RFC4230] and
In particular, the security considerations within the PCN domain come [RFC6411] provide useful guidance on RSVP security mechanisms.
from the Trust Assumption Section 6.3.1, of [RFC5559] i.e., that all
PCN-nodes are PCN-enabled and are trusted for truthful PCN-metering Security within a PCN domain is fundamentally based on the controlled
and PCN-marking. 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 In the PCN domain environments addressed by this document, Generic
Aggregate Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)messages specified in Aggregate Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) messages specified in
[RFC4860] are used for support of the PCN Controlled Load (CL) and [RFC4860] are used for support of the PCN Controlled Load (CL) and
Single Marking (SM) edge behaviors over a Diffserv cloud using Pre- Single Marking (SM) edge behaviors over a Diffserv cloud using Pre-
Congestion Notification. Similar, to [RFC4860], [RFC2747] and Congestion Notification. Hence the security mechanisms discussed
[RFC3097] may be used to protect RSVP message integrity hop- in [RFC4860] are applicable. Specifically, the INTEGRITY object
by hop and provide node authentication as well as replay protection, [RFC2747][RFC3097] can be used to provide hop-by-hop RSVP message
thereby protecting against corruption and spoofing of RSVP messages integrity, node authentication and replay protection, thereby
and PCN feedback. protecting against corruption and spoofing of RSVP messages and
PCN feedback conveyed by RSVP messages.
Based on these assumptions, it is considered that this document is For these reasons, this document does not introduce significant
NOT introducing any additional security concerns/issues compared to additional security considerations beyond those discussed in
[RFC5559] and/or [RFC4860].
[RFC5559] and [RFC4860].
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
IANA has modified the RSVP parameters registry, 'Class Names, IANA has modified the RSVP parameters registry, 'Class Names,
Class Numbers, and Class Types' subregistry, to add a new Class Numbers, and Class Types' subregistry, to add a new
Class Number and assign 4 new C-Types under this new Class Class Number and assign 4 new C-Types under this new Class
Number, as described below, see Section 4.1: Number, as described below, see Section 4.1:
Class Class
Number Class Name Reference Number Class Name Reference
skipping to change at page 25, line 27 skipping to change at page 25, line 30
Protocol (RSVP) Extension for the Reduction of Protocol (RSVP) Extension for the Reduction of
Bandwidth of a Reservation Flow", RFC 4495, May 2006. Bandwidth of a Reservation Flow", RFC 4495, May 2006.
[RFC4860] F. Le Faucheur, B. Davie, P. Bose, C. Christou, M. [RFC4860] F. Le Faucheur, B. Davie, P. Bose, C. Christou, M.
Davenport, "Generic Aggregate Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) Davenport, "Generic Aggregate Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)
Reservations", RFC4860, May 2007. Reservations", RFC4860, May 2007.
[RFC5670] Eardley, P., "Metering and Marking Behaviour of PCN-Nodes", [RFC5670] Eardley, P., "Metering and Marking Behaviour of PCN-Nodes",
RFC 5670, November 2009. RFC 5670, November 2009.
[RFC6660] Moncaster, T., Briscoe, B., and M. Menth, "Baseline [RFC6660] Moncaster, T., Briscoe, B., and M. Menth, "Baseline
Encoding and Transport of Pre-Congestion Information", RFC 6660, Encoding and Transport of Pre-Congestion Information", RFC 6660,
July 2012. July 2012.
9. Informative References 9. Informative References
[draft-lefaucheur-rsvp-ecn-01.txt] Le Faucheur, F., Charny, A., [draft-lefaucheur-rsvp-ecn-01.txt] Le Faucheur, F., Charny, A.,
Briscoe, B., Eardley, P., Chan, K., and J. Babiarz, "RSVP Extensions Briscoe, B., Eardley, P., Chan, K., and J. Babiarz, "RSVP Extensions
for Admission Control over Diffserv using Pre-congestion for Admission Control over Diffserv using Pre-congestion
Notification (PCN) (Work in progress)", June 2006. Notification (PCN) (Work in progress)", June 2006.
 End of changes. 12 change blocks. 
35 lines changed or deleted 41 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/