draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-17.txt   draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-18.txt 
Network Working Group P. Jones Network Working Group P. Jones
Internet-Draft S. Dhesikan Internet-Draft S. Dhesikan
Intended status: Standards Track C. Jennings Intended status: Standards Track C. Jennings
Expires: November 21, 2016 Cisco Systems Expires: February 20, 2017 Cisco Systems
D. Druta D. Druta
AT&T AT&T
May 20, 2016 August 19, 2016
DSCP Packet Markings for WebRTC QoS DSCP Packet Markings for WebRTC QoS
draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-17 draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-18
Abstract Abstract
Many networks, such as service provider and enterprise networks, can Many networks, such as service provider and enterprise networks, can
provide different forwarding treatments for individual packets based provide different forwarding treatments for individual packets based
on Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) values on a per-hop on Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) values on a per-hop
basis. This document provides the recommended DSCP values for web basis. This document provides the recommended DSCP values for web
browsers to use for various classes of WebRTC traffic. browsers to use for various classes of WebRTC traffic.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 37 skipping to change at page 1, line 37
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 November 21, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 20, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 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 17 skipping to change at page 2, line 17
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Relation to Other Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Relation to Other Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. DSCP Mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. DSCP Mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Downward References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. Downward References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. Dedication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10. Dedication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 11. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) [RFC2474] packet marking Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) [RFC2474] packet marking
can help provide QoS in some environments. This specification can help provide QoS in some environments. This specification
skipping to change at page 5, line 26 skipping to change at page 5, line 26
and data flows. and data flows.
Currently in WebRTC, media sent over RTP is assumed to be interactive Currently in WebRTC, media sent over RTP is assumed to be interactive
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-transports] and browser APIs do not exist to allow [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-transports] and browser APIs do not exist to allow
an application to to differentiate between interactive and non- an application to to differentiate between interactive and non-
interactive video. interactive video.
5. DSCP Mappings 5. DSCP Mappings
The DSCP values for each flow type of interest to WebRTC based on The DSCP values for each flow type of interest to WebRTC based on
application priority are shown in the following table. These values application priority are shown in Table 1. These values are based on
are based on the framework and recommended values in [RFC4594]. A the framework and recommended values in [RFC4594]. A web browser
web browser SHOULD use these values to mark the appropriate media SHOULD use these values to mark the appropriate media packets. More
packets. More information on EF can be found in [RFC3246]. More information on EF can be found in [RFC3246]. More information on AF
information on AF can be found in [RFC2597]. DF is default can be found in [RFC2597]. DF is default forwarding which provides
forwarding which provides the basic best effort service [RFC2474]. the basic best effort service [RFC2474].
WebRTC use of multiple DSCP values may encounter network blocking of
packets with certain DSCP values. See section 4.2 of
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-transports] for further discussion, including how
WebRTC implementations establish and maintain connectivity when such
blocking is encountered.
+------------------------+-------+------+-------------+-------------+ +------------------------+-------+------+-------------+-------------+
| Flow Type | Very | Low | Medium | High | | Flow Type | Very | Low | Medium | High |
| | Low | | | | | | Low | | | |
+------------------------+-------+------+-------------+-------------+ +------------------------+-------+------+-------------+-------------+
| Audio | CS1 | DF | EF (46) | EF (46) | | Audio | CS1 | DF | EF (46) | EF (46) |
| | (8) | (0) | | | | | (8) | (0) | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| Interactive Video with | CS1 | DF | AF42, AF43 | AF41, AF42 | | Interactive Video with | CS1 | DF | AF42, AF43 | AF41, AF42 |
| or without Audio | (8) | (0) | (36, 38) | (34, 36) | | or without Audio | (8) | (0) | (36, 38) | (34, 36) |
skipping to change at page 7, line 43 skipping to change at page 8, line 14
For the data channel traffic multiplexed over an SCTP association, it For the data channel traffic multiplexed over an SCTP association, it
is RECOMMENDED that the DSCP value selected be the one associated is RECOMMENDED that the DSCP value selected be the one associated
with the highest priority requested for all data channels multiplexed with the highest priority requested for all data channels multiplexed
over the SCTP association. Likewise, when multiplexing multiple over the SCTP association. Likewise, when multiplexing multiple
flows over a TCP connection, the DCSP value selected should be the flows over a TCP connection, the DCSP value selected should be the
one associated with the highest priority requested for all one associated with the highest priority requested for all
multiplexed flows. multiplexed flows.
If a packet enters a network that has no support for a flow type- If a packet enters a network that has no support for a flow type-
application priority combination specified in Table 1 (above), then application priority combination specified in Table 1, then the
the network node at the edge will remark the DSCP value based on network node at the edge will remark the DSCP value based on
policies. This could result in the flow not getting the network policies. This could result in the flow not getting the network
treatment it expects based on the original DSCP value in the packet. treatment it expects based on the original DSCP value in the packet.
Subsequently, if the packet enters a network that supports a larger Subsequently, if the packet enters a network that supports a larger
number of these combinations, there may not be sufficient information number of these combinations, there may not be sufficient information
in the packet to restore the original markings. Mechanisms for in the packet to restore the original markings. Mechanisms for
restoring such original DSCP is outside the scope of this document. restoring such original DSCP is outside the scope of this document.
In summary, DSCP marking provides neither guarantees nor promised In summary, DSCP marking provides neither guarantees nor promised
levels of service. However, DSCP marking is expected to provide a levels of service. However, DSCP marking is expected to provide a
statistical improvement in real-time service as a whole. The service statistical improvement in real-time service as a whole. The service
skipping to change at page 9, line 26 skipping to change at page 9, line 47
12. References 12. References
12.1. Normative References 12.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel] [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel]
Jesup, R., Loreto, S., and M. Tuexen, "WebRTC Data Jesup, R., Loreto, S., and M. Tuexen, "WebRTC Data
Channels", draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-13 (work in Channels", draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-13 (work in
progress), January 2015. progress), January 2015.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage] [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage]
Perkins, C., Westerlund, M., and J. Ott, "Web Real-Time Perkins, D., Westerlund, M., and J. Ott, "Web Real-Time
Communication (WebRTC): Media Transport and Use of RTP", Communication (WebRTC): Media Transport and Use of RTP",
draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-26 (work in progress), March draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-26 (work in progress), March
2016. 2016.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security] [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security]
Rescorla, E., "Security Considerations for WebRTC", draft- Rescorla, E., "Security Considerations for WebRTC", draft-
ietf-rtcweb-security-08 (work in progress), February 2015. ietf-rtcweb-security-08 (work in progress), February 2015.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-transports] [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-transports]
Alvestrand, H., "Transports for WebRTC", draft-ietf- Alvestrand, H., "Transports for WebRTC", draft-ietf-
rtcweb-transports-12 (work in progress), March 2016. rtcweb-transports-15 (work in progress), August 2016.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/ Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/
RFC2119, March 1997, RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4594] Babiarz, J., Chan, K., and F. Baker, "Configuration [RFC4594] Babiarz, J., Chan, K., and F. Baker, "Configuration
Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes", RFC 4594, DOI Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes", RFC 4594, DOI
10.17487/RFC4594, August 2006, 10.17487/RFC4594, August 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4594>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4594>.
skipping to change at page 10, line 22 skipping to change at page 10, line 40
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7742>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7742>.
12.2. Informative References 12.2. Informative References
[G.1010] International Telecommunications Union, "End-user [G.1010] International Telecommunications Union, "End-user
multimedia QoS categories", Recommendation ITU-T G.1010, multimedia QoS categories", Recommendation ITU-T G.1010,
November 2001. November 2001.
[I-D.ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc] [I-D.ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc]
Islam, S., Welzl, M., and S. Gjessing, "Coupled congestion Islam, S., Welzl, M., and S. Gjessing, "Coupled congestion
control for RTP media", draft-ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc-02 control for RTP media", draft-ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc-03
(work in progress), April 2016. (work in progress), July 2016.
[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black, [RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, DOI Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, DOI
10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998, 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.
[RFC2597] Heinanen, J., Baker, F., Weiss, W., and J. Wroclawski, [RFC2597] Heinanen, J., Baker, F., Weiss, W., and J. Wroclawski,
"Assured Forwarding PHB Group", RFC 2597, DOI 10.17487/ "Assured Forwarding PHB Group", RFC 2597, DOI 10.17487/
RFC2597, June 1999, RFC2597, June 1999,
 End of changes. 10 change blocks. 
19 lines changed or deleted 25 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/