| < draft-ietf-issll-diffserv-rsvp-04.txt | draft-ietf-issll-diffserv-rsvp-05.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Y. Bernet, Microsoft | Y. Bernet, Microsoft | |||
| R. Yavatkar, Intel | R. Yavatkar, Intel | |||
| P. Ford, Microsoft | P. Ford, Microsoft | |||
| F. Baker, Cisco | F. Baker, Cisco | |||
| L. Zhang, UCLA | L. Zhang, UCLA | |||
| M. Speer, Sun Microsystems | M. Speer, Sun Microsystems | |||
| R. Braden, ISI | R. Braden, ISI | |||
| B. Davie, Cisco | B. Davie, Cisco | |||
| John Wroclawski, MIT LCS | J. Wroclawski, MIT LCS | |||
| E. Felstaine, Allot Communications | E. Felstaine, Technion | |||
| Internet Draft | Internet Draft | |||
| Expires: September, 2000 | Expires: November, 2000 | |||
| Document: draft-ietf-issll-diffserv-rsvp-04.txt March, 2000 | Document: draft-ietf-issll-diffserv-rsvp-05.txt May, 2000 | |||
| A Framework For Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks | A Framework For Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks | |||
| Status of this Memo | Status of this Memo | |||
| This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with | This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with | |||
| all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are | all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are | |||
| Working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its | Working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its | |||
| areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also | areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also | |||
| distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. | distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. | |||
| skipping to change at line 53 ¶ | skipping to change at line 53 ¶ | |||
| The Integrated Services architecture provides a means for the | The Integrated Services architecture provides a means for the | |||
| delivery of end-to-end QoS to applications over heterogeneous | delivery of end-to-end QoS to applications over heterogeneous | |||
| networks. To support this end-to-end model, the Intserv architecture | networks. To support this end-to-end model, the Intserv architecture | |||
| must be supported over a wide variety of different types of network | must be supported over a wide variety of different types of network | |||
| elements. In this context, a network that supports Differentiated | elements. In this context, a network that supports Differentiated | |||
| Services (Diffserv) may be viewed as a network element in the total | Services (Diffserv) may be viewed as a network element in the total | |||
| end-to-end path. This document describes a framework by which | end-to-end path. This document describes a framework by which | |||
| Integrated Services may be supported over Diffserv networks. | Integrated Services may be supported over Diffserv networks. | |||
| Bernet, ed. et al. 1 | Bernet, ed. et al. 1 | |||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks May, 2000 | ||||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks March, 2000 | ||||
| 2. Introduction | 2. Introduction | |||
| Work on QoS-enabled IP networks has led to two distinct approaches: | Work on QoS-enabled IP networks has led to two distinct approaches: | |||
| the Integrated Services architecture (Intserv)[10] and its | the Integrated Services architecture (Intserv)[10] and its | |||
| accompanying signaling protocol, RSVP [1], and the Differentiated | accompanying signaling protocol, RSVP [1], and the Differentiated | |||
| Services architecture (Diffserv)[8]. This document describes ways in | Services architecture (Diffserv)[8]. This document describes ways in | |||
| which a Diffserv network can be used in the context of the Intserv | which a Diffserv network can be used in the context of the Intserv | |||
| architecture to support the delivery of end-to-end QOS. | architecture to support the delivery of end-to-end QOS. | |||
| skipping to change at line 86 ¶ | skipping to change at line 85 ¶ | |||
| mechanism, the Intserv architecture is designed to accommodate other | mechanism, the Intserv architecture is designed to accommodate other | |||
| mechanisms. | mechanisms. | |||
| Intserv services are implemented by "network elements". While it is | Intserv services are implemented by "network elements". While it is | |||
| common for network elements to be individual nodes such as routers | common for network elements to be individual nodes such as routers | |||
| or links, more complex entities, such as ATM "clouds" or 802.3 | or links, more complex entities, such as ATM "clouds" or 802.3 | |||
| networks may also function as network elements. As discussed in more | networks may also function as network elements. As discussed in more | |||
| detail below, a Diffserv network (or "cloud") may be viewed as a | detail below, a Diffserv network (or "cloud") may be viewed as a | |||
| network element within a larger Intserv network. | network element within a larger Intserv network. | |||
| 2.3 RSVP | 2.2 RSVP | |||
| RSVP is a signaling protocol that applications may use to request | RSVP is a signaling protocol that applications may use to request | |||
| resources from the network. The network responds by explicitly | resources from the network. The network responds by explicitly | |||
| admitting or rejecting RSVP requests. Certain applications that have | admitting or rejecting RSVP requests. Certain applications that have | |||
| quantifiable resource requirements express these requirements using | quantifiable resource requirements express these requirements using | |||
| Intserv parameters as defined in the appropriate Intserv service | Intserv parameters as defined in the appropriate Intserv service | |||
| specification. As noted above, RSVP and Intserv are separable. RSVP | specification. As noted above, RSVP and Intserv are separable. RSVP | |||
| is a signaling protocol which may carry Intserv information. Intserv | is a signaling protocol which may carry Intserv information. Intserv | |||
| defines the models for expressing service types, quantifying | defines the models for expressing service types, quantifying | |||
| resource requirements and for determining the availability of the | resource requirements and for determining the availability of the | |||
| skipping to change at line 109 ¶ | skipping to change at line 108 ¶ | |||
| The current prevailing model of RSVP usage is based on a combined | The current prevailing model of RSVP usage is based on a combined | |||
| RSVP/Intserv architecture. In this model, RSVP signals per-flow | RSVP/Intserv architecture. In this model, RSVP signals per-flow | |||
| resource requirements to network elements, using Intserv parameters. | resource requirements to network elements, using Intserv parameters. | |||
| These network elements apply Intserv admission control to signaled | These network elements apply Intserv admission control to signaled | |||
| requests. In addition, traffic control mechanisms on the network | requests. In addition, traffic control mechanisms on the network | |||
| element are configured to ensure that each admitted flow receives | element are configured to ensure that each admitted flow receives | |||
| the service requested in strict isolation from other traffic. To | the service requested in strict isolation from other traffic. To | |||
| Bernet, ed. et al. 2 | Bernet, ed. et al. 2 | |||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks May, 2000 | ||||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks March, 2000 | ||||
| this end, RSVP signaling configures microflow (MF) [8] packet | this end, RSVP signaling configures microflow (MF) [8] packet | |||
| classifiers in Intserv capable routers along the path of the traffic | classifiers in Intserv capable routers along the path of the traffic | |||
| flow. These classifiers enable per-flow classification of packets | flow. These classifiers enable per-flow classification of packets | |||
| based on IP addresses and port numbers. | based on IP addresses and port numbers. | |||
| The following factors have impeded deployment of RSVP (and the | The following factors have impeded deployment of RSVP (and the | |||
| Intserv architecture) in the Internet at large: | Intserv architecture) in the Internet at large: | |||
| 1. The use of per-flow state and per-flow processing raises | 1. The use of per-flow state and per-flow processing raises | |||
| scalability concerns for large networks. | scalability concerns for large networks. | |||
| 2. Only a small number of hosts currently generate RSVP signaling. | 2. Only a small number of hosts currently generate RSVP signaling. | |||
| While this number is expected to grow dramatically, many | While this number is expected to grow dramatically, many | |||
| applications may never generate RSVP signaling. | applications may never generate RSVP signaling. | |||
| 3. The necessary policy control mechanisms -- access control, | 3. The necessary policy control mechanisms -- access control, | |||
| authentication, and accounting -- have only recently become | authentication, and accounting -- have only recently become | |||
| available [17]. | available [17]. | |||
| 2.4 Diffserv | 2.3 Diffserv | |||
| In contrast to the per-flow orientation of RSVP, Diffserv networks | In contrast to the per-flow orientation of RSVP, Diffserv networks | |||
| classify packets into one of a small number of aggregated flows or | classify packets into one of a small number of aggregated flows or | |||
| "classes", based on the Diffserv codepoint (DSCP) in the packet's IP | "classes", based on the Diffserv codepoint (DSCP) in the packet's IP | |||
| header. This is known as behavior aggregate (BA) classification | header. This is known as behavior aggregate (BA) classification | |||
| [8]. At each Diffserv router, packets are subjected to a "per-hop | [8]. At each Diffserv router, packets are subjected to a "per-hop | |||
| behavior" (PHB), which is invoked by the DSCP. The primary benefit | behavior" (PHB), which is invoked by the DSCP. The primary benefit | |||
| of Diffserv is its scalability. Diffserv eliminates the need for | of Diffserv is its scalability. Diffserv eliminates the need for | |||
| per-flow state and per-flow processing and therefore scales well to | per-flow state and per-flow processing and therefore scales well to | |||
| large networks. | large networks. | |||
| 2.5 Roles of Intserv, RSVP and Diffserv | 2.4 Roles of Intserv, RSVP and Diffserv | |||
| We view Intserv, RSVP and Diffserv as complementary technologies in | We view Intserv, RSVP and Diffserv as complementary technologies in | |||
| the pursuit of end-to-end QoS. Together, these mechanisms can | the pursuit of end-to-end QoS. Together, these mechanisms can | |||
| facilitate deployment of applications such as IP-telephony, video- | facilitate deployment of applications such as IP-telephony, video- | |||
| on-demand, and various non-multimedia mission-critical applications. | on-demand, and various non-multimedia mission-critical applications. | |||
| Intserv enables hosts to request per-flow, quantifiable resources, | Intserv enables hosts to request per-flow, quantifiable resources, | |||
| along end-to-end data paths and to obtain feedback regarding | along end-to-end data paths and to obtain feedback regarding | |||
| admissibility of these requests. Diffserv enables scalability across | admissibility of these requests. Diffserv enables scalability across | |||
| large networks. | large networks. | |||
| 2.6 Components of Intserv, RSVP and Diffserv | 2.5 Components of Intserv, RSVP and Diffserv | |||
| Before proceeding, it is helpful to identify the following | Before proceeding, it is helpful to identify the following | |||
| components of the QoS technologies described: | components of the QoS technologies described: | |||
| RSVP signaling - This term refers to the standard RSVP signaling | RSVP signaling - This term refers to the standard RSVP signaling | |||
| protocol. RSVP signaling is used by hosts to signal application | protocol. RSVP signaling is used by hosts to signal application | |||
| resource requirements to the network (and to each other). Network | resource requirements to the network (and to each other). Network | |||
| elements use RSVP signaling to return an admission control decision | elements use RSVP signaling to return an admission control decision | |||
| to hosts. RSVP signaling may or may not carry Intserv parameters. | to hosts. RSVP signaling may or may not carry Intserv parameters. | |||
| Bernet, ed. et al. 3 | Bernet, ed. et al. 3 | |||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks May, 2000 | ||||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks March, 2000 | ||||
| Admission control at a network element may or may not be based on | Admission control at a network element may or may not be based on | |||
| the Intserv model. | the Intserv model. | |||
| MF traffic control - This term refers to traffic control which is | MF traffic control - This term refers to traffic control which is | |||
| applied independently to individual traffic flows and therefore | applied independently to individual traffic flows and therefore | |||
| requires recognizing individual traffic flows via MF classification. | requires recognizing individual traffic flows via MF classification. | |||
| Aggregate traffic control - This term refers to traffic control | Aggregate traffic control - This term refers to traffic control | |||
| which is applied collectively to sets of traffic flows. These sets | which is applied collectively to sets of traffic flows. These sets | |||
| skipping to change at line 216 ¶ | skipping to change at line 213 ¶ | |||
| Note that, for the purposes of this document, the defining features | Note that, for the purposes of this document, the defining features | |||
| of a Diffserv region is the type of classification and traffic | of a Diffserv region is the type of classification and traffic | |||
| control that is used for the delivery of end-to-end QOS for a | control that is used for the delivery of end-to-end QOS for a | |||
| particular application. Thus, while it may not be possible to | particular application. Thus, while it may not be possible to | |||
| identify a certain region as "purely Diffserv" with respect to all | identify a certain region as "purely Diffserv" with respect to all | |||
| traffic flowing through the region, it is possible to define it in | traffic flowing through the region, it is possible to define it in | |||
| this way from the perspective of the treatment of traffic from a | this way from the perspective of the treatment of traffic from a | |||
| single application. | single application. | |||
| 2.7 The Framework | 2.6 The Framework | |||
| In the framework we present, end-to-end, quantitative QoS is | In the framework we present, end-to-end, quantitative QoS is | |||
| provided by applying the Intserv model end-to-end across a network | provided by applying the Intserv model end-to-end across a network | |||
| Bernet, ed. et al. 4 | Bernet, ed. et al. 4 | |||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks May, 2000 | ||||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks March, 2000 | ||||
| containing one or more Diffserv regions. The Diffserv regions may, | containing one or more Diffserv regions. The Diffserv regions may, | |||
| but are not required to, participate in end-to-end RSVP signaling | but are not required to, participate in end-to-end RSVP signaling | |||
| for the purpose of optimizing resource allocation and supporting | for the purpose of optimizing resource allocation and supporting | |||
| admission control. | admission control. | |||
| From the perspective of Intserv, Diffserv regions of the network are | From the perspective of Intserv, Diffserv regions of the network are | |||
| treated as virtual links connecting Intserv capable routers or hosts | treated as virtual links connecting Intserv capable routers or hosts | |||
| (much as an 802.1p network region is treated as a virtual link in | (much as an 802.1p network region is treated as a virtual link in | |||
| [5]). Within the Diffserv regions of the network routers implement | [5]). Within the Diffserv regions of the network routers implement | |||
| skipping to change at line 248 ¶ | skipping to change at line 244 ¶ | |||
| support the Intserv style services requested from the periphery. | support the Intserv style services requested from the periphery. | |||
| In our framework, we address the support of end-to-end Integrated | In our framework, we address the support of end-to-end Integrated | |||
| Services over the Diffserv regions of the network. Our goal is to | Services over the Diffserv regions of the network. Our goal is to | |||
| enable seamless inter-operation. As a result, the network | enable seamless inter-operation. As a result, the network | |||
| administrator is free to choose which regions of the network act as | administrator is free to choose which regions of the network act as | |||
| Diffserv regions. In one extreme the Diffserv region is pushed all | Diffserv regions. In one extreme the Diffserv region is pushed all | |||
| the way to the periphery, with hosts alone having full Intserv | the way to the periphery, with hosts alone having full Intserv | |||
| capability. In the other extreme, Intserv is pushed all the way to | capability. In the other extreme, Intserv is pushed all the way to | |||
| the core, with no Diffserv region. | the core, with no Diffserv region. | |||
| 2.8 Contents | 2.7 Contents | |||
| In section 3 we discuss the benefits that can be realized by using | In section 3 we discuss the benefits that can be realized by using | |||
| the aggregate traffic control provided by Diffserv network regions | the aggregate traffic control provided by Diffserv network regions | |||
| in the broader context of the Intserv architecture. In section 4, we | in the broader context of the Intserv architecture. In section 4, we | |||
| present the framework and the reference network. Section 5 details | present the framework and the reference network. Section 5 details | |||
| two possible realizations of the framework. Section 6 discusses the | two possible realizations of the framework. Section 6 discusses the | |||
| implications of the framework for Diffserv. Section 7 presents some | implications of the framework for Diffserv. Section 7 presents some | |||
| issues specific to multicast flows. | issues specific to multicast flows. | |||
| 3. Benefits of Using Intserv with Diffserv | 3. Benefits of Using Intserv with Diffserv | |||
| skipping to change at line 273 ¶ | skipping to change at line 269 ¶ | |||
| Note that this discussion is in the context of servicing | Note that this discussion is in the context of servicing | |||
| quantitative QoS applications specifically. By this we mean those | quantitative QoS applications specifically. By this we mean those | |||
| applications that are able to quantify their traffic and QoS | applications that are able to quantify their traffic and QoS | |||
| requirements. | requirements. | |||
| 3.1 Resource Based Admission Control | 3.1 Resource Based Admission Control | |||
| In Intserv networks, quantitative QoS applications use an explicit | In Intserv networks, quantitative QoS applications use an explicit | |||
| setup mechanism (e.g. RSVP) to request resources from the network. | setup mechanism (e.g. RSVP) to request resources from the network. | |||
| The network may accept or reject these requests in response. This is | The network may accept or reject these requests in response. This is | |||
| "explicit admission control". Explicit admission control helps to | "explicit admission control". Explicit and dynamic admission control | |||
| assure that network resources are optimally used. To further | helps to assure that network resources are optimally used. To | |||
| understand this issue, consider a Diffserv network region providing | further understand this issue, consider a Diffserv network region | |||
| only aggregate traffic control with no signaling. In the Diffserv | providing only aggregate traffic control with no signaling. In the | |||
| Bernet, ed. et al. 5 | Bernet, ed. et al. 5 | |||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks May, 2000 | ||||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks March, 2000 | Diffserv network region, admission control is applied in a | |||
| relatively static way by provisioning policing parameters at network | ||||
| network region, admission control is applied implicitly by | elements. For example, a network element at the ingress to a | |||
| provisioning policing parameters at network elements. For example, a | Diffserv network region could be provisioned to accept only 50 Kbps | |||
| network element at the ingress to a Diffserv network region could be | of traffic for the EF DSCP. | |||
| provisioned to accept only 50 Kbps of traffic for the EF DSCP. | ||||
| While such implicit admission control does protect the network to | While such static forms of admission control do protect the network | |||
| some degree, it can be quite ineffective. For example, consider that | to some degree, they can be quite ineffective. For example, consider | |||
| there may be 10 IP telephony sessions originating outside the | that there may be 10 IP telephony sessions originating outside the | |||
| Diffserv network region, each requiring 10 Kbps of EF service from | Diffserv network region, each requiring 10 Kbps of EF service from | |||
| the Diffserv network region. Since the network element protecting | the Diffserv network region. Since the network element protecting | |||
| the Diffserv network region is provisioned to accept only 50 Kbps of | the Diffserv network region is provisioned to accept only 50 Kbps of | |||
| traffic for the EF DSCP, it will discard half the offered traffic. | traffic for the EF DSCP, it will discard half the offered traffic. | |||
| This traffic will be discarded from the aggregation of traffic | This traffic will be discarded from the aggregation of traffic | |||
| marked EF, with no regard to the microflow from which it originated. | marked EF, with no regard to the microflow from which it originated. | |||
| As a result, it is likely that of the ten IP telephony sessions, | As a result, it is likely that of the ten IP telephony sessions, | |||
| none will obtain satisfactory service when in fact, there are | none will obtain satisfactory service when in fact, there are | |||
| sufficient resources available in the Diffserv network region to | sufficient resources available in the Diffserv network region to | |||
| satisfy five sessions. | satisfy five sessions. | |||
| In the case of explicit admission control, the network will signal | In the case of explicitly signalled, dynamic admission control, the | |||
| rejection in response to requests for resources that would exceed | network will signal rejection in response to requests for resources | |||
| the 50 Kbps limit. As a result, upstream network elements (including | that would exceed the 50 Kbps limit. As a result, upstream network | |||
| originating hosts) and applications will have the information they | elements (including originating hosts) and applications will have | |||
| require to take corrective action. The application might respond by | the information they require to take corrective action. The | |||
| refraining from transmitting, or by requesting admission for a | application might respond by refraining from transmitting, or by | |||
| lesser traffic profile. The host operating system might respond by | requesting admission for a lesser traffic profile. The host | |||
| marking the application's traffic for the DSCP that corresponds to | operating system might respond by marking the application's traffic | |||
| best-effort service. Upstream network elements might respond by re- | for the DSCP that corresponds to best-effort service. Upstream | |||
| marking packets on the rejected flow to a lower service level. In | network elements might respond by re-marking packets on the rejected | |||
| some cases, it may be possible to reroute traffic over alternate | flow to a lower service level. In some cases, it may be possible to | |||
| paths or even alternate networks (e.g. the PSTN for voice calls). In | reroute traffic over alternate paths or even alternate networks | |||
| any case, the integrity of those flows that were admitted would be | (e.g. the PSTN for voice calls). In any case, the integrity of those | |||
| preserved, at the expense of the flows that were not admitted. Thus, | flows that were admitted would be preserved, at the expense of the | |||
| by appointing an Intserv-conversant admission control agent for the | flows that were not admitted. Thus, by appointing an Intserv- | |||
| Diffserv region of the network it is possible to enhance the service | conversant admission control agent for the Diffserv region of the | |||
| that the network can provide to quantitative QoS applications. | network it is possible to enhance the service that the network can | |||
| provide to quantitative QoS applications. | ||||
| 3.2 Policy Based Admission Control | 3.2 Policy Based Admission Control | |||
| In network regions where RSVP is used, resource requests can be | In network regions where RSVP is used, resource requests can be | |||
| intercepted by RSVP-aware network elements and can be reviewed | intercepted by RSVP-aware network elements and can be reviewed | |||
| against policies stored in policy databases. These resource requests | against policies stored in policy databases. These resource requests | |||
| securely identify the user and the application for which the | securely identify the user and the application for which the | |||
| resources are requested. Consequently, the network element is able | resources are requested. Consequently, the network element is able | |||
| to consider per-user and/or per-application policy when deciding | to consider per-user and/or per-application policy when deciding | |||
| whether or not to admit a resource request. So, in addition to | whether or not to admit a resource request. So, in addition to | |||
| optimizing the use of resources in a Diffserv network region (as | optimizing the use of resources in a Diffserv network region (as | |||
| discussed in 3.1) RSVP conversant admission control agents can be | discussed in 3.1) RSVP conversant admission control agents can be | |||
| used to apply specific customer policies in determining the specific | used to apply specific customer policies in determining the specific | |||
| customer traffic flows entitled to use the Diffserv network region's | customer traffic flows entitled to use the Diffserv network region's | |||
| resources. Customer policies can be used to allocate resources to | ||||
| specific users and/or applications. | ||||
| Bernet, ed. et al. 6 | Bernet, ed. et al. 6 | |||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks May, 2000 | ||||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks March, 2000 | resources. Customer policies can be used to allocate resources to | |||
| specific users and/or applications. | ||||
| By comparison, in Diffserv network regions without RSVP signaling, | By comparison, in Diffserv network regions without RSVP signaling, | |||
| policies are typically applied based on the Diffserv customer | policies are typically applied based on the Diffserv customer | |||
| network from which traffic originates, not on the originating user | network from which traffic originates, not on the originating user | |||
| or application within the customer network. | or application within the customer network. | |||
| 3.3 Assistance in Traffic Identification/Classification | 3.3 Assistance in Traffic Identification/Classification | |||
| Within Diffserv network regions, traffic is allotted service based | Within Diffserv network regions, traffic is allotted service based | |||
| on the DSCP marked in each packet's IP header. Thus, in order to | on the DSCP marked in each packet's IP header. Thus, in order to | |||
| skipping to change at line 371 ¶ | skipping to change at line 368 ¶ | |||
| In the case of host marking, the host operating system marks the | In the case of host marking, the host operating system marks the | |||
| DSCP in transmitted packets. This approach has the benefit of | DSCP in transmitted packets. This approach has the benefit of | |||
| shifting per-flow classification and marking to the source of the | shifting per-flow classification and marking to the source of the | |||
| traffic, where it scales best. It also enables the host to make | traffic, where it scales best. It also enables the host to make | |||
| decisions regarding the mark that is appropriate for each | decisions regarding the mark that is appropriate for each | |||
| transmitted packet and hence the relative importance attached to | transmitted packet and hence the relative importance attached to | |||
| each packet. The host is generally better equipped to make this | each packet. The host is generally better equipped to make this | |||
| decision than the network. Furthermore, if IPSEC encryption is used, | decision than the network. Furthermore, if IPSEC encryption is used, | |||
| the host may be the only device in the network that is able to make | the host may be the only device in the network that is able to make | |||
| a meaningful determination of the appropriate marking for each | a meaningful determination of the appropriate marking for each | |||
| packet. | packet, since various fields such as port numbers would be | |||
| unavailable to routers for MF classification. | ||||
| Host marking requires that the host be aware of the interpretation | Host marking requires that the host be aware of the interpretation | |||
| of DSCPs by the network. This information can be configured into | of DSCPs by the network. This information can be configured into | |||
| each host. However, such configuration imposes a management burden. | each host. However, such configuration imposes a management burden. | |||
| Alternatively, hosts can use an explicit signaling protocol such as | Alternatively, hosts can use an explicit signaling protocol such as | |||
| RSVP to query the network to obtain a suitable DSCP or set of DSCPs | RSVP to query the network to obtain a suitable DSCP or set of DSCPs | |||
| to apply to packets for which a certain Intserv service has been | to apply to packets for which a certain Intserv service has been | |||
| requested. An example of how this can be achieved is described in | requested. An example of how this can be achieved is described in | |||
| [14]. | [14]. | |||
| 3.3.2 Router Marking | 3.3.2 Router Marking | |||
| In the case of router marking, MF classification criteria must be | In the case of router marking, MF classification criteria must be | |||
| configured in the router. This may be done dynamically, by request | configured in the router in some way. This may be done dynamically | |||
| from the host operating system, or statically via manual | (e.g., using COPS provisioning), by request from the host operating | |||
| configuration or via automated scripts. | ||||
| Bernet, ed. et al. 7 | Bernet, ed. et al. 7 | |||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks May, 2000 | ||||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks March, 2000 | system, or statically via manual configuration or via automated | |||
| scripts. | ||||
| There are significant difficulties in doing so statically. | There are significant difficulties in doing so statically. In many | |||
| Typically, it is desirable to allot service to traffic based on the | cases, it is desirable to allot service to traffic based on the | |||
| application and/or user originating the traffic. At times it is | application and/or user originating the traffic. At times it is | |||
| possible to identify packets associated with a specific application | possible to identify packets associated with a specific application | |||
| by the IP port numbers in the headers. It may also be possible to | by the IP port numbers in the headers. It may also be possible to | |||
| identify packets originating from a specific user by the source IP | identify packets originating from a specific user by the source IP | |||
| address. However, such classification criteria may change | address. However, such classification criteria may change | |||
| frequently. Users may be assigned different IP addresses by DHCP. | frequently. Users may be assigned different IP addresses by DHCP. | |||
| Applications may use transient ports. To further complicate matters, | Applications may use transient ports. To further complicate matters, | |||
| multiple users may share an IP address. These factors make it very | multiple users may share an IP address. These factors make it very | |||
| difficult to manage static configuration of the classification | difficult to manage static configuration of the classification | |||
| information required to mark traffic in routers. | information required to mark traffic in routers. | |||
| skipping to change at line 442 ¶ | skipping to change at line 441 ¶ | |||
| control is applied). Individual routers may or may not participate | control is applied). Individual routers may or may not participate | |||
| in RSVP signaling regardless of where in the network they reside. | in RSVP signaling regardless of where in the network they reside. | |||
| We will consider two specific realizations of the framework. In the | We will consider two specific realizations of the framework. In the | |||
| first, resources within the Diffserv regions of the network are | first, resources within the Diffserv regions of the network are | |||
| statically provisioned and these regions include no RSVP aware | statically provisioned and these regions include no RSVP aware | |||
| devices. In the second, resources within the Diffserv region of the | devices. In the second, resources within the Diffserv region of the | |||
| network are dynamically provisioned and select devices within the | network are dynamically provisioned and select devices within the | |||
| Diffserv network regions participate in RSVP signaling. | Diffserv network regions participate in RSVP signaling. | |||
| 4.1 Reference Network | ||||
| Bernet, ed. et al. 8 | Bernet, ed. et al. 8 | |||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks May, 2000 | ||||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks March, 2000 | 4.1 Reference Network | |||
| The two realizations of the framework will be discussed in the | The two realizations of the framework will be discussed in the | |||
| context of the following reference network: | context of the following reference network: | |||
| ________ ______________ ________ | ________ ______________ ________ | |||
| / \ / \ / \ | / \ / \ / \ | |||
| / \ / \ / \ | / \ / \ / \ | |||
| |---| | |---| |---| |---| |---| | |---| | |---| | |---| |---| |---| |---| | |---| | |||
| |Tx |-| |ER1|---|BR1| |BR2|---|ER2| |-|Rx | | |Tx |-| |ER1|---|BR1| |BR2|---|ER2| |-|Rx | | |||
| |---| | |-- | |---| |---| |---| | |---| | |---| | |-- | |---| |---| |---| | |---| | |||
| skipping to change at line 496 ¶ | skipping to change at line 494 ¶ | |||
| We now define the major components of the reference network. | We now define the major components of the reference network. | |||
| 4.1.1 Hosts | 4.1.1 Hosts | |||
| We assume that both sending and receiving hosts use RSVP to | We assume that both sending and receiving hosts use RSVP to | |||
| communicate the quantitative QoS requirements of QoS-aware | communicate the quantitative QoS requirements of QoS-aware | |||
| applications running on the host. In principle, other mechanisms may | applications running on the host. In principle, other mechanisms may | |||
| be used to establish resource reservations in Intserv-capable nodes, | be used to establish resource reservations in Intserv-capable nodes, | |||
| but RSVP is clearly the prevalent mechanism for this purpose. | but RSVP is clearly the prevalent mechanism for this purpose. | |||
| Bernet, ed. et al. 9 | ||||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks May, 2000 | ||||
| Typically, a QoS process within the host operating system generates | Typically, a QoS process within the host operating system generates | |||
| RSVP signaling on behalf of applications. This process may also | RSVP signaling on behalf of applications. This process may also | |||
| invoke local traffic control. | invoke local traffic control. | |||
| Bernet, ed. et al. 9 | ||||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks March, 2000 | ||||
| As discussed above, traffic control in the host may mark the DSCP in | As discussed above, traffic control in the host may mark the DSCP in | |||
| transmitted packets, and shape transmitted traffic to the | transmitted packets, and shape transmitted traffic to the | |||
| requirements of the Intserv service in use. Alternatively, the first | requirements of the Intserv service in use. Alternatively, the first | |||
| Intserv-capable router downstream from the host may provide these | Intserv-capable router downstream from the host may provide these | |||
| traffic control functions. | traffic control functions. | |||
| 4.1.2 End-to-End RSVP Signaling | 4.1.2 End-to-End RSVP Signaling | |||
| We assume that RSVP signaling messages travel end-to-end between | We assume that RSVP signaling messages travel end-to-end between | |||
| hosts Tx and Rx to support RSVP/Intserv reservations outside the | hosts Tx and Rx to support RSVP/Intserv reservations outside the | |||
| skipping to change at line 551 ¶ | skipping to change at line 548 ¶ | |||
| region. The functionality of the border routers varies depending on | region. The functionality of the border routers varies depending on | |||
| the specific realization of the framework. In the case in which the | the specific realization of the framework. In the case in which the | |||
| Diffserv network region is RSVP-unaware, these routers act as pure | Diffserv network region is RSVP-unaware, these routers act as pure | |||
| Diffserv routers. As such, their sole responsibility is to police | Diffserv routers. As such, their sole responsibility is to police | |||
| submitted traffic based on the service level specified in the DSCP | submitted traffic based on the service level specified in the DSCP | |||
| and the agreement negotiated with the customer (aggregate traffic | and the agreement negotiated with the customer (aggregate traffic | |||
| control). In the case in which the Diffserv network region is RSVP- | control). In the case in which the Diffserv network region is RSVP- | |||
| aware, the border routers participate in RSVP signaling and act as | aware, the border routers participate in RSVP signaling and act as | |||
| admission control agents for the Diffserv network region. | admission control agents for the Diffserv network region. | |||
| We will later describe the functionality of the border routers in | ||||
| greater depth for each of the two realizations of the framework. | ||||
| Bernet, ed. et al. 10 | Bernet, ed. et al. 10 | |||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks May, 2000 | ||||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks March, 2000 | We will later describe the functionality of the border routers in | |||
| greater depth for each of the two realizations of the framework. | ||||
| 4.1.5 Diffserv Network Region | 4.1.5 Diffserv Network Region | |||
| The Diffserv network region supports aggregate traffic control and | The Diffserv network region supports aggregate traffic control and | |||
| is assumed not to be capable of MF classification. Depending on the | is assumed not to be capable of MF classification. Depending on the | |||
| specific realization of the framework, some number of routers within | specific realization of the framework, some number of routers within | |||
| the Diffserv region may be RSVP aware and therefore capable of per- | the Diffserv region may be RSVP aware and therefore capable of per- | |||
| flow signaling and admission control. If devices in the Diffserv | flow signaling and admission control. If devices in the Diffserv | |||
| region are not RSVP aware, they will pass RSVP messages | region are not RSVP aware, they will pass RSVP messages | |||
| transparently with negligible performance impact (see [6]). | transparently with negligible performance impact (see [6]). | |||
| skipping to change at line 605 ¶ | skipping to change at line 601 ¶ | |||
| the 802.1p capable switched segments described in [5]. Requests for | the 802.1p capable switched segments described in [5]. Requests for | |||
| Intserv services must be mapped onto the underlying capabilities of | Intserv services must be mapped onto the underlying capabilities of | |||
| the Diffserv network region. Aspects of the mapping include: | the Diffserv network region. Aspects of the mapping include: | |||
| - selecting an appropriate PHB, or set of PHBs, for the requested | - selecting an appropriate PHB, or set of PHBs, for the requested | |||
| service; | service; | |||
| - performing appropriate policing (including, perhaps, shaping or | - performing appropriate policing (including, perhaps, shaping or | |||
| remarking) at the edges of the Diffserv region; | remarking) at the edges of the Diffserv region; | |||
| - exporting Intserv parameters from the Diffserv region (e.g. for | - exporting Intserv parameters from the Diffserv region (e.g. for | |||
| the updating of ADSPECs); | the updating of ADSPECs); | |||
| - performing admission control on the Intserv requests that takes | ||||
| into account the resource availability in the Diffserv region. | ||||
| Bernet, ed. et al. 11 | Bernet, ed. et al. 11 | |||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks May, 2000 | ||||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks March, 2000 | - performing admission control on the Intserv requests that takes | |||
| into account the resource availability in the Diffserv region. | ||||
| Exactly how these functions are performed will be a function of the | Exactly how these functions are performed will be a function of the | |||
| way bandwidth is managed inside the Diffserv network region, which | way bandwidth is managed inside the Diffserv network region, which | |||
| is a topic we discuss in Section 4.3. | is a topic we discuss in Section 4.3. | |||
| When the PHB (or set of PHBs) has been selected for a particular | When the PHB (or set of PHBs) has been selected for a particular | |||
| Intserv flow, it may be necessary to communicate the choice of DSCP | Intserv flow, it may be necessary to communicate the choice of DSCP | |||
| for the flow to other network elements. Two schemes may be used to | for the flow to other network elements. Two schemes may be used to | |||
| achieve this end, as discussed below. | achieve this end, as discussed below. | |||
| skipping to change at line 661 ¶ | skipping to change at line 657 ¶ | |||
| it is possible for a misbehaving microflow to claim more than its | it is possible for a misbehaving microflow to claim more than its | |||
| fair share of resources within the aggregate, thereby degrading the | fair share of resources within the aggregate, thereby degrading the | |||
| service provided to other microflows. This problem may be addressed | service provided to other microflows. This problem may be addressed | |||
| by: | by: | |||
| 1. Providing per microflow policing at the edge routers - this is | 1. Providing per microflow policing at the edge routers - this is | |||
| generally the most appropriate location for microflow policing, | generally the most appropriate location for microflow policing, | |||
| since it pushes per-flow work to the edges of the network, where it | since it pushes per-flow work to the edges of the network, where it | |||
| scales better. In addition, since Intserv-capable routers outside | scales better. In addition, since Intserv-capable routers outside | |||
| the Diffserv region are responsible for providing microflow service | the Diffserv region are responsible for providing microflow service | |||
| to their customers and the Diffserv region is responsible for | ||||
| providing aggregate service to its customers, this distribution of | ||||
| functionality mirrors the distribution of responsibility. | ||||
| Bernet, ed. et al. 12 | Bernet, ed. et al. 12 | |||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks May, 2000 | ||||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks March, 2000 | to their customers and the Diffserv region is responsible for | |||
| providing aggregate service to its customers, this distribution of | ||||
| functionality mirrors the distribution of responsibility. | ||||
| 2. Providing per microflow policing at the border routers - this | 2. Providing per microflow policing at the border routers - this | |||
| approach tends to be less scalable than the previous approach. It | approach tends to be less scalable than the previous approach. It | |||
| also imposes a management burden on the Diffserv region of the | also imposes a management burden on the Diffserv region of the | |||
| network. However, it may be appropriate in certain cases, for the | network. However, it may be appropriate in certain cases, for the | |||
| Diffserv boundary routers to offer per microflow policing as a | Diffserv boundary routers to offer per microflow policing as a | |||
| value-add to its Intserv customers. | value-add to its Intserv customers. | |||
| 3. Relying on upstream shaping and policing - in certain cases, the | 3. Relying on upstream shaping and policing - in certain cases, the | |||
| customer may trust the shaping of certain groups of hosts | customer may trust the shaping of certain groups of hosts | |||
| skipping to change at line 716 ¶ | skipping to change at line 712 ¶ | |||
| action. We discuss two examples, one in which the Diffserv network | action. We discuss two examples, one in which the Diffserv network | |||
| region is RSVP unaware, the other in which the Diffserv network | region is RSVP unaware, the other in which the Diffserv network | |||
| region is RSVP aware. | region is RSVP aware. | |||
| 5.1 Statically Provisioned Diffserv Network Region | 5.1 Statically Provisioned Diffserv Network Region | |||
| In this example, no devices in the Diffserv network region are RSVP | In this example, no devices in the Diffserv network region are RSVP | |||
| aware. The Diffserv network region is statically provisioned. The | aware. The Diffserv network region is statically provisioned. The | |||
| customer(s) of the Diffserv network regions and the owner of the | customer(s) of the Diffserv network regions and the owner of the | |||
| Diffserv network region have negotiated a static contract (service | Diffserv network region have negotiated a static contract (service | |||
| level specification, or SLS) for the transmit capacity to be | ||||
| provided to the customer at each of a number of standard Diffserv | ||||
| service levels. The "transmit capacity" may be simply an amount of | ||||
| Bernet, ed. et al. 13 | Bernet, ed. et al. 13 | |||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks May, 2000 | ||||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks March, 2000 | level specification, or SLS) for the transmit capacity to be | |||
| provided to the customer at each of a number of standard Diffserv | ||||
| service levels. The "transmit capacity" may be simply an amount of | ||||
| bandwidth or it could be a more complex "profile" involving a number | bandwidth or it could be a more complex "profile" involving a number | |||
| of factors such as burst size, peak rate, time of day etc. | of factors such as burst size, peak rate, time of day etc. | |||
| It is helpful to consider each edge router in the customer network | It is helpful to consider each edge router in the customer network | |||
| as consisting of two halves, a standard Intserv half, which | as consisting of two halves, a standard Intserv half, which | |||
| interfaces to the customer's network regions and a Diffserv half | interfaces to the customer's network regions and a Diffserv half | |||
| which interfaces to the Diffserv network region. The Intserv half is | which interfaces to the Diffserv network region. The Intserv half is | |||
| able to identify and process traffic on per-flow granularity. | able to identify and process traffic on per-flow granularity. | |||
| The Diffserv half of the router can be considered to consist of a | The Diffserv half of the router can be considered to consist of a | |||
| skipping to change at line 773 ¶ | skipping to change at line 768 ¶ | |||
| operating system generates an RSVP RESV message, indicating interest | operating system generates an RSVP RESV message, indicating interest | |||
| in offered traffic of a certain Intserv service type. | in offered traffic of a certain Intserv service type. | |||
| 6. The RESV message is carried back towards the Diffserv network | 6. The RESV message is carried back towards the Diffserv network | |||
| region and the sending host. Consistent with standard RSVP/Intserv | region and the sending host. Consistent with standard RSVP/Intserv | |||
| processing, it may be rejected at any RSVP-capable node in the path | processing, it may be rejected at any RSVP-capable node in the path | |||
| if resources are deemed insufficient to carry the traffic requested. | if resources are deemed insufficient to carry the traffic requested. | |||
| 7. At ER2, the RESV message is subjected to standard RSVP/Intserv | 7. At ER2, the RESV message is subjected to standard RSVP/Intserv | |||
| processing. It may be rejected if resources on the downstream | processing. It may be rejected if resources on the downstream | |||
| interface of ER2 are deemed insufficient to carry the resources | ||||
| requested. If it is not rejected, it will be carried transparently | ||||
| through the Diffserv network region, arriving at ER1. | ||||
| Bernet, ed. et al. 14 | Bernet, ed. et al. 14 | |||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks May, 2000 | ||||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks March, 2000 | interface of ER2 are deemed insufficient to carry the resources | |||
| requested. If it is not rejected, it will be carried transparently | ||||
| through the Diffserv network region, arriving at ER1. | ||||
| 8. In ER1, the RESV message triggers admission control processing. | 8. In ER1, the RESV message triggers admission control processing. | |||
| ER1 compares the resources requested in the RSVP/Intserv request to | ER1 compares the resources requested in the RSVP/Intserv request to | |||
| the resources available in the Diffserv network region at the | the resources available in the Diffserv network region at the | |||
| corresponding Diffserv service level. The corresponding service | corresponding Diffserv service level. The corresponding service | |||
| level is determined by the Intserv to Diffserv mapping discussed | level is determined by the Intserv to Diffserv mapping discussed | |||
| previously. The availability of resources is determined by the | previously. The availability of resources is determined by the | |||
| capacity provisioned in the SLS. ER1 may also apply a policy | capacity provisioned in the SLS. ER1 may also apply a policy | |||
| decision such that the resource request may be rejected based on the | decision such that the resource request may be rejected based on the | |||
| customer's specific policy criteria, even though the aggregate | customer's specific policy criteria, even though the aggregate | |||
| skipping to change at line 829 ¶ | skipping to change at line 824 ¶ | |||
| networks that support RSVP/Intserv and networks that support | networks that support RSVP/Intserv and networks that support | |||
| Diffserv. | Diffserv. | |||
| 5.2 RSVP-Aware Diffserv Network Region | 5.2 RSVP-Aware Diffserv Network Region | |||
| In this example, the customer's edge routers are standard RSVP | In this example, the customer's edge routers are standard RSVP | |||
| routers. The border router, BR1 is RSVP aware. In addition, there | routers. The border router, BR1 is RSVP aware. In addition, there | |||
| may be other routers within the Diffserv network region which are | may be other routers within the Diffserv network region which are | |||
| RSVP aware. Note that although these routers are able to participate | RSVP aware. Note that although these routers are able to participate | |||
| in some form of RSVP signaling, they classify and schedule traffic | in some form of RSVP signaling, they classify and schedule traffic | |||
| in aggregate, based on DSCP, not on the per-flow classification | ||||
| criteria used by standard RSVP/Intserv routers. It can be said that | ||||
| their control-plane is RSVP while their data-plane is Diffserv. This | ||||
| Bernet, ed. et al. 15 | Bernet, ed. et al. 15 | |||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks May, 2000 | ||||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks March, 2000 | in aggregate, based on DSCP, not on the per-flow classification | |||
| criteria used by standard RSVP/Intserv routers. It can be said that | ||||
| their control-plane is RSVP while their data-plane is Diffserv. This | ||||
| approach exploits the benefits of RSVP signaling while maintaining | approach exploits the benefits of RSVP signaling while maintaining | |||
| much of the scalability associated with Diffserv. | much of the scalability associated with Diffserv. | |||
| In the preceding example, there is no signaling between the Diffserv | In the preceding example, there is no signaling between the Diffserv | |||
| network region and network elements outside it. The negotiation of | network region and network elements outside it. The negotiation of | |||
| an SLS is the only explicit exchange of resource availability | an SLS is the only explicit exchange of resource availability | |||
| information between the two network regions. ER1 is configured with | information between the two network regions. ER1 is configured with | |||
| the information represented by the SLS and as such, is able to act | the information represented by the SLS and as such, is able to act | |||
| as an admission control agent for the Diffserv network region. Such | as an admission control agent for the Diffserv network region. Such | |||
| configuration does not readily support dynamically changing SLSs, | configuration does not readily support dynamically changing SLSs, | |||
| skipping to change at line 886 ¶ | skipping to change at line 880 ¶ | |||
| 5.2.1 Aggregated or Tunneled RSVP | 5.2.1 Aggregated or Tunneled RSVP | |||
| A number of drafts [3,6,15, 16] propose mechanisms for extending | A number of drafts [3,6,15, 16] propose mechanisms for extending | |||
| RSVP to reserve resources for an aggregation of flows between edges | RSVP to reserve resources for an aggregation of flows between edges | |||
| of a network. Border routers may interact with core routers and | of a network. Border routers may interact with core routers and | |||
| other border routers using aggregated RSVP to reserve resources | other border routers using aggregated RSVP to reserve resources | |||
| between edges of the Diffserv network region. Initial reservation | between edges of the Diffserv network region. Initial reservation | |||
| levels for each service level may be established between major | levels for each service level may be established between major | |||
| border routers, based on anticipated traffic patterns. Border | border routers, based on anticipated traffic patterns. Border | |||
| routers could trigger changes in reservation levels as a result of | ||||
| the cumulative per-flow RSVP requests from the non-Diffserv regions | ||||
| reaching high or low-water marks. | ||||
| Bernet, ed. et al. 16 | Bernet, ed. et al. 16 | |||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks May, 2000 | ||||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks March, 2000 | routers could trigger changes in reservation levels as a result of | |||
| the cumulative per-flow RSVP requests from the non-Diffserv regions | ||||
| reaching high or low-water marks. | ||||
| In this approach, admission of per-flow RSVP requests from nodes | In this approach, admission of per-flow RSVP requests from nodes | |||
| outside the Diffserv region would be counted against the appropriate | outside the Diffserv region would be counted against the appropriate | |||
| aggregate reservations for the corresponding service level. The size | aggregate reservations for the corresponding service level. The size | |||
| of the aggregate reservations may or may not be dynamically adjusted | of the aggregate reservations may or may not be dynamically adjusted | |||
| to deal with the changes in per-flow reservations. | to deal with the changes in per-flow reservations. | |||
| The advantage of this approach is that it offers dynamic, topology | The advantage of this approach is that it offers dynamic, topology | |||
| aware admission control to the Diffserv network region without | aware admission control to the Diffserv network region without | |||
| requiring the level of RSVP signaling processing that would be | requiring the level of RSVP signaling processing that would be | |||
| skipping to change at line 941 ¶ | skipping to change at line 935 ¶ | |||
| aggregated as opposed to per-flow). The relative number of routers | aggregated as opposed to per-flow). The relative number of routers | |||
| in the core that participate in RSVP signaling is a provisioning | in the core that participate in RSVP signaling is a provisioning | |||
| decision that must be made by the network administrator. | decision that must be made by the network administrator. | |||
| In one extreme case, only the border routers participate in RSVP | In one extreme case, only the border routers participate in RSVP | |||
| signaling. In this case, either the Diffserv network region must be | signaling. In this case, either the Diffserv network region must be | |||
| extremely over-provisioned and therefore, inefficiently used, or | extremely over-provisioned and therefore, inefficiently used, or | |||
| else it must be carefully and statically provisioned for limited | else it must be carefully and statically provisioned for limited | |||
| traffic patterns. The border routers must enforce these patterns. | traffic patterns. The border routers must enforce these patterns. | |||
| Bernet, ed. et al. 17 | ||||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks May, 2000 | ||||
| In the other extreme case, each router in the Diffserv network | In the other extreme case, each router in the Diffserv network | |||
| region might participate in RSVP signaling. In this case, resources | region might participate in RSVP signaling. In this case, resources | |||
| can be used with optimal efficiency, but signaling processing | can be used with optimal efficiency, but signaling processing | |||
| requirements and associated overhead increase. As noted above, RSVP | requirements and associated overhead increase. As noted above, RSVP | |||
| Bernet, ed. et al. 17 | ||||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks March, 2000 | ||||
| aggregation is one way to limit the signaling overhead at the cost | aggregation is one way to limit the signaling overhead at the cost | |||
| of some loss of optimality in resource utilization. | of some loss of optimality in resource utilization. | |||
| It is likely that some network administrators will compromise by | It is likely that some network administrators will compromise by | |||
| enabling RSVP signaling on some subset of routers in the Diffserv | enabling RSVP signaling on some subset of routers in the Diffserv | |||
| network region. These routers will likely represent major traffic | network region. These routers will likely represent major traffic | |||
| switching points with over-provisioned or statically provisioned | switching points with over-provisioned or statically provisioned | |||
| regions of RSVP unaware routers between them. | regions of RSVP unaware routers between them. | |||
| 5.3 Dynamically Provisioned, Non-RSVP-aware Diffserv Region | 5.3 Dynamically Provisioned, Non-RSVP-aware Diffserv Region | |||
| Border routers might not use any form of RSVP signaling within the | Border routers might not use any form of RSVP signaling within the | |||
| Diffserv network region but might instead use custom protocols to | Diffserv network region but might instead use custom protocols to | |||
| interact with an "oracle". The oracle is a hypothetical agent that | interact with an "oracle". The oracle is an agent that has | |||
| has sufficient knowledge of resource availability and network | sufficient knowledge of resource availability and network topology | |||
| topology to make admission control decisions. The set of RSVP aware | to make admission control decisions. The set of RSVP aware routers | |||
| routers in the previous two examples can be considered collectively | in the previous two examples can be considered collectively as a | |||
| as a form of distributed oracle. In various definitions of the | form of distributed oracle. In various definitions of the "bandwidth | |||
| "bandwidth broker" [4], it is able to act as a centralized oracle. | broker" [4], it is able to act as a centralized oracle. | |||
| 6. Implications of the Framework for Diffserv Network Regions | 6. Implications of the Framework for Diffserv Network Regions | |||
| We have described a framework in which RSVP/Intserv style QoS can be | We have described a framework in which RSVP/Intserv style QoS can be | |||
| provided across end-to-end paths that include Diffserv network | provided across end-to-end paths that include Diffserv network | |||
| regions. This section discusses some of the implications of this | regions. This section discusses some of the implications of this | |||
| framework for the Diffserv network region. | framework for the Diffserv network region. | |||
| 6.1 Requirements from Diffserv Network Regions | 6.1 Requirements from Diffserv Network Regions | |||
| skipping to change at line 997 ¶ | skipping to change at line 989 ¶ | |||
| 2. Diffserv network regions must provide admission control | 2. Diffserv network regions must provide admission control | |||
| information to their "customer" (non-Diffserv) network regions. | information to their "customer" (non-Diffserv) network regions. | |||
| This information can be provided by a dynamic protocol or through | This information can be provided by a dynamic protocol or through | |||
| static service level agreements enforced at the edges of the | static service level agreements enforced at the edges of the | |||
| Diffserv region. | Diffserv region. | |||
| 3. Diffserv network regions must be able to pass RSVP messages, in | 3. Diffserv network regions must be able to pass RSVP messages, in | |||
| such a manner that they can be recovered at the egress of the | such a manner that they can be recovered at the egress of the | |||
| Diffserv network region. The Diffserv network region may, but is not | Diffserv network region. The Diffserv network region may, but is not | |||
| required to, process these messages. Mechanisms for transparently | ||||
| carrying RSVP messages across a transit network are described in | ||||
| [3,6,15, 16]. | ||||
| Bernet, ed. et al. 18 | Bernet, ed. et al. 18 | |||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks May, 2000 | ||||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks March, 2000 | required to, process these messages. Mechanisms for transparently | |||
| carrying RSVP messages across a transit network are described in | ||||
| [3,6,15, 16]. | ||||
| To meet these requirements, additional work is required in the areas | To meet these requirements, additional work is required in the areas | |||
| of: | of: | |||
| 1. Mapping Intserv style service specifications to services that can | 1. Mapping Intserv style service specifications to services that can | |||
| be provided by Diffserv network regions. | be provided by Diffserv network regions. | |||
| 2. Definition of the functionality required in network elements to | 2. Definition of the functionality required in network elements to | |||
| support RSVP signaling with aggregate traffic control (for network | support RSVP signaling with aggregate traffic control (for network | |||
| elements residing in the Diffserv network region). | elements residing in the Diffserv network region). | |||
| 3. Definition of mechanisms to efficiently and dynamically provision | 3. Definition of mechanisms to efficiently and dynamically provision | |||
| resources in a Diffserv network region (e.g. aggregated RSVP, | resources in a Diffserv network region (e.g. aggregated RSVP, | |||
| tunneling, MPLS, etc.). This might include protocols by which an | tunneling, MPLS, etc.). This might include protocols by which an | |||
| "oracle" (e.g., a centralized server) conveys information about | "oracle" conveys information about resource availability within a | |||
| resource availability within a Diffserv region to border routers. | Diffserv region to border routers. One example of such a mechanism | |||
| One example of such a mechanism is the so-called "bandwidth broker" | is the so-called "bandwidth broker" proposed in [19, 20, 21]. | |||
| proposed in [19, 20, 21]. | ||||
| 6.2 Protection of Intserv Traffic from Other Traffic | 6.2 Protection of Intserv Traffic from Other Traffic | |||
| Network administrators must be able to share resources in the | Network administrators must be able to share resources in the | |||
| Diffserv network region between three types of traffic: | Diffserv network region between three types of traffic: | |||
| a. End-to-end Intserv traffic - this is typically traffic | a. End-to-end Intserv traffic - this is typically traffic | |||
| associated with quantitative QoS applications. It requires a | associated with quantitative QoS applications. It requires a | |||
| specific quantity of resources with a high degree of assurance. | specific quantity of resources with a high degree of assurance. | |||
| skipping to change at line 1048 ¶ | skipping to change at line 1039 ¶ | |||
| c. All other (best-effort) traffic | c. All other (best-effort) traffic | |||
| These three classes of traffic must be isolated from each other by | These three classes of traffic must be isolated from each other by | |||
| the appropriate configuration of policers and classifiers at ingress | the appropriate configuration of policers and classifiers at ingress | |||
| points to the Diffserv network region, and by appropriate | points to the Diffserv network region, and by appropriate | |||
| provisioning within the Diffserv network region. To provide | provisioning within the Diffserv network region. To provide | |||
| protection for Intserv traffic in Diffserv regions of the network, | protection for Intserv traffic in Diffserv regions of the network, | |||
| we suggest that the DSCPs assigned to such traffic not overlap with | we suggest that the DSCPs assigned to such traffic not overlap with | |||
| the DSCPs assigned to other traffic. | the DSCPs assigned to other traffic. | |||
| 7. Multicast | 7. Multicast | |||
| The use of integrated services over Diffserv networks is | The use of integrated services over Diffserv networks is | |||
| significantly more complex for multicast sessions than for unicast | significantly more complex for multicast sessions than for unicast | |||
| sessions. With respect to a multicast connection, each participating | sessions. With respect to a multicast connection, each participating | |||
| region has a single ingress router and zero, one or several egress | region has a single ingress router and zero, one or several egress | |||
| routers. The difficulties of multicast are associated with Diffserv | routers. The difficulties of multicast are associated with Diffserv | |||
| regions that contain several egress routers. (Support of multicast | ||||
| functionality outside the Diffserv region is relatively | ||||
| Bernet, ed. et al. 19 | Bernet, ed. et al. 19 | |||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks May, 2000 | ||||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks March, 2000 | regions that contain several egress routers. (Support of multicast | |||
| functionality outside the Diffserv region is relatively | ||||
| straightforward since every Intserv-capable router along the | straightforward since every Intserv-capable router along the | |||
| multicast tree stores state for each flow.) | multicast tree stores state for each flow.) | |||
| Consider the following reference network: | Consider the following reference network: | |||
| Non-Diffserv region 2 | Non-Diffserv region 2 | |||
| ________ | ________ | |||
| / \ | / \ | |||
| | | |---| | | | |---| | |||
| ________ _____________ | |-|Rx1| | ________ _____________ | |-|Rx1| | |||
| skipping to change at line 1109 ¶ | skipping to change at line 1099 ¶ | |||
| BR1, or perhaps an upstream node such as ER1, marks packets entering | BR1, or perhaps an upstream node such as ER1, marks packets entering | |||
| the Diffserv region with the appropriate DSCP. The packets are | the Diffserv region with the appropriate DSCP. The packets are | |||
| routed to the egresses of the Diffserv domain using the original | routed to the egresses of the Diffserv domain using the original | |||
| multicast address. | multicast address. | |||
| The two major problems, explained in the following, are associated | The two major problems, explained in the following, are associated | |||
| with heterogeneous multicast trees containing branch points within | with heterogeneous multicast trees containing branch points within | |||
| the Diffserv region, i.e. multicast trees where the level of | the Diffserv region, i.e. multicast trees where the level of | |||
| resource requirement is not uniform among all receivers. An example | resource requirement is not uniform among all receivers. An example | |||
| of such a scenario in the network of Figure 2 is the case where both | of such a scenario in the network of Figure 2 is the case where both | |||
| Rx1 and Rx2 need to receive multicast data from Tx1 but only one of | ||||
| Bernet, ed. et al. 20 | Bernet, ed. et al. 20 | |||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks May, 2000 | ||||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks March, 2000 | Rx1 and Rx2 need to receive multicast data from Tx1 but only one of | |||
| the receivers has requested a level of service above best effort. We | the receivers has requested a level of service above best effort. We | |||
| consider such scenarios in the following paragraphs. | consider such scenarios in the following paragraphs. | |||
| 7.1 Remarking of packets in branch point routers | 7.1 Remarking of packets in branch point routers | |||
| In the above scenario, the packets that arrive at BR1 are marked | In the above scenario, the packets that arrive at BR1 are marked | |||
| with an appropriate DSCP for the requested Intserv service and are | with an appropriate DSCP for the requested Intserv service and are | |||
| sent to RR. Packets arriving at the branch point must be sent | sent to RR. Packets arriving at the branch point must be sent | |||
| towards BR2 with the same DSCP otherwise the service to Rx1 is | towards BR2 with the same DSCP otherwise the service to Rx1 is | |||
| degraded. However, the packets going from RR towards BR3 need not | degraded. However, the packets going from RR towards BR3 need not | |||
| maintain the high assurance level anymore. They may be demoted to | maintain the high assurance level anymore. They may be demoted to | |||
| best effort so that the QoS provided to other packets along this | best effort so that the QoS provided to other packets along this | |||
| branch of the tree is not disrupted. Several problems can be | branch of the tree is not disrupted. Several problems can be | |||
| observed in the given scenario: | observed in the given scenario: | |||
| - In the Diffserv region, DSCP marking is done at edge routers | - In the Diffserv region, DSCP marking is done at edge routers | |||
| (ingress), whereas a branch point router might be a core | (ingress), whereas a branch point router might be a core | |||
| router, which does not mark packets. | router, which does not mark packets. | |||
| - Being a core Diffserv router, RR classifies based on | - Being a core Diffserv router, RR classifies based on | |||
| aggregate traffic streams (BA), as opposed to per flow (MF) | aggregate traffic streams (BA), as opposed to per flow (MF) | |||
| classification. Hence, it does not necessarily have the | classification. Hence, it does not necessarily have the | |||
| capability to distinguish those packets which belong to a | capability to distinguish those packets which belong to a | |||
| specific multicast tree and require demotion from the other | specific multicast tree and require demotion from the other | |||
| packets in the behavior aggregate, which carry the same DSCP. | packets in the behavior aggregate, which carry the same DSCP. | |||
| - Since RR may be RSVP-unaware, it may not participate in the | - Since RR may be RSVP-unaware, it may not participate in the | |||
| admission control process, and would thus not store any per- | admission control process, and would thus not store any per- | |||
| flow state about the reservations for the multicast tree. | flow state about the reservations for the multicast tree. | |||
| Hence, even if RR were able to perform MF classification and | Hence, even if RR were able to perform MF classification and | |||
| DSCP remarking, it would not know enough about downstream | DSCP remarking, it would not know enough about downstream | |||
| reservations to remark the DSCP intelligently. | reservations to remark the DSCP intelligently. | |||
| These problems can be tackled by the following mechanisms: | These problems could be addressed by a variety of mechanisms. We list | |||
| some below, while noting that none is ideal in all cases and that | ||||
| further mechanisms may be developed in the future: | ||||
| 1. If some Intserv-capable routers are placed within the Diffserv | 1. If some Intserv-capable routers are placed within the Diffserv | |||
| region, it might be possible to administer the network topology and | region, it might be possible to administer the network topology and | |||
| routing parameters so as to ensure that branch points occur only | routing parameters so as to ensure that branch points occur only | |||
| within such routers. These routers would support MF classification | within such routers. These routers would support MF classification | |||
| and remarking and hold per-flow state for the heterogeneous | and remarking and hold per-flow state for the heterogeneous | |||
| reservations for which they are the branch point. Note that in this | reservations for which they are the branch point. Note that in this | |||
| case, branch point routers would have essentially the same | case, branch point routers would have essentially the same | |||
| functionality as ingress routers of an RSVP-aware Diffserv domain. | functionality as ingress routers of an RSVP-aware Diffserv domain. | |||
| 2. Packets sent on the "non-reserved" branch (from RR towards BR3) | 2. Packets sent on the "non-reserved" branch (from RR towards BR3) | |||
| are marked with the "wrong" DSCP; that is, they are not demoted to | are marked with the "wrong" DSCP; that is, they are not demoted to | |||
| best effort but retain their DSCP. This in turn requires over | best effort but retain their DSCP. This in turn requires over | |||
| reservation of resources along that link or runs the risk of | reservation of resources along that link or runs the risk of | |||
| degrading service to packets that legitimately bear the same DSCP | degrading service to packets that legitimately bear the same DSCP | |||
| along this path. However, it allows the Diffserv routers to remain | along this path. However, it allows the Diffserv routers to remain | |||
| free of per-flow state. | free of per-flow state. | |||
| Bernet, ed. et al. 21 | Bernet, ed. et al. 21 | |||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks May, 2000 | ||||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks March, 2000 | ||||
| 3. A combination of mechanism 1 and 2 may be an effective | 3. A combination of mechanism 1 and 2 may be an effective | |||
| compromise. In this case, there are some Intserv-capable routers in | compromise. In this case, there are some Intserv-capable routers in | |||
| the core of the network, but the network cannot be administered so | the core of the network, but the network cannot be administered so | |||
| that ALL branch points fall at such routers. | that ALL branch points fall at such routers. | |||
| 4. Administrators of Diffserv regions may decide not to enable | 4. Administrators of Diffserv regions may decide not to enable | |||
| heterogeneous sub-trees in their domains. In the case of different | heterogeneous sub-trees in their domains. In the case of different | |||
| downstream reservations, a ResvErr message would be sent according | downstream reservations, a ResvErr message would be sent according | |||
| to the RSVP rules. This is similar to the approach taken for Intserv | to the RSVP rules. This is similar to the approach taken for Intserv | |||
| skipping to change at line 1223 ¶ | skipping to change at line 1213 ¶ | |||
| approach the goal of allocating appropriate resources only where | approach the goal of allocating appropriate resources only where | |||
| they are needed rather than overprovisioning or underprovisioning | they are needed rather than overprovisioning or underprovisioning | |||
| along certain branches of a tree. This is essentially the approach | along certain branches of a tree. This is essentially the approach | |||
| described in [15]. | described in [15]. | |||
| 8. Security Considerations | 8. Security Considerations | |||
| 8.1 General RSVP Security | 8.1 General RSVP Security | |||
| Bernet, ed. et al. 22 | Bernet, ed. et al. 22 | |||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks May, 2000 | ||||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks March, 2000 | ||||
| We are proposing that RSVP signaling be used to obtain resources in | We are proposing that RSVP signaling be used to obtain resources in | |||
| both Diffserv and non-Diffserv regions of a network. Therefore, all | both Diffserv and non-Diffserv regions of a network. Therefore, all | |||
| RSVP security considerations apply [9]. In addition, network | RSVP security considerations apply [9]. In addition, network | |||
| administrators are expected to protect network resources by | administrators are expected to protect network resources by | |||
| configuring secure policers at interfaces with untrusted customers. | configuring secure policers at interfaces with untrusted customers. | |||
| 8.2 Host Marking | 8.2 Host Marking | |||
| Though it does not mandate host marking of the DSCP, our proposal | Though it does not mandate host marking of the DSCP, our proposal | |||
| skipping to change at line 1276 ¶ | skipping to change at line 1265 ¶ | |||
| task of shaping and policing their own traffic to be in compliance | task of shaping and policing their own traffic to be in compliance | |||
| with their negotiated Intserv parameters. | with their negotiated Intserv parameters. | |||
| 9. Acknowledgments | 9. Acknowledgments | |||
| Authors thank the following individuals for their comments that led | Authors thank the following individuals for their comments that led | |||
| to improvements to the previous version(s) of this document: David | to improvements to the previous version(s) of this document: David | |||
| Oran, Andy Veitch, Curtis Villamizer, Walter Weiss, Francois le | Oran, Andy Veitch, Curtis Villamizer, Walter Weiss, Francois le | |||
| Faucheur and Russell White. | Faucheur and Russell White. | |||
| Many of the ideas in this document have been previously discussed in | ||||
| the original Intserv architecture document [10]. | ||||
| Bernet, ed. et al. 23 | Bernet, ed. et al. 23 | |||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks May, 2000 | ||||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks March, 2000 | Many of the ideas in this document have been previously discussed in | |||
| the original Intserv architecture document [10]. | ||||
| 10. References | 10. References | |||
| [1] Braden, R., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S. and Jamin, S., | [1] Braden, R., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S. and Jamin, S., | |||
| "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Version 1 Functional | "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Version 1 Functional | |||
| Specification", RFC 2205, Proposed Standard, September 1997 | Specification", RFC 2205, Proposed Standard, September 1997 | |||
| [2] Yavatkar, R., Hoffman, D., Bernet, Y., Baker, F. and Speer, M., | [2] Yavatkar, R., Hoffman, D., Bernet, Y., Baker, F. and Speer, M., | |||
| "SBM (Subnet Bandwidth Manager): A Protocol For RSVP-based | "SBM (Subnet Bandwidth Manager): A Protocol For RSVP-based | |||
| Admission Control Over IEEE 802 Style Networks", Internet Draft, | Admission Control Over IEEE 802 Style Networks", Internet Draft, | |||
| skipping to change at line 1330 ¶ | skipping to change at line 1318 ¶ | |||
| [10] Braden, R., Clark, D. and Shenker, S., "Integrated Services in | [10] Braden, R., Clark, D. and Shenker, S., "Integrated Services in | |||
| the Internet Architecture: an Overview", Internet RFC 1633, | the Internet Architecture: an Overview", Internet RFC 1633, | |||
| June 1994 | June 1994 | |||
| [11] Garrett, M. W., and Borden, M., "Interoperation of Controlled- | [11] Garrett, M. W., and Borden, M., "Interoperation of Controlled- | |||
| Load Service and Guaranteed Service with ATM", RFC2381, August | Load Service and Guaranteed Service with ATM", RFC2381, August | |||
| 1998. | 1998. | |||
| [12] Weiss, Walter, Private communication, November 1998. | [12] Weiss, Walter, Private communication, November 1998. | |||
| [13] Kent, S., Atkinson, R., "Security Architecture for the Internet | ||||
| Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998. | ||||
| Bernet, ed. et al. 24 | Bernet, ed. et al. 24 | |||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks May, 2000 | ||||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks March, 2000 | [13] Kent, S., Atkinson, R., "Security Architecture for the Internet | |||
| Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998. | ||||
| [14] Bernet, Y., "Usage and Format of the DCLASS Object with RSVP | [14] Bernet, Y., "Usage and Format of the DCLASS Object with RSVP | |||
| Signaling", Internet Draft, draft-issll-dclass-00.txt, August | Signaling", Internet Draft, draft-issll-dclass-01.txt, October | |||
| 1999. | 1999. | |||
| [15] Baker, F., Iturralde, C., le Faucheur, F., and Davie, B. "RSVP | [15] Baker, F., Iturralde, C., le Faucheur, F., and Davie, B. "RSVP | |||
| Reservation Aggregation", Internet Draft, draft-ietf-issll- | Reservation Aggregation", Internet Draft, draft-ietf-issll- | |||
| aggregation-00.txt, September 1999. | aggregation-02.txt, March 2000. | |||
| [16] Terzis, A., Krawczyk, J., Wroclawski, J., Zhang, L., "RSVP | [16] Terzis, A., Krawczyk, J., Wroclawski, J., Zhang, L., "RSVP | |||
| Operation Over IP Tunnels", Internet Draft, draft-ietf-rsvp- | Operation Over IP Tunnels", RFC 2746, January 2000. | |||
| tunnel-04.txt, May 1999. | ||||
| [17] Boyle, J., Cohen, R., Durham, D., Herzog, S., Rajan, D., and | [17] Boyle, J., Cohen, R., Durham, D., Herzog, S., Rajan, D., and | |||
| Sastry, A., "COPS Usage for RSVP", Internet Draft, draft-ietf- | Sastry, A., "COPS Usage for RSVP", RFC 2749, January 2000. | |||
| rap-cops-rsvp-05.txt, June 1999. | ||||
| [18] Bernet, Y., et al., "A Framework for Differentiated Services", | [18] Bernet, Y., et al., "A Framework for Differentiated Services", | |||
| Internet draft, draft-ietf-diffserv-framework-02.txt, February | Internet draft, draft-ietf-diffserv-framework-02.txt, February | |||
| 1999. | 1999. | |||
| [19] Jacobson Van, "Differentiated Services Architecture", talk in | [19] Jacobson Van, "Differentiated Services Architecture", talk in | |||
| the Int-Serv WG at the Munich IETF, August 1997. | the Int-Serv WG at the Munich IETF, August 1997. | |||
| [20] Jacobson, V., Nichols K., and Zhang, L. "A Two-bit | [20] Jacobson, V., Nichols K., and Zhang, L. "A Two-bit | |||
| Differentiated Services Architecture for the Internet", | Differentiated Services Architecture for the Internet", | |||
| skipping to change at line 1373 ¶ | skipping to change at line 1358 ¶ | |||
| [21] First Internet2 bandwidth broker operability event | [21] First Internet2 bandwidth broker operability event | |||
| http://www.merit.edu/internet/working.groups/i2-qbone-bb/ | http://www.merit.edu/internet/working.groups/i2-qbone-bb/ | |||
| inter-op/index.htm | inter-op/index.htm | |||
| 11. Author's Addresses: | 11. Author's Addresses: | |||
| Yoram Bernet | Yoram Bernet | |||
| Microsoft | Microsoft | |||
| One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052 | One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052 | |||
| Phone: (425) 936-9568 | Phone: +1 425-936-9568 | |||
| Email: yoramb@microsoft.com | Email: yoramb@microsoft.com | |||
| Raj Yavatkar | Raj Yavatkar | |||
| Intel Corporation | Intel Corporation | |||
| JF3-448 2111 NE 25th. Avenue, Hillsboro, OR 97124 | JF3-206 2111 NE 25th. Avenue, Hillsboro, OR 97124 | |||
| Phone: (503) 264-9077 | Phone: +1 503-264-9077 | |||
| Email: raj.yavatkar@intel.com | Email: raj.yavatkar@intel.com | |||
| Peter Ford | Peter Ford | |||
| Microsoft | Microsoft | |||
| One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052 | One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052 | |||
| Phone: (425) 703-2032 | Phone: +1 425-703-2032 | |||
| Email: peterf@microsoft.com | Email: peterf@microsoft.com | |||
| Fred Baker | Fred Baker | |||
| Bernet, ed. et al. 25 | Bernet, ed. et al. 25 | |||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks May, 2000 | ||||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks March, 2000 | ||||
| Cisco Systems | Cisco Systems | |||
| 519 Lado Drive, Santa Barbara, CA 93111 | 519 Lado Drive, Santa Barbara, CA 93111 | |||
| Phone: (408) 526-4257 | Phone: +1 408-526-4257 | |||
| Email: fred@cisco.com | Email: fred@cisco.com | |||
| Lixia Zhang | Lixia Zhang | |||
| UCLA | UCLA | |||
| 4531G Boelter Hall Los Angeles, CA 90095 | 4531G Boelter Hall Los Angeles, CA 90095 | |||
| Phone: (310) 825-2695 | Phone: +1 310-825-2695 | |||
| Email: lixia@cs.ucla.edu | Email: lixia@cs.ucla.edu | |||
| Michael Speer | Michael Speer | |||
| Sun Microsystems | Sun Microsystems | |||
| 901 San Antonio Road UMPK15-215 Palo Alto, CA 94303 | 901 San Antonio Road UMPK15-215 Palo Alto, CA 94303 | |||
| Phone: (650)786-6368 | Phone: +1 650-786-6368 | |||
| Email: speer@Eng.Sun.COM | Email: speer@Eng.Sun.COM | |||
| Bob Braden | Bob Braden | |||
| USC Information Sciences Institute | USC Information Sciences Institute | |||
| 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695 | 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695 | |||
| Phone: (310) 822-1511 | Phone: +1 310-822-1511 | |||
| Email: braden@isi.edu | Email: braden@isi.edu | |||
| Bruce Davie | Bruce Davie | |||
| Cisco Systems | Cisco Systems | |||
| 250 Apollo Drive, Chelmsford, MA 01824 | 250 Apollo Drive, Chelmsford, MA 01824 | |||
| Phone: (978) 244-8000 | Phone: +1 978-244-8000 | |||
| Email: bsd@cisco.com | Email: bsd@cisco.com | |||
| Eyal Felstaine | Eyal Felstaine | |||
| Dept. of Computer Science | Dept. of Computer Science | |||
| Technion, IIT | Technion, IIT | |||
| 32000 Haifa, Israel | 32000 Haifa, Israel | |||
| Phone: +972-50-747672 | Phone: +972-50-747672 | |||
| Email: eyalfe@cs.technion.ac.il | Email: eyalfe@cs.technion.ac.il | |||
| John Wroclawski | John Wroclawski | |||
| MIT Laboratory for Computer Science | MIT Laboratory for Computer Science | |||
| 545 Technology Sq. | 545 Technology Sq. | |||
| Cambridge, MA 02139 | Cambridge, MA 02139 | |||
| Phone: (617) 253-7885 | Phone: +1 617-253-7885 | |||
| E-mail: jtw@lcs.mit.edu | E-mail: jtw@lcs.mit.edu | |||
| 12. Full Copyright Statement | 12. Full Copyright Statement | |||
| Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved. | Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved. | |||
| This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to | This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to | |||
| others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it | others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it | |||
| or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published | ||||
| and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any | ||||
| Bernet, ed. et al. 26 | Bernet, ed. et al. 26 | |||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks May, 2000 | ||||
| Integrated Services Operation Over Diffserv Networks March, 2000 | or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published | |||
| and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any | ||||
| kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph | kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph | |||
| are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this | are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this | |||
| document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing | document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing | |||
| the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other | the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other | |||
| Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of | Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of | |||
| developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for | developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for | |||
| copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be | copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be | |||
| followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than | followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than | |||
| English. | English. | |||
| The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be | The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be | |||
| revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. | revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. | |||
| This document and the information contained herein is provided on an | This document and the information contained herein is provided on an | |||
| "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING | "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING | |||
| TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING | TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING | |||
| BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION | BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION | |||
| HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF | HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF | |||
| MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE." | MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE." | |||
| This draft expires September, 2000 | This draft expires November, 2000 | |||
| Bernet, ed. et al. 27 | Bernet, ed. et al. 27 | |||
| End of changes. 93 change blocks. | ||||
| 158 lines changed or deleted | 141 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ | ||||