idnits 2.17.1 draft-berger-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension-03.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (November 19, 2019) is 1618 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control-04 == Outdated reference: A later version (-16) exists of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension-07 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group D. Wiggins 3 Internet-Draft MIT Lincoln Laboratory 4 Intended status: Standards Track L. Berger 5 Expires: May 22, 2020 LabN Consulting, L.L.C. 6 November 19, 2019 8 DLEP IEEE 802.1Q Aware Credit Window Extension 9 draft-berger-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension-03 11 Abstract 13 This document defines an extension to the Dynamic Link Exchange 14 Protocol (DLEP) that enables a Ethernet IEEE 802.1Q aware credit- 15 window scheme for destination-specific and shared flow control. 17 Status of This Memo 19 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 20 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 22 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 23 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 24 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 25 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 27 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 28 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 29 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 30 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 32 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 22, 2020. 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 37 document authors. All rights reserved. 39 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 40 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 41 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 42 publication of this document. Please review these documents 43 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 44 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 45 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 46 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 47 described in the Simplified BSD License. 49 Table of Contents 51 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 52 1.1. Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 53 2. Extension Usage and Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 3. Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 56 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 5.1. Extension Type Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 59 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 62 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 64 1. Introduction 66 The Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) is defined in [RFC8175]. 67 It provides the exchange of link related control information between 68 DLEP peers. DLEP peers are comprised of a modem and a router. DLEP 69 defines a base set of mechanisms as well as support for possible 70 extensions. This document defines one such extension. 72 The base DLEP specification does not include any flow control 73 capability. There are various flow control techniques theoretically 74 possible with DLEP. This document defines a DLEP extension which 75 provides an Ethernet-based flow control mechanism for traffic sent 76 from a router to a modem. Flow control is provided using one or more 77 logical "Credit Windows", each of which will typically be supported 78 by an associated virtual or physical queue. Traffic sent by a router 79 will use traffic flow classification information provided by the 80 modem to identify which traffic is associated with each credit 81 window. Credit windows may be shared or dedicated on a per flow 82 basis. See [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension] for a DiffServ- 83 based version of credit window flow control. 85 This document uses the traffic classification and credit window 86 control mechanisms defined in 87 [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification] and 88 [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control] to provided credit window 89 based flow control based on on DLEP destination and Ethernet VLANs 90 and Priority Code Points. Ethernet Priority Code Point support is 91 defined as part of the IEEE 802.1Q [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] tag format and 92 includes a 3 bit "PCP" field. The tag format also includes a 12 bit 93 VLAN identifier (VID) field. The defined mechanism allows for credit 94 windows to be shared across traffic sent to multiple DLEP 95 destinations VLANs, and PCPs, or used exclusively for traffic sent to 96 a particular destination and/or VLAN and/or PCP. The extension also 97 supports the "wildcard" matching of any PCP or VID. 99 The extension defined in this document is referred to as "IEEE 802.1Q 100 Aware Credit Window" or, more simply, the "Ethernet Credit" 101 extension. The reader should be familiar with both the traffic 102 classification and credit window control mechanisms defined in 103 [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification] and 104 [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control]. 106 This document defines a new DLEP Extension Type Value in Section 2 107 which is used to indicate support for the extension. 109 1.1. Key Words 111 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 112 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 113 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 114 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 115 capitals, as shown here. 117 2. Extension Usage and Identification 119 The extension defined in this document is composed of the mechanisms 120 and processing defined in 121 [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification] and 122 [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control]. To indicate that the IEEE 123 802.1Q Aware Credit Window Extension is to be used, an implementation 124 MUST include the IEEE 802.1Q Aware Credit Window Type Value in the 125 Extensions Supported Data Item. The Extensions Supported Data Item 126 is sent and processed according to [RFC8175]. Any implementation 127 that indicates use of the IEEE 802.1Q Aware Credit Window Extension 128 MUST support all Messages, Data Items, the Ethernet Traffic 129 Classification Sub Data Item, and all related processing defined in 130 [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification] and 131 [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control]. 133 The IEEE 802.1Q Aware Credit Window Extension Type Value is TBA1, see 134 Section 5. 136 3. Management Considerations 138 This section provides several network management guidelines to 139 implementations supporting the IEEE 802.1Q Aware Credit Window 140 Extension. 142 The use of the extension defined in this document SHOULD be 143 configurable on both modems and routers. 145 Modems SHOULD support the configuration of PCP to credit window 146 (queue) mapping. 148 Modems MAY support the configuration of PCP to credit window (queue) 149 mapping on a per VLAN basis. Note that VID value of zero (0) is used 150 by [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification] to indicate that VID 151 is ignored and any VID value is used in traffic classification. 153 When VLANs are supported by a modem without support from PCPs, the 154 modem SHOULD support the configuration of VLAN to credit window 155 (queue) mapping. 157 Modems MAY support the configuration of the number of credit windows 158 (queues) to advertise to a router. 160 Routers may have limits on the number of queues that they can support 161 and, perhaps, even limits in supported credit window combinations, 162 e.g., if per destination queues can even be supported at all. When 163 modem-provided credit window information exceeds the capabilities of 164 a router, the router MAY use a subset of the provided credit windows. 165 Alternatively, a router MAY reset the session and indicate that the 166 extension is not supported. In either case, the mismatch of 167 capabilities SHOULD be reported to the user via normal network 168 management mechanisms, e.g., user interface or error logging. 170 4. Security Considerations 172 This document defines a DLEP extension that uses base DLEP mechanisms 173 and the credit window control and flow mechanisms defined in 174 [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification] and 175 [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control]. The use of those 176 mechanisms, and the introduction of a new extension, do not 177 inherently introduce any additional vulnerabilities above those 178 documented in [RFC8175]. The approach taken to Security in that 179 document applies equally to the mechanism defined in this document. 181 5. IANA Considerations 183 This document requests one assignment by IANA. All assignments are 184 to registries defined by [RFC8175]. 186 5.1. Extension Type Value 188 This document requests 1 new assignment to the DLEP Extensions 189 Registry named "Extension Type Values" in the range with the 190 "Specification Required" policy. The requested value is as follows: 192 +------+---------------------------------+ 193 | Code | Description | 194 +------+---------------------------------+ 195 | TBA1 | IEEE 802.1Q Aware Credit Window | 196 +------+---------------------------------+ 198 Table 1: Requested Extension Type Value 200 6. References 202 6.1. Normative References 204 [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control] 205 Cheng, B., Wiggins, D., Berger, L., and S. Ratliff, "DLEP 206 Credit-Based Flow Control Messages and Data Items", draft- 207 ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control-04 (work in progress), 208 March 2019. 210 [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification] 211 Cheng, B., Wiggins, D., and L. Berger, "DLEP Traffic 212 Classification Data Item", August 2018. 214 [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] 215 IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area 216 networks--Bridges and Bridged Networks", IEEE 802.1Q-2014, 217 DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2014.6991462, December 2014, 218 . 221 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 222 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 223 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 224 . 226 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 227 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 228 May 2017, . 230 [RFC8175] Ratliff, S., Jury, S., Satterwhite, D., Taylor, R., and B. 231 Berry, "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)", RFC 8175, 232 DOI 10.17487/RFC8175, June 2017, 233 . 235 6.2. Informative References 237 [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension] 238 Cheng, B., Wiggins, D., and L. Berger, "DLEP DiffServ 239 Aware Credit Window Extension", draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da- 240 credit-extension-07 (work in progress), March 2019. 242 Appendix A. Acknowledgments 244 The document was motivated by discussions in the MANET working group. 245 Many useful comments were received from contributors to the MANET 246 working group. 248 Authors' Addresses 250 David Wiggins 251 MIT Lincoln Laboratory 252 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 253 244 Wood Street 254 Lexington, MA 02421-6426 256 Email: David.Wiggins@ll.mit.edu 258 Lou Berger 259 LabN Consulting, L.L.C. 261 Email: lberger@labn.net