idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-rsvp-tunnels-interop-00.txt: ** The Abstract section seems to be numbered Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Cannot find the required boilerplate sections (Copyright, IPR, etc.) in this document. Expected boilerplate is as follows today (2024-03-29) according to https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info : IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.a: This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 2: Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 3: This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Missing expiration date. The document expiration date should appear on the first and last page. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about Internet-Drafts being working documents. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of current Internet-Drafts. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of Shadow Directories. == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RSVPv1]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (March 11, 1997) is 9880 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) == Unused Reference: 'RFC2003' is defined on line 111, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-ietf-rsvp-spec-14 == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of draft-berger-rsvp-ext-06 Summary: 9 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 INTERNET DRAFT John J. Krawczyk 2 RSVP Working Group Bay Networks, Inc. 3 draft-ietf-rsvp-tunnels-interop-00.txt March 11, 1997 4 Expires: September, 1997 6 Designing Tunnels for Interoperability with RSVP 8 1. Status of this Memo 10 This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are 11 working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force 12 (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other 13 groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 14 Drafts. 16 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 17 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other 18 documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- 19 Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as 20 "work in progress". 22 To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please 23 check the "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the 24 Internet-Drafts Shadow Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), 25 ftp.nordu.net (Europe), munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), 26 ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or ftp.isi.edu (US West 27 Coast). 29 2. Abstract 31 This memo provides information for designers of tunneling 32 protocols that use IP-in-IP encapsulation. It describes how 33 to design a tunnel header so that RSVP [RSVPv1] can be used to 34 signal the Quality of Service requirements for individual 35 flows within an IP-in-IP tunnel. 37 3. Introduction 39 There are many issues concerning the use of RSVP when data is 40 encapsulated within IP-in-IP tunnels. This memo discusses the 41 problem of classifying flows within a tunnel. It is hoped 42 that this will aid those designing new tunneling mechanisms to 43 make their proposals "RSVP friendly". 45 A problem with most of the existing IP-in-IP tunneling 46 mechanisms is the inability to distinguish between flows 47 within a tunnel based upon the tunnel "wrapper", or outer 48 header. Therefore, while it is possible to make a reservation 49 for the tunnel itself, all traffic in the tunnel is then 50 treated in the same manner. 52 Performing classification based upon the tunnel payload is 53 undesirable. Two major reasons are: 55 Examing additional fields in a packet can have severe 56 performance penalties. 58 The payload may be encrypted. 60 Therefore, it is desirable to be able to distinguish flows 61 based on fields in the encapsulating header. This memo 62 explains how to design a tunnel header to meet this goal. 64 4. Requirements for an RSVP-Friendly Tunnel Header 66 We will assume here that any simplex IP-in-IP tunnel, unicast 67 or multicast, can, at a minimum, be identified by the source 68 and destination IP addresses and an IP protocol number [e.g., 69 RFC2003]. In order to classify individual flows within a 70 tunnel, at least one additional field is needed. To be 71 compliant with RSVP version 1, the following alternatives can 72 be considered: 74 UDP/TCP ports, or fields in the same location in the 75 packet for protocols other than UDP and TCP. 77 For IPv6, the Flow ID. 79 Any mechanism compliant with the Generalized Port 80 Identifier as described in [RSVPIPSEC]. 82 If classification on any other fields is desired, new RSVP 83 SESSION and/or FILTER_SPEC / SENDER_TEMPLATE C-Types have to 84 be defined. 86 5. An Example: UDP Encapsulation 88 A UDP encapsulation scheme would be compatible with RSVP 89 version 1. A well-known port number is necessary for the UDP 90 destination port field. Up to 65534 individual flows could 91 then be multiplexed over the tunnel by using a different value 92 for the UDP source port for each flow. 94 6. Security Considerations 96 Using a tunnel header as described in this document allows for 97 a type of traffic pattern analysis. The required level of 98 exposure may be acceptable in many situations because the 99 actual source and destination of the traffic will not be 100 visible if the end-to-end packet format does not make it so. 101 If this exposure is unacceptable, per-flow classification is 102 not possible. 104 7. References 106 [RSVPv1] R. Braden, L. Zhang, S. Berson, S. Herzog, S. Jamin, 107 "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional 108 Specification", Internet Draft draft-ietf-rsvp-spec-14.txt, 109 November, 1996. 111 [RFC2003] C. Perkins, "IP Encapsulation within IP", IETF RFC 112 2003, October, 1996. 114 [RSVPIPSEC] L. Berger, T. O'Malley, "RSVP Extensions for IPSEC 115 Data Flows", Internet Draft draft-berger-rsvp-ext-06.txt, Jan, 116 1997. 118 8. Author's Address 120 John J. Krawczyk 121 Bay Networks, Inc. 122 2 Federal Street 123 Billerica, MA 01821 124 +1-508-916-3811 125 jj@baynetworks.com