One document matched: draft-ietf-conex-destopt-04.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-conex-destopt-03.txt
ConEx Working Group S. Krishnan
Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Standards Track M. Kuehlewind
Expires: September 29, 2013 IKR University of Stuttgart
C. Ucendo
Telefonica
March 28, 2013
IPv6 Destination Option for ConEx
draft-ietf-conex-destopt-04
Abstract
ConEx is a mechanism by which senders inform the network about the
congestion encountered by packets earlier in the same flow. This
document specifies an IPv6 destination option that is capable of
carrying ConEx markings in IPv6 datagrams.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 29, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://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
Krishnan, et al. Expires September 29, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ConEx Destination Option March 2013
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Requirements for marking IPv6 packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. ConEx Destination Option (CDO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Implementation in the fast path of ConEx-aware routers . . . . 6
7. Compatibility with use of IPsec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
11. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Krishnan, et al. Expires September 29, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ConEx Destination Option March 2013
1. Introduction
ConEx [CAM] is a mechanism by which senders inform the network about
the congestion encountered by packets earlier in the same flow. This
document specifies an IPv6 destination option [RFC2460] that can be
used for performing ConEx markings in IPv6 datagrams.
2. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL","SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. Background
The ConEx working group came up with a list of requirements that had
to be met by any marking mechanism. It then considered several
alternative mechanisms and evaluated their suitability for ConEx
marking. There were no mechanisms found that were completely
suitable, but the only mechanism that came close to meeting the
requirements was IPv6 destination options. The analysis of the
different alternatives can be found in [draft-krishnan-conex-ipv6].
Krishnan, et al. Expires September 29, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ConEx Destination Option March 2013
4. Requirements for marking IPv6 packets
R-1: The marking mechanism needs to be visible to all ConEx-capable
nodes on the path.
R-2: The mechanism needs to be able to traverse nodes that do not
understand the markings. This is required to ensure that ConEx can
be incrementally deployed over the Internet.
R-3: The presence of the marking mechanism should not significantly
alter the processing of the packet. This is required to ensure that
ConEx marked packets do not face any undue delays or drops due to a
badly chosen mechanism.
R-4: The markings should be immutable once set by the sender. At the
very least, any tampering should be detectable.
Based on these requirements four solutions to implement the ConEx
information in the IPv6 header have been investigated: hop-by-hop
options, destination options, using IPv6 header bits (from the flow
label), and new extension headers. After evaluating the different
solutions, the wg concluded that only the use of a destination option
would fulfil the requirements.
5. ConEx Destination Option (CDO)
The ConEx Destination Option (CDO) is a destination option that can
be included in IPv6 datagrams that are sent by ConEx-aware senders in
order to inform ConEx-aware nodes on the path about the congestion
encountered by packets earlier in the same flow. The CDO has an
alignment requirement of (none).
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Option Type | Option Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|X|L|E|C| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: ConEx Destination Option Layout
Krishnan, et al. Expires September 29, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ConEx Destination Option March 2013
Option Type
8-bit identifier of the type of option. The option identifier
for the ConEx destination option will be allocated by the IANA.
Option Length
8-bit unsigned integer. The length of the option (excluding
the Option Type and Option Length fields). This field MUST be
set to the value 4.
X Bit
When this bit is set, the transport sender is using ConEx with
this packet. If it is not set, the sender is not using ConEx with
this packet.
L Bit
When this bit is set, the transport sender has experienced a loss.
If it is not set, the sender has not experienced a loss.
E Bit
When this bit is set, the transport sender has experienced
ECN-signaled congestion. If it is not set, the sender has not
experienced ECN-signaled congestion.
C Bit
When this bit is set, the transport sender is building up
congestion credit. Otherwise it is not.
Reserved
These bits are not used in the current specification. They
are set to zero on the sender and are ignored on the receiver.
All packets sent over a ConEx-capable connection MUST carry the CDO.
If the X bit is the zero all other three bits are undefined. If the
X bit is zero that means that the connection is ConEx-capable but
this packet SHOULD NOT be accounted to determine ConEx information in
an audit function. This can be the case for e.g. pure control
packets not carrying any user data. As an example in TCP pure ACKs
are usually not ECN-capable and TCP does not have an mechanism to
announce the lost of a pure ACK to the sender. Thus congestion
information about the ACKs are not available at the sender.
Krishnan, et al. Expires September 29, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft ConEx Destination Option March 2013
If the X bit is set, all three other bit (L, E, C) MAY be set. When
ever one of this bits is set, the number of bytes carried by this IP
packet (including the IP header) SHOULD be accounted for determining
congestion or credit information. In IPv6 the number of bytes can
easily be calculated by adding the number 40 (length of the IPv6
header in bytes) to the value present in the Payload Length field in
the IPv6 header.
In principle all of these three bits (L, E, C) MAY be set in the same
packet. In this case the packet size MUST be accounted more than
once for each respective ConEx information counter. In many cases if
congestion occurs the sender will not sent additional credit, but if
e.g. a sender assumes losses because of an audit function or needs to
maintain a certain sending rate to make an application layer service
work, the occurrence of credit bits (c) in parallel to congestion
exposure bit (L, E) is reasonable.
If a network node extracts the ConEx information from a connection,
this node is usually supposed to hold this information byte-wise,
e.g. comparing the total number of bytes sent with the number of
bytes sent with ConEx congestion mark (L, E) to determine the current
whole path congestion level. For ConEx-aware node processing, the
CDO MUST use the Payload length field of the preceding IPv6 header
for byte-based accounting. When equally sized packets can be
assumed, the accounting of the number of packets (instead the number
of bytes) should deliver the same result. But a network node must be
aware that this estimation can be quite wrong, if e.g. different
sized packed are send, and thus is not reliable.
A ConEx sender SHOULD set the reserved bits in the CDO to zero.
Other nodes SHOULD not interpret these bits.
6. Implementation in the fast path of ConEx-aware routers
The ConEx information is being encoded into a destination option so
that it does not impact forwarding performance in the non-ConEx-aware
nodes on the path. Since destination options are not usually
processed by routers, the existence of the CDO does not affect the
fast path processing of the datagram on non-ConEx-aware routers. i.e.
They are not pushed into the slow path towards the control plane for
exception processing.
The ConEx-aware nodes still need to process the CDO without severely
affecting forwarding. For this to be possible, the ConEx-aware
routers need to quickly ascertain the presence of the CDO and process
the option if it is present. To efficiently perform this, the CDO
needs to be placed in a fairly deterministic location. In order to
Krishnan, et al. Expires September 29, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft ConEx Destination Option March 2013
facilitate forwarding on ConEx-aware routers, ConEx-aware senders who
send IPv6 datagrams with the CDO MUST place the CDO as the first
destination option in the destination options header.
7. Compatibility with use of IPsec
In IPsec transport mode no action needs to be taken as the CDO is
visible to the network. When accounting ConEx information the size
of the Authentication Header (AH) SHOULD NOT be accounted as this
information has been added later. In the IPsec Tunnel model the CDO
SHOULD be copied to the outer IP header as this information is end-
to-end. Only the payload of the outer IP header minus the AH SHOULD
be accounted.
8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Marcelo Bagnulo, Bob Briscoe, Ingemar
Johansson, Joel Halpern and John Leslie for the discussions that led
to this document.
9. Security Considerations
This document does not bring up any new security issues.
10. IANA Considerations
This document defines a new IPv6 destination option for carrying
ConEx markings. IANA is requested to assign a new destination option
type in the Destination Options registry maintained at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters <TBA1> ConEx
Destination Option [RFCXXXX] The act bits for this option need to be
10 and the chg bit needs to be 0.
11. Normative References
[CAM] Mathis, M. and B. Briscoe, "Congestion Exposure (ConEx)
Concepts and Abstract Mechanism",
draft-ietf-ConEx-abstract-mech-05 (work in progress),
July 2011.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Krishnan, et al. Expires September 29, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft ConEx Destination Option March 2013
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
Authors' Addresses
Suresh Krishnan
Ericsson
8400 Blvd Decarie
Town of Mount Royal, Quebec
Canada
Email: suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com
Mirja Kuehlewind
IKR University of Stuttgart
Email: mirja.kuehlewind@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de
Carlos Ralli Ucendo
Telefonica
Email: ralli@tid.es
Krishnan, et al. Expires September 29, 2013 [Page 8]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 04:14:13 |