One document matched: draft-ietf-mpls-cosfield-def-05.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-mpls-cosfield-def-04.txt
Network Working Group L. Andersson
Internet-Draft Acreo AB
Updates: RFC 3032, RFC 3270, RFC R. Asati
5129, RFC 3272, RFC 3443, RFC Cisco Systems
3469, RFC 3564, RFC 3985, RFC October 15, 2008
4182, RFC 4364, RFC 4379, RFC
4448, RFC 4761 (if approved)
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: April 18, 2009
"EXP field" renamed to "Traffic Class field"
draft-ietf-mpls-cosfield-def-05.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 18, 2009.
Andersson & Asati Expires April 18, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MPLS CoS field defintion October 2008
Abstract
The early MPLS documents defined the form of the MPLS Label Stack
entry. This include a three bit field called the "EXP field". The
exact use of this field was not defined by these documents, except to
state that it was to be "reserved for experimental use".
Although the intended use of the EXP field was as a "Class of
Service" field, it was not named the "Class of Service" (CoS) field
by these early documents because the use of such a CoS field was not
considered to be sufficiently defined. Today a number of standards
documents define its usage as a CoS field. .
To avoid misunderstanding about how this field may be used, it has
become increasingly necessary to rename this field. This document
changes the name of the field to the "Traffic Class field" ("TC
field".) In doing so it also updates documents that define the
current use of the EXP this field.
Andersson & Asati Expires April 18, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MPLS CoS field defintion October 2008
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Details of change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. RFC 3032 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. RFC 3270 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3. RFC 5129 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4. The Scope of this Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. Use of the TC field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 18
Andersson & Asati Expires April 18, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MPLS CoS field defintion October 2008
1. Introduction
The format of a MPLS label stack entry is defined by RFC 3032
[RFC3032], include a three bit field called the "EXP field". The
exact use of this field is not defined by RFC 3032 leaves, except to
state that it is to be "reserved for experimental use".
The EXP field, from the start, was intended to carry "Class of
Service" information. The field was actually called the "Class of
Service field" in the early versions of the working group document
that was publshed as RFC 3032. However at the time that RFC 3032 was
published the exact usage of this "Class of Service" field was not
agreed and the field was designated as "Experimental use".
The designation "for Experimental use" has led other Standards
Development Organizations (SDO) and implementors to the assume that
it possible to use the field for other purposes. This document
changes the name of the field to clearly indicate its use as a
traffic classification field.
At first we discussed to use the orignal "CoS field" as the name for
the field, but it has been pointed that this name does not cover the
following changes wrt its usage, since RFC 3032 was published.
1. The use of the EXP field was first defined in RFC 3270 [RFC3270]
where a method to define a variant of DiffServ LSPs called EXP-
Inferred-PSC LSP (E-LSPs) was specified.
2. The use of the EXP field as defined in RFC 3270 has been further
extended in RFC 5129 [RFC5129], where methods for explicit
congestion marking in MPLS are defined.
This document, hence, uses the name "Traffic Class Field (TC Field)",
which better covers the potential use.
The defintions of how the EXP field are used are perfectly clear in
RFC 3270 and RFC 5129. However, these RFCs do not explicitly state
they update RFC 3032, and this fact is not captured in the RFC
respository. This document updates RFC 3032, RFC 3270 and RFC 5129
to clarify the intended usage of the TC field. Section 2 explains
the changes.
This document, hence, uses the name "Traffic Class Field (TC Field)",
which better covers the potential use. The MPLS TC field relates to
an MPLS encapsulated packet the same way as the IPv6 TC field relates
to an IPv6 encapsulted packet or the IPv4 Precedence field relates to
an IPv4 encapsulated packet.
Andersson & Asati Expires April 18, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MPLS CoS field defintion October 2008
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Andersson & Asati Expires April 18, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MPLS CoS field defintion October 2008
2. Details of change
The three RFCs are now updated according to the following.
2.1. RFC 3032
RFC 3032 states on page 4:
3. Experimental Use
This three-bit field is reserved for experimental use.
This paragraph is now changed to:
3. Traffic Class (TC) field
This three-bit field is used to carry Traffic Class information
and the change of the name is applicable to all places it occurs
in IETF RFCs and other IETF documents.
RFC 3270 and RFC 5129 updates the definition of the TC field and
describes how to use the field.
In Figure 1 on page 3 in RFC3032 the format of a label stack entry is
specified as:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Label
| Label | Exp |S| TTL | Stack
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Entry
Label: Label Value, 20 bits
Exp: Experimental Use, 3 bits
S: Bottom of Stack, 1 bit
TTL: Time to Live, 8 bits
Figure 1
Figure 1 in RFC 3032 is now changed to match the change of name of
the TC field to:
Andersson & Asati Expires April 18, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MPLS CoS field defintion October 2008
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Label
| Label | TC |S| TTL | Stack
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Entry
Label: Label Value, 20 bits
CoS: Traffic Class field, 3 bits
S: Bottom of Stack, 1 bit
TTL: Time to Live, 8 bits
Figure 1
2.2. RFC 3270
RFC 3270 says on page 6:
1.2 EXP-Inferred-PSC LSPs (E-LSP)
A single LSP can be used to support one or more OAs. Such LSPs
can support up to eight BAs of a given FEC, regardless of how many
OAs these BAs span. With such LSPs, the EXP field of the MPLS
Shim Header is used by the LSR to determine the PHB to be applied
to the packet. This includes both the PSC and the drop
preference.
We refer to such LSPs as "EXP-inferred-PSC LSPs" (E-LSP), since
the PSC of a packet transported on this LSP depends on the EXP
field value for that packet.
The mapping from the EXP field to the PHB (i.e., to PSC and drop
precedence) for a given such LSP, is either explicitly signaled at
label set-up or relies on a pre-configured mapping.
Detailed operations of E-LSPs are specified in section 3 below.
RFC 3270 is now updated like this:
a. A new paragraph is added at the end of section 1 "Introduction":
Andersson & Asati Expires April 18, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MPLS CoS field defintion October 2008
The EXP field has been renamed to the TC field, and thus all
references in RFC 3270 to EXP field SHOULD be taken to refer
to the TC field.
b. A new term is added to section 1.1 "Terminology":
TC Traffic Class (replaces the term EXP)
c. A new acronym is added at the end of section 1.1 "Terminology":
T-LSP TC-Inferred-PSC LSP (future replacement of the term
E-LSP)
Section 1.2 on page 5 in RFC 3270 is now changed to:
1.2 EXP-Inferred-PSC LSPs (E-LSP)
The EXP field has been renamed to the TC field, and thus all
references in RFC 3270 to EXP field SHOULD be taken to refer to
the TC field. However, we retain the term E-LSP (EXP-Inferred-PSC
LSP) as it is in widespread use.
A single LSP can be used to support one or more OAs. Such LSPs
can support up to eight BAs of a given FEC, regardless of how many
OAs these BAs span. With such LSPs, the TC field of the MPLS Shim
Header is used by the LSR to determine the PHB to be applied to
the packet. This includes both the PSC and the drop preference.
We refer to such LSPs as "EXP-inferred-PSC LSPs" (E-LSP), since
the PSC of a packet transported on this LSP depends on the TC
field (previously called the EXP field) value for that packet.
In future documents the term "TC-inferred-PSC LSPs" (T-LSP) may be
be used to refer to such LSPs as , since the PSC of a packet
transported on this LSP depends on the TC field value for that
packet. The meaning of E-SLP and T-LSP is the same.
The mapping from the TC field to the PHB (i.e., to PSC and drop
precedence) for a given such LSP, is either explicitly signaled at
label set-up or relies on a pre-configured mapping.
This is an update to RFC 3032 [RFC3032] in line with the original
intent of how this field in the MPLS Shim Header should be used
(as TC field). The RFC 3270 has itself been updated by RFC 5129
[RFC5129].
Detailed operations of E-LSPs are specified in section 3 of
RFC3270.
Andersson & Asati Expires April 18, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MPLS CoS field defintion October 2008
2.3. RFC 5129
Section 2 (bullet 3) on page 6 of RFC 5129 says:
o A third possible approach was suggested by [Shayman]. In this
scheme, interior LSRs assume that the endpoints are ECN-capable,
but this assumption is checked when the final label is popped. If
an interior LSR has marked ECN in the EXP field of the shim
header, but the IP header says the endpoints are not ECN-capable,
the edge router (or penultimate router, if using penultimate hop
popping) drops the packet. We recommend this scheme, which we
call `per-domain ECT checking', and define it more precisely in
the following section. Its chief drawback is that it can cause
packets to be forwarded after encountering congestion only to be
dropped at the egress of the MPLS domain. The rationale for this
decision is given in Section 8.1.
RFC 5129 is now updated like this:
A new paragraph is added at the end of section 1.1 "Background":
The EXP field has been renamed to the TC field, and thus all
references in RFC 5129 to EXP field SHOULD be taken to refer to
the TC field.
Section 2 (bullet 3) on page 6 ofis now changed to:
o A third possible approach was suggested by [Shayman]. In this
scheme, interior LSRs assume that the endpoints are ECN-capable,
but this assumption is checked when the final label is popped. If
an interior LSR has marked ECN in the TC field of the shim header,
but the IP header says the endpoints are not TC-capable, the edge
router (or penultimate router, if using penultimate hop popping)
drops the packet. We recommend this scheme, which we call `per-
domain ECT checking', and define it more precisely in the
following section. Its chief drawback is that it can cause
packets to be forwarded after encountering congestion only to be
dropped at the egress of the MPLS domain. The rationale for this
decision is given in Section 8.1. This scheme is an update to RFC
3032 [RFC3032] and RFC 3270 [RFC3270].
2.4. The Scope of this Change
There are several places in the RFCs that has explicitly updated by
this document that refrence the "Exp field", sometimes they refer to
the field as "Exp bits", "EXP bits" and "EXP". In all those
instances the references SHOULD be taken to reference the TC field.
Andersson & Asati Expires April 18, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MPLS CoS field defintion October 2008
There are also other RFCs, e.g. RFC 3272 [RFC3272], RFC 3443
[RFC3443], RFC 3469 [RFC3469], RFC 3564 [RFC3564], RFC 3985
[RFC3985], RFC 4182 [RFC4182], RFC 4364 [RFC4364], RFC 4379
[RFC4379], RFC 4448 [RFC4448] and RFC 4761 [RFC4761] that references
the "Exp field", sometimes they refer to the field as "Exp bits",
"EXP bits" and "EXP". For all RFCs, including but not limited to
those mentioned in this paragraph, such references SHOULD be taken to
reference the TC field.
Andersson & Asati Expires April 18, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MPLS CoS field defintion October 2008
3. Use of the TC field
Due to the limited number of bits in the TC field, their use for QoS
and ECN functions is intended to be flexible. These funtions may
rewrite all or some of the bits in the TC field.
Current implementations look at the TC field with and without label
context and the TC field may be copied to the label stack entries
that are pushed onto the label stack. This is done to avoid that
label stack entries that are pushed on to an existing label stack
have different TF fields from the rest of the label stack entries.
Andersson & Asati Expires April 18, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MPLS CoS field defintion October 2008
4. IANA considerations
There are no request for IANA allocation of code points in this
document.
Andersson & Asati Expires April 18, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MPLS CoS field defintion October 2008
5. Security considerations
This document only changes the name of one field in the MPLS Shim
Header and thus does not introduce any new security considerations.
Andersson & Asati Expires April 18, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MPLS CoS field defintion October 2008
6. Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Stewart Bryant, Bruce Davie, George
Swallow, Rajiv Asati and Francois Le Faucheur for their input to and
review of the current document.
The author also like to thanks George Swallow, Khatri Paresh and Phil
Bedard for their help with grammar and spelling, and a special thanks
to Adrian Farrel for a careful review and help trawling the RFC-sea
for RFCs that references the EXP field.
Andersson & Asati Expires April 18, 2009 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft MPLS CoS field defintion October 2008
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001.
[RFC3270] Le Faucheur, F., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S., Vaananen,
P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and J. Heinanen, "Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated
Services", RFC 3270, May 2002.
[RFC3272] Awduche, D., Chiu, A., Elwalid, A., Widjaja, I., and X.
Xiao, "Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic
Engineering", RFC 3272, May 2002.
[RFC3443] Agarwal, P. and B. Akyol, "Time To Live (TTL) Processing
in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks",
RFC 3443, January 2003.
[RFC3469] Sharma, V. and F. Hellstrand, "Framework for Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)-based Recovery", RFC 3469,
February 2003.
[RFC3564] Le Faucheur, F. and W. Lai, "Requirements for Support of
Differentiated Services-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering",
RFC 3564, July 2003.
[RFC3985] Bryant, S. and P. Pate, "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-
Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005.
[RFC4182] Rosen, E., "Removing a Restriction on the use of MPLS
Explicit NULL", RFC 4182, September 2005.
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006.
[RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
February 2006.
[RFC4448] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., and G. Heron,
"Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over MPLS
Networks", RFC 4448, April 2006.
Andersson & Asati Expires April 18, 2009 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft MPLS CoS field defintion October 2008
[RFC4761] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Virtual Private LAN Service
(VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and Signaling",
RFC 4761, January 2007.
[RFC5129] Davie, B., Briscoe, B., and J. Tay, "Explicit Congestion
Marking in MPLS", RFC 5129, January 2008.
7.2. Informative references
[Shayman] Shayman, M. and R. Jaeger, University of Michigan, "Using
ECN to Signal Congestion Within an MPLS Domain", Work in
Progress, November 2000.", <http://www.watersprings.org/
pub/id/draft-shayman-mpls-ecn-00.txt/>.
Andersson & Asati Expires April 18, 2009 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft MPLS CoS field defintion October 2008
Authors' Addresses
Loa Andersson
Acreo AB
Email: loa@pi.nu
Rajiva Asati
Cisco Systems
Email: rajiva@cisco.com
Andersson & Asati Expires April 18, 2009 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft MPLS CoS field defintion October 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Andersson & Asati Expires April 18, 2009 [Page 18]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 05:47:42 |