One document matched: draft-pierce-ieprep-pref-treat-examples-01.txt
Differences from draft-pierce-ieprep-pref-treat-examples-00.txt
Internet Engineering Task Force Mike Pierce
Internet Draft Artel
draft-pierce-ieprep-pref-treat-examples-01.txt Don Choi
June 23, 2003 DISA
Expires December 2003
Examples for Provision of Preferential Treatment in Voice over IP
draft-pierce-ieprep-pref-treat-examples-01.txt
Status of this memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026.
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
To view the list Internet-Draft Shadow Directories, see
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Copyright
Copyright (C) Internet Society 2003. All rights reserved.
Reproduction or translation of the complete document, but not of
extracts, including this notice, is freely permitted.
Abstract
Assured Service refers to the set of capabilities used to ensure
that mission critical communications are setup and remain connected.
[Pierce] describes the requirements, one of which is to provide
preferential treatment to higher priority calls. IEPS refers to a
set of capabilities used to provide a higher probability of call
completion to emergency calls made by authorized personnel, usually
from ordinary telephones. This also requires some form of
preferential treatment. This informational memo describes some of
the methods which may be applied to provide that preferential
treatment.
Mike Pierce Expires December 2003 [Page 1]
Internet Draft Examples of Preferential Treatment June 23, 2003
Table of Contents
0. Changes............................................................2
1. Introduction.......................................................2
2. Background.........................................................3
3. Potential Preferential Treatments..................................3
3.1. Reservation of Network Resources...............................4
3.1.1. RSVP.......................................................4
3.1.2. MPLS.......................................................4
3.2. Use of Higher Call Acceptance Limits...........................5
3.3. Preferential Queuing of Signaling Messages.....................6
3.4. Preferential Queuing of User Data Packets......................7
3.5. Discarding of Packets using DiffServ...........................7
3.5.1. Treatment for Signaling Packets............................8
3.5.2. Treatment for Voice Packets................................9
3.6. Preemption of One or More Existing Calls.......................9
4. Preemption of Some of the Resources Being Used....................10
4.1. Preemption of the Reservation.................................10
4.2. Others........................................................10
5. Security Considerations...........................................10
6. IANA Considerations...............................................10
7. References........................................................10
8. Authors' Addresses................................................11
0. Changes
This draft was originally submitted under SIPPING, but now being
submitted under IEPREP to focus consideration and discussion in that
WG in conjunction with the related discussions for IEPS.
(SIPPING) -00 Initial version based on material removed from draft-
pierce-sipping-assured-service-01.
(IEPREP) -00 Added references to IEPREP in Intro. Update references.
add details about packet dropping procedure.
(IEPREP) -01 Updated references
1. Introduction
The requirements for Assured Service in support of networks
requiring precedence treatment for certain calls is are described in
[Pierce]. One of those requirements is Preferential treatment, which
is the following:
It must be possible to provide preferential treatment to higher
precedence calls in relation to lower precedence calls. Examples of
preferential treatments are:
. reservation of network resources for precedence calls
Mike Pierce Expires December 2003 [Page 2]
Internet Draft Examples of Preferential Treatment June 23, 2003
. usage of higher Call Acceptance limits for higher precedence
calls
. preferential queuing of signaling messages based on precedence
level
. preferential queuing of user data packets based on precedence
level
. discarding of packets of lower precedence call
. preemption of one or more existing calls of lower precedence
level
. preemption of some of the resources being used by a call of
lower precedence level
. preemption of the reservation of resources being held for other
traffic
Several current drafts describe the requirements for provision of
the International Emergency Preparedness Scheme (IEPS). This service
requires some types of preferential treatment for these calls, which
can be viewed as a subset of the requirements for Assured Service
listed above. These requirements include:
. higher probability of call completion
. lower probability of premature disconnect
. distinguish IEPS data packets from other types of VoIP Packets
in order to give them "priority".
. alternate path routing
This informational memo describes some ways in which the above
listed preferential treatments may be provided by utilizing current
or new capabilities.
2. Background
The requirement for Precedence Level marking of a call setup attempt
using SIP [RFC3261] will be met by the proposed Resource Priority
header [Resource]. The value carried in this header represents the
relative precedence level of the call, and is used to control any of
the following described procedures for providing Preferential
Treatment.
3. Potential Preferential Treatments
The requirement to provide preferential treatment to calls may be
met by applying any combination of the following procedures:
Mike Pierce Expires December 2003 [Page 3]
Internet Draft Examples of Preferential Treatment June 23, 2003
3.1. Reservation of Network Resources
This procedure involves pre-reserving certain network resources
during periods when no higher precedence traffic is present so as to
be prepared to handle a given level of high precedence traffic in
the case of an emergency. While this method is already used in the
circuit switched environment, it is less than desirable since it
requires a tradeoff between the amount of wasted resources during
non-emergency periods and the amount of emergency traffic which can
be handled using those reserved facilities.
IETF defined QoS mechanisms for packet-mode operation offer some
improvement to this situation by allowing the amount of reserved
resources to be adjusted.
3.1.1. RSVP
RSVP may be used to establish multiple trunk groups between
switching points, with each trunk group serving a different
precedence level of calls. Each trunk group would be sized based on
the number of simultaneous calls of that precedence level to be
supported. (In this context, a trunk group refers to a facility
which can support a certain number of voice connections at a certain
Quality of Service level. As noted later, the number of connections
can be increased with a corresponding decease in the QoS level.)
With TE, the reserved sizes of these trunk groups could be adjusted
during times of emergency.
No preemption of these trunk groups is needed. However, reducing the
size of a group to near zero would prevent further calls from using
it while allowing existing calls to continue.
3.1.2. MPLS
MPLS may be used to establish the equivalent of dedicated trunk
groups between switching entities, enterprise network, etc. Each of
these "trunk groups" could exist to support a specific precedence
level of traffic between two points and could be setup using the
procedures of CR-LDP [RFC3212] or RSVP-TE [RFC3209]. These support
the signaling of the required five levels of precedence.
3.1.2.1. Constraint-based LSP Setup using LDP
CR-LDP [RFC3212] defines an extension to LDP to provide a
constraint-based routing using MPLS. One of the constraints is based
on the notion of a "priority" level for the new setup. It includes
the signaling of a setup priority and a holding priority with the
value of each being 0-7 (0 is the highest priority). When setting up
an LSP as a trunk group to carry the traffic of one of the expected
precedence levels defined in [Pierce], the following mapping would
be used:
Mike Pierce Expires December 2003 [Page 4]
Internet Draft Examples of Preferential Treatment June 23, 2003
+------------------+------------------------+
| Assured Service | RFC3212 Preemption TLV |
| Precedence +-----------+------------+
| Level | SetPrio | HoldPrio |
+------------------+-----------+------------+
| Routine | 4 | 0 |
| Priority | 3 | 0 |
| Immediate | 2 | 0 |
| Flash | 1 | 0 |
| Flash Override | 0 | 0 |
+------------------+-----------+------------+
This mapping prevents any preemption of a trunk group for the
establishment of another. Rather, it is expected that trunk groups
for all precedence levels would be initially created and remain.
Only their allocated size might be changed.
If actual preemption were desired, the appropriate HoldPrio values
would be used.
3.1.2.2. RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels
As an alternative to LDP, RSVP-TE [RFC3209] defines the use of RSVP
with extensions to perform the label distribution for MPLS. It also
includes the same setup and holding priorities as defined in CR-LDP
[RFC3212]. When using RSVP as the label distribution protocol, the
same mapping shown above for LDP would be used.
3.2. Use of Higher Call Acceptance Limits
One aspect of preferential treatment may be provided, without
resorting to preemption of calls, by allowing higher precedence
calls to be setup even when they result in exceeding the engineered
traffic limit on a facility (on an MPLS LSR, for example).
This procedure presumes the existence of a call acceptance function
which is aware of the traffic loading on various links and entities,
and compares these against some thresholds before allowing the
establishment of a new call (packet flow).
For example, the limits for call acceptance for new calls could be
set as depicted in the following table, where the engineered
capacity of a route or facility is "x". A new call of each
precedence level would be allowed only if the current load is within
the limit shown:
Mike Pierce Expires December 2003 [Page 5]
Internet Draft Examples of Preferential Treatment June 23, 2003
+------------------+-----------+
| Precedence Level | Capacity |
| | limit of |
+------------------+-----------+
| Routine | .9x |
| Priority | .95x |
| Immediate | x |
| Flash | 1.2x |
| Flash-override | 1.3x |
+------------------+-----------+
Explanation of table: In this example, a new Flash call is allowed
to be setup if the current traffic load for all traffic on the
facility is less than 1.2x. In the example shown in this table,
Routine traffic is always prevented from using the last 10% of the
capacity. The choice of the multipliers would be based on an
analysis of the tradeoff between getting the high precedence level
call through vs. sacrificing its QoS. It would depend on the voice
encoding algorithms typically used and the end user expectations.
This procedure is based on a requirement that Flash override calls
should "never" be blocked. (In a probability-based system, there is
no such thing as "never".) In the circuit-switched environment this
could only be guaranteed by having as many circuits as there might
be Flash override calls. For IP-based service, there is no fixed
number of "circuits" on any facility. The "x" referred to above is
only an engineering limit based on a guarantee for the provision of
a certain QoS for normal traffic, i.e., Routine and Priority. This
"x" may be thought of as the number of "circuits" for normal
traffic. It is preferable to allow the setup of additional higher
precedence calls with reduced QoS rather than blocking their setup.
For example, while a particular facility may support 100 normal
calls (Routine and Priority) at the guaranteed QoS, it might support
130 flash-override calls at a reduced, yet acceptable, QoS (due to
packet loss) when in an emergency situation.
Since the packet preferential treatment using Diff-Serv described in
Section 3.5 could result in the discard or loss of the packets for
the lower precedence calls, the higher precedence calls could still
be provided a sufficient QoS even though they may have caused the
engineered capacity of the route to be exceeded. The lower
precedence calls will then experience higher packet discard rates or
queuing delay times. If the discard rate or delay for these lower
precedence calls is excessive, the end user will experience poor QoS
and will likely disconnect, thereby freeing up the resources.
This "encouraged disconnect" may be thought of as a "graceful
preemption".
3.3. Preferential Queuing of Signaling Messages
There is no plan to apply preferential queuing to signaling messages
(ahead of other signaling messages), just as this was not done in
the circuit switched network. No advantage can be shown for such a
Mike Pierce Expires December 2003 [Page 6]
Internet Draft Examples of Preferential Treatment June 23, 2003
procedure and it would only aggravate the problem of out-of-order
messages.
3.4. Preferential Queuing of User Data Packets
It is not expected that priority queuing of user data packets (ahead
of other user data packets) would provide a useful capability.
3.5. Discarding of Packets using DiffServ
Within DiffServ, Assured Forwarding [RFC2597] provides four classes
and three drop precedences for each class (12 DSCP code points). One
of these classes could be used for the signaling messages for
session establishment and release. AF is not considered as being
appropriate for audio.
Expedited Forwarding [RFC3246] defines a single class (DSCP code
point) and operation, but does not include multiple drop precedences
as AF does. The intention of EF is to "provide low loss, latency and
jitter" and is understood to be intended for traffic such as speech,
although RFC 3246 does not explicitly mention speech or voice.
However, speech is less susceptible to loss than the signaling
traffic and, under some traffic situations, will constitute a much
larger portion of the overall load. Therefore, multiple drop
precedences to alleviate overload are more appropriate to EF than
they are to AF.
The result of this use of DiffServ classes is that voice packets are
always given priority over the signaling packets and all voice
packets are treated the same. While this is the desired behavior in
many cases, it is not desired in those cases in which a limited
sized facility could become completely occupied by voice traffic
(using EF). In this situation, further signaling messages (using
AF), including those to setup new high precedence calls and those to
release low precedence calls, would be lost or excessively delayed.
Therefore, it is necessary to reserve a small capacity for use by
the AF class which serves the signaling traffic as described in
Section 2.10 of EF [RFC3246].
For that portion of the capacity using EF for voice, the required
preferential treatment for the five call precedence levels may be
provided by the use of multiple drop precedence (probability) levels
for packets. The procedures for these drop precedence levels would
be the same as defined currently for the three levels for each class
in AF [RFC2597].
Five such levels for packet marking, using DSCPs, are needed to
provide the required functionality. In the absence of "standardized"
DSCP values, local values will be assigned, probably from the
experimental set. Based on the definitions for AF, these levels are
referred to here as:
. Very low (i.e., lowest probability of being dropped)
Mike Pierce Expires December 2003 [Page 7]
Internet Draft Examples of Preferential Treatment June 23, 2003
. Low
. Medium
. High
. Very high (i.e., highest probability of being dropped)
The following possible mappings are shown to illustrate the concept
of using DiffServ codepoints to assist in the provision of
preferential treatment to the individual packets which make up the
information transfer (both the connection setup signaling and the
voice transfer) of an Assured Service call.
3.5.1. Treatment for Signaling Packets
Consideration could be given to utilization of different drop
precedences for the signaling messages associated with different
precedence sessions. However, using SS#7 in the PSTN as a basis, it
might also be meaningful to provide different drop precedences based
on type of message rather than only based on the precedence of the
call. For example, for routine traffic, those messages which cause
the release of sessions could be given a lower drop precedence than
those which set up new sessions in order to allow such releases to
take place properly under overload conditions. High precedence
calls, on the other hand could use a lower drop precedence level for
session setup messages than those of routine precedence calls. The
following table shows what is defined for SS#7 [T1.111], including
High Probability of Completion [T1.631] and MLPP [T1.619], and what
might be used for SIP.
(Note: The highest SS#7 Congestion Priority Level, i.e., "3", is the
last to be dropped during congestion.)
(Refer to RFC 3398 for mapping of ISUP to SIP messages.)
+---------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| SS#7 | SIP |
+--------------------+------------+----------------+------------+
| Message | Congestion | Message | Drop |
| | Priority | | Precedence |
| | Level | | Level |
+--------------------+------------+----------------+------------+
| Network management | 3 | ? | low |
| ANM | 2 | 200 OK (INVITE)| medium |
| RLC | 2 | 200 OK (BYE) | (note) |
| IAM (MLPP) | 1 or 2 | INVITE (AS) | low/medium |
| IAM (HPC) | 1 | INVITE (IEPS) | low |
| ACM | 1 | 18x | medium |
| CPG | 1 | 100 Trying/18x | medium |
| REL | 1 | BYE | low |
| IAM (normal) | 0 | INVITE (normal)| high |
| Others | 0 | | |
+--------------------+------------+----------------+------------+
Note: For SIP, unless noted otherwise, all ACKs should have the same
preferential treatment as the message they are acknowledging.
Mike Pierce Expires December 2003 [Page 8]
Internet Draft Examples of Preferential Treatment June 23, 2003
3.5.2. Treatment for Voice Packets
This example is for the case of the use of DiffServ to provide the
packet forwarding preferential treatment through multiple drop
precedence levels. It uses the Multi-Level Expedited Forwarding Per
Hop Behavior [Silverman]. Each packet containing user data (voice)
is marked with a unique DiffServ codepoint to indicate one of the
following levels and resulting treatment:
+--------------+--------------------+-----------------+
| Precedence | Indication in user | Drop if current |
| Level | voice packets | queue is more |
| +-------+------------+ than -- % full |
| | Class | Drop | |
| | | precedence | |
+--------------+-------+------------+-----------------+
|Routine | MLEF | Very high | 80% |
|Priority | MLEF | High | 90% |
|Immediate | MLEF | Medium | 100% |
|Flash | MLEF | Low | 110% |
|Flash Override| MLEF | Very low | 120% |
+--------------+-------+------------+-----------------+
All voice traffic is then served by a single instance of MLEF, and
served by a single (strict FIFO) queue. This results is an equal
treatment in terms of delay variation (often called "jitter") for
all precedence levels for those packets which are delivered, but
achieves this by selective packet discard. The discard may use a
simple tail dropping algorithm as shown in the above table or a form
of "Random Early Detection" as described in [RFC2309] to drop some
packets before the queue actually reaches the fill shown above.
However, since the packets in this queue are not using TCP and can
not be bursty or "aggressive", there appears to be no advantage
gained by the complexity of early detection and random dropping.
Note that "queue full" here refers to the engineered limit, that is,
the limit which needs to be applied in order to meet the
requirements of the EF PHB and the desired QoS. Since this
calculation is based on probabilities of achieving a certain target
QoS, it can be temporarily exceeded as described in the following
section.
3.6. Preemption of One or More Existing Calls
The procedures described above for use of higher call acceptance
limits and selective discard of voice packets based on the
precedence level of the call reduce or eliminate the need to perform
preemption of existing calls within the IP domain. The statistical
nature of packet transmission makes it possible to "squeeze" an
additional high precedence call into an already "full" facility, as
illustrated in the previous section. It should be noted that, in the
extreme case, these procedures would result in the same effect as
preemption, since the resources of the lower precedence call would
Mike Pierce Expires December 2003 [Page 9]
Internet Draft Examples of Preferential Treatment June 23, 2003
be so severely degraded (via packet loss) that communication would
be impossible and the users would likely disconnect.
When interworking with circuit switched portions of the
telecommunications network, preemption procedures are still required
within transport facilities which are based on fixed numbers of
circuits. In some cases, this preemption results in specific
procedures being applied in the packet portion, such as
notifications of preemption and forced disconnect of a session.
4. Preemption of Some of the Resources Being Used
The "preemption" of some of the resources being used by lower
precedence traffic may be accomplished through the packet discard
described above.
4.1. Preemption of the Reservation
Based on traffic engineering, the amount of resources allocated to
reserved paths (e.g., MPLS or RSVP) could be adjusted. For example,
when an emergency situation occurs, the need for more resources to
support higher priority traffic could be recognized. The existing
LSPs could be changed using the procedures of [RFC3214] to allow the
size of those LSPs supporting the higher priority traffic to be
increased while others are decreased.
4.2. Others
There may be other procedures which could be used to provide the
required preferential treatments.
5. Security Considerations
The security considerations are covered in [Pierce].
6. IANA Considerations
It is not expected that there will be any IANA involvement in
support of provision of Preferential Treatment for Assured Service
beyond what is described in [Resource].
7. References
[RFC2205] "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)", R. Braden, et al,
September 1997
[RFC2309] "Recommendations on Queue Management and Congestion
Avoidance", B. Braden, April 1998.
Mike Pierce Expires December 2003 [Page 10]
Internet Draft Examples of Preferential Treatment June 23, 2003
[RFC2597] "Assured Forwarding PHB Group", J. Heinanen, et al, June
1999.
[RFC2751] "Signaled Preemption Priority Policy Element", D. Thaler,
January 2000.
[RFC3209] "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", D. Awduche,
December 2001.
[RFC3212] "CR-LDP: Constraint-based LSP Setup using LDP", B.
Jamoussi, et al, January 2002.
[RFC3214] "LSP Modification Using CR-LDP", J. Ash, et al, January
2002.
[RFC3246] "An Expedited Forwarding PHB", B. Davie, et al, March
2002.
[RFC3261] "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", J. Rosenberg, et al,
June 2002.
[T1.111] ANSI T1.111-2001, "Signalling System No. 7 (SS7) - Message
Transfer Part".
[T1.619] ANSI T1.619-1992 (R1999) "ISDN - Multi-Level Precedence and
Preemption (MLPP) Service Capability".
[T1.631] ANSI T1.631-1993 (R1999) "Telecommunications - Signalling
System No. 7 (SS7) - High Probability of Completion (HPC) Network
Capability".
[Pierce] draft-pierce-ieprep-assured-service-req-01, "Requirements
for Assured Service Capabilities in Voice over IP", June 2003
[Resource] draft-ietf-sip-resource-priority-00, "SIP Communications
Resource Priority Header", Henning Schulzrinne and James Polk, June
2003.
[Silverman] draft-silverman-diffserv-mlefphb-00, "Multi-Level
Expedited Forwarding Per Hop Behaviour (MLEF)", Steve Silverman, et
al, February 2003.
8. Authors' Addresses
Michael Pierce
Artel
1893 Preston White Drive
Reston, VA 20191
Phone: +1 410.817.4795
Email: pierce1m@ncr.disa.mil
Mike Pierce Expires December 2003 [Page 11]
Internet Draft Examples of Preferential Treatment June 23, 2003
Don Choi
DISA
5600 Columbia Pike
Falls Church, VA 22041-2717
Phone: +1 703.681.2312
Email: choid@ncr.disa.mil
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (c) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
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
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
Mike Pierce Expires December 2003 [Page 12]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 03:05:26 |