|
|
|
|
|
|
IETF RFC 8100
Last modified on Friday, March 10th, 2017
 Permanent link to RFC 8100
 Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 8100
 Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 8100
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) R. Geib, Ed.
Request for Comments: 8100 Deutsche Telekom
Category: Informational D. Black
ISSN: 2070-1721 Dell EMC
March 2017
Diffserv-Interconnection Classes and Practice
 Abstract
This document defines a limited common set of Diffserv Per-Hop
Behaviors (PHBs) and Diffserv Codepoints (DSCPs) to be applied at
(inter)connections of two separately administered and operated
networks, and it explains how this approach can simplify network
configuration and operation. Many network providers operate
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) using Treatment Aggregates for
traffic marked with different Diffserv Per-Hop Behaviors and use MPLS
for interconnection with other networks. This document offers a
simple interconnection approach that may simplify operation of
Diffserv for network interconnection among providers that use MPLS
and apply the Short Pipe Model. While motivated by the requirements
of MPLS network operators that use Short Pipe Model tunnels, this
document is applicable to other networks, both MPLS and non-MPLS.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8100.
Geib & Black Informational PAGE 1 
RFC 8100 Diffserv-Intercon March 2017
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Related Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Applicability Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3. Document Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. MPLS and Short Pipe Model Tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Relationship to RFC 5127 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Background of RFC 5127 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Differences from RFC 5127 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. The Diffserv-Intercon Interconnection Classes . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Diffserv-Intercon Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. End-to-End PHB and DSCP Transparency . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.3. Treatment of Network Control Traffic at Carrier
Interconnection Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix A. The MPLS Short Pipe Model and IP Traffic . . . . . . 18
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Geib & Black Informational PAGE 2
RFC 8100 Diffserv-Intercon March 2017
1. Introduction
Diffserv has been deployed in many networks; it provides
differentiated traffic forwarding based on the Diffserv Codepoint
(DSCP) field, which is part of the IP header [RFC 2474]. This
document defines a set of common Diffserv classes (Per-Hop Behaviors
(PHBs)) and codepoints for use at interconnection points to which and
from which locally used classes and codepoints should be mapped.
As described by Section 2.3.4.2 of [RFC 2475], the re-marking of
packets at domain boundaries is a Diffserv feature. If traffic
marked with unknown or unexpected DSCPs is received, [RFC 2474]
recommends forwarding that traffic with default (best-effort)
treatment without changing the DSCP markings to better support
incremental Diffserv deployment in existing networks as well as with
routers that do not support Diffserv or are not configured to support
it. Many networks do not follow this recommendation and instead
re-mark unknown or unexpected DSCPs to zero upon receipt for default
(best-effort) forwarding in accordance with the guidance in [RFC 2475]
to ensure that appropriate DSCPs are used within a Diffserv domain.
This document is based on the latter approach and defines additional
DSCPs that are known and expected at network interconnection
interfaces in order to reduce the amount of traffic whose DSCPs are
re-marked to zero.
This document is motivated by requirements for IP network
interconnection with Diffserv support among providers that operate
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) in their backbones, but it is
also applicable to other technologies. The operational
simplifications and methods in this document help align IP Diffserv
functionality with MPLS limitations resulting from the widely
deployed Short Pipe Model for MPLS tunnel operation [RFC 3270].
Further, limiting Diffserv to a small number of Treatment Aggregates
can enable network traffic to leave a network with the DSCP value
with which it was received, even if a different DSCP is used within
the network, thus providing an opportunity to extend consistent
Diffserv treatment across network boundaries.
In isolation, use of a defined set of interconnection PHBs and DSCPs
may appear to be additional effort for a network operator. The
primary offsetting benefit is that mapping from or to the
interconnection PHBs and DSCPs is specified once for all of the
interconnections to other networks that can use this approach.
Absent this approach, the PHBs and DSCPs have to be negotiated and
configured independently for each network interconnection, which has
poor administrative and operational scaling properties. Further,
Geib & Black Informational PAGE 3
RFC 8100 Diffserv-Intercon March 2017
consistent end-to-end Diffserv treatment is more likely to result
when an interconnection codepoint scheme is used because traffic is
re-marked to the same DSCPs at all network interconnections.
The interconnection approach described in this document (referred to
as "Diffserv-Intercon") uses a set of PHBs (mapped to four
corresponding MPLS Treatment Aggregates) along with a set of
interconnection DSCPs allowing straightforward rewriting to domain-
internal DSCPs and defined DSCP markings for traffic forwarded to
interconnected domains. The solution described here can be used in
other contexts benefiting from a defined Diffserv interconnection
interface.
The basic idea is that traffic sent with a Diffserv-Intercon PHB and
DSCP is restored to that PHB and DSCP at each network
interconnection, even though a different PHB and DSCP may be used
within each network involved. The key requirement is that the
network ingress interconnect DSCP be restored at the network egress,
and a key observation is that this is only feasible in general for a
small number of DSCPs. Traffic sent with other DSCPs can be
re-marked to an interconnect DSCP or dealt with via an additional
agreement(s) among the operators of the interconnected networks; use
of the MPLS Short Pipe Model favors re-marking unexpected DSCPs to
zero in the absence of an additional agreement(s), as explained
further in this document.
In addition to the common interconnecting PHBs and DSCPs,
interconnecting operators need to further agree on the tunneling
technology used for interconnection (e.g., MPLS, if used) and control
or mitigate the impacts of tunneling on reliability and MTU.
1.1. Related Work
In addition to the activities that triggered this work, there are
additional RFCs and Internet-Drafts that may benefit from an
interconnection PHB and DSCP scheme. [RFC 5160] suggests
Meta-QoS-Classes to help enable deployment of standardized end-to-end
QoS classes. The Diffserv-Intercon class and codepoint scheme is
intended to complement that work (e.g., by enabling a defined set of
interconnection DSCPs and PHBs).
Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) support for signaling Class of Service
at interconnection interfaces [BGP-INTERCONNECTION] [SLA-EXCHANGE] is
complementary to Diffserv-Intercon. These two BGP documents focus on
exchanging Service Level Agreement (SLA) and traffic conditioning
parameters and assume that common PHBs identified by the signaled
DSCPs have been established (e.g., via use of the Diffserv-Intercon
DSCPs) prior to BGP signaling of PHB id codes.
Geib & Black Informational PAGE 4
RFC 8100 Diffserv-Intercon March 2017
1.2. Applicability Statement
This document is applicable to the use of Differentiated Services for
interconnection traffic between networks and is particularly suited
to interconnection of MPLS-based networks that use MPLS Short Pipe
Model tunnels. This document is also applicable to other network
technologies, but it is not intended for use within an individual
network, where the approach specified in [RFC 5127] is among the
possible alternatives; see Section 3 for further discussion.
The Diffserv-Intercon approach described in this document simplifies
IP-based interconnection to domains operating the MPLS Short Pipe
Model for IP traffic, both terminating within the domain and
transiting onward to another domain. Transiting traffic is received
and sent with the same PHB and DSCP. Terminating traffic maintains
the PHB with which it was received; however, the DSCP may change.
Diffserv-Intercon is also applicable to Pipe Model tunneling
[RFC 2983] [RFC 3270], but it is not applicable to Uniform Model
tunneling [RFC 2983] [RFC 3270].
The Diffserv-Intercon approach defines a set of four PHBs for support
at interconnections (or network boundaries in general).
Corresponding DSCPs for use at an interconnection interface are also
defined. Diffserv-Intercon allows for a simple mapping of PHBs and
DSCPs to MPLS Treatment Aggregates. It is extensible by IETF
standardization, and this allows additional PHBs and DSCPs to be
specified for the Diffserv-Intercon scheme. Coding space for private
interconnection agreements or provider internal services is
available, as only a single digit number of standard DSCPs are
applied by the Diffserv-Intercon approach.
1.3. Document Organization
This document is organized as follows: Section 2 reviews the MPLS
Short Pipe Model for Diffserv Tunnels [RFC 3270], because effective
support for that model is a crucial goal of Diffserv-Intercon.
Section 3 provides background on the approach described in RFC 5127
to Traffic Class (TC) aggregation within a Diffserv network domain
and contrasts it with the Diffserv-Intercon approach. Section 4
introduces Diffserv-Intercon Treatment Aggregates, along with the
PHBs and DSCPs that they use, and explains how other PHBs (and
associated DSCPs) may be mapped to these Treatment Aggregates.
Section 4 also discusses treatment of IP traffic, MPLS VPN Diffserv
considerations, and the handling of high-priority network management
traffic. Appendix A describes how the MPLS Short Pipe Model
(Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP)) impacts DSCP marking for IP
interconnections.
Geib & Black Informational PAGE 5
RFC 8100 Diffserv-Intercon March 2017
2. MPLS and Short Pipe Model Tunnels
This section provides a summary of the implications of MPLS Short
Pipe Model tunnels and, in particular, their use of PHP (see RFC
3270) on the Diffserv tunnel framework described in RFC 2983. The
Pipe and Uniform Models for Differentiated Services and Tunnels are
defined in [RFC 2983]. RFC 3270 adds the Short Pipe Model to reflect
the impact of MPLS PHP, primarily for MPLS-based IP tunnels and VPNs.
The Short Pipe Model and PHP have subsequently become popular with
network providers that operate MPLS networks and are now widely used
to transport unencapsulated IP traffic. This has important
implications for Diffserv functionality in MPLS networks.
Per RFC 2474, the recommendation to forward traffic with unrecognized
DSCPs with default (best-effort) service without rewriting the DSCP
has not been widely deployed in practice. Network operation and
management are simplified when there is a 1-1 match between the DSCP
marked on the packet and the forwarding treatment (PHB) applied by
network nodes. When this is done, CS0 (the all-zero DSCP) is the
only DSCP used for default forwarding of best-effort traffic, and a
common practice is to re-mark to CS0 any traffic received with
unrecognized or unsupported DSCPs at network edges.
MPLS networks are more subtle in this regard, as it is possible to
encode the provider's DSCP in the MPLS TC field and allow that to
differ from the PHB indicated by the DSCP in the MPLS-encapsulated IP
packet. If the MPLS label with the provider's TC field is present at
all hops within the provider network, this approach would allow an
unrecognized DSCP to be carried edge-to-edge over an MPLS network,
because the effective DSCP used by the provider's MPLS network would
be encoded in the MPLS label TC field (and also carried
edge-to-edge). Unfortunately, this is only true for Pipe Model
tunnels.
Short Pipe Model tunnels and PHP behave differently because PHP
removes and discards the MPLS provider label carrying the provider's
TC field before the traffic exits the provider's network. That
discard occurs one hop upstream of the MPLS tunnel endpoint (which is
usually at the network edge), resulting in no provider TC information
being available at the tunnel egress. To ensure consistent handling
of traffic at the tunnel egress, the DSCP field in the MPLS-
encapsulated IP header has to contain a DSCP that is valid for the
provider's network, so that the IP header cannot be used to carry a
different DSCP edge-to-edge. See Appendix A for a more detailed
discussion.
Geib & Black Informational PAGE 6
RFC 8100 Diffserv-Intercon March 2017
3. Relationship to RFC 5127
This document draws heavily upon the approach to aggregation of
Diffserv TCs for use within a network as described in RFC 5127, but
there are important differences caused by characteristics of network
interconnects that differ from links within a network.
3.1. Background of RFC 5127
Many providers operate MPLS-based backbones that employ backbone
traffic engineering to ensure that if a major link, switch, or router
fails, the result will be a routed network that continues to
function. Based on that foundation, [RFC 5127] introduced the concept
of Diffserv Treatment Aggregates, which enable traffic marked with
multiple DSCPs to be forwarded in a single MPLS TC based on robust
provider backbone traffic engineering. This enables differentiated
forwarding behaviors within a domain in a fashion that does not
consume a large number of MPLS TCs.
RFC 5127 provides an example aggregation of Diffserv service classes
into four Treatment Aggregates. A small number of aggregates are
used because:
o The available coding space for carrying TC information (e.g.,
Diffserv PHB) in MPLS (and Ethernet) is only 3 bits in size and is
intended for more than just Diffserv purposes (see, e.g.,
[RFC 5129]).
o The common interconnection DSCPs ought not to use all 8 possible
values. This leaves space for future standards, private bilateral
agreements, and local use PHBs and DSCPs.
o Migrations from one DSCP scheme to a different one is another
possible application of otherwise unused DSCPs.
3.2. Differences from RFC 5127
Like RFC 5127, this document also uses four Treatment Aggregates, but
it differs from RFC 5127 in some important ways:
o It follows RFC 2475 in allowing the DSCPs used within a network to
differ from those used to exchange traffic with other networks (at
network edges), but it provides support to restore ingress DSCP
values if one of the recommended interconnect DSCPs in this
document is used. This results in DSCP re-marking at both network
ingress and network egress, and this document assumes that such
re-marking at network edges is possible for all interface types.
Geib & Black Informational PAGE 7
RFC 8100 Diffserv-Intercon March 2017
o Diffserv-Intercon suggests limiting the number of interconnection
PHBs per Treatment Aggregate to the minimum required. As further
discussed below, the number of PHBs per Treatment Aggregate is no
more than two. When two PHBs are specified for a Diffserv-
Intercon Treatment Aggregate, the expectation is that the provider
network supports DSCPs for both PHBs but uses a single MPLS TC for
the Treatment Aggregate that contains the two PHBs.
o Diffserv-Intercon suggests mapping other PHBs and DSCPs into the
interconnection Treatment Aggregates as further discussed below.
o Diffserv-Intercon treats network control (NC) traffic as a special
case. Within a provider's network, the CS6 DSCP is used for local
network control traffic (routing protocols and Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) traffic that is essential to
network operation administration, control, and management) that
may be destined for any node within the network. In contrast,
network control traffic exchanged between networks (e.g., BGP)
usually terminates at or close to a network edge and is not
forwarded through the network because it is not part of internal
routing or OAM for the receiving network. In addition, such
traffic is unlikely to be covered by standard interconnection
agreements; rather, it is more likely to be specifically
configured (e.g., most networks impose restrictions on use of BGP
with other networks for obvious reasons). See Section 4.2 for
further discussion.
o Because RFC 5127 used a Treatment Aggregate for network control
traffic, Diffserv-Intercon can instead define a fourth Treatment
Aggregate for use at network interconnections instead of the
Network Control Treatment Aggregate in RFC 5127. Network control
traffic may still be exchanged across network interconnections as
further discussed in Section 4.2. Diffserv-Intercon uses this
fourth Treatment Aggregate for Voice over IP (VoIP) traffic, where
network-provided service differentiation is crucial, as even minor
glitches are immediately apparent to the humans involved in the
conversation.
4. The Diffserv-Intercon Interconnection Classes
At an interconnection, the networks involved need to agree on the
PHBs used for interconnection and the specific DSCP for each PHB.
This document defines a set of four interconnection Treatment
Aggregates with well-defined DSCPs to be aggregated by them. A
sending party re-marks DSCPs from internal usage to the
interconnection codepoints. The receiving party re-marks DSCPs to
their internal usage. The interconnect SLA defines the set of DSCPs
and PHBs supported across the two interconnected domains and the
Geib & Black Informational PAGE 8
RFC 8100 Diffserv-Intercon March 2017
treatment of PHBs and DSCPs that are not recognized by the receiving
domain.
Similar approaches that use a small number of Treatment Aggregates
(including recognition of the importance of VoIP traffic) have been
taken in related standards and recommendations from outside the IETF,
e.g., Y.1566 [Y.1566], Global System for Mobile Communications
Association (GSMA) IR.34 [IR.34], and MEF23.1 [MEF23.1].
The list of the four Diffserv-Intercon Treatment Aggregates follows,
highlighting differences from RFC 5127 and suggesting mappings for
all RFC 4594 TCs to Diffserv-Intercon Treatment Aggregates:
Telephony Service Treatment Aggregate: PHB Expedited Forwarding
(EF), DSCP 101 110 and PHB VOICE-ADMIT, DSCP 101 100 (see
[RFC 3246], [RFC 4594], and [RFC 5865]). This Treatment
Aggregate corresponds to the Real-Time Treatment Aggregate
definition regarding the queuing (both delay and jitter
should be minimized) per RFC 5127, but this aggregate is
restricted to transport Telephony service class traffic in
the sense of [RFC 4594].
Bulk Real-Time Treatment Aggregate: This Treatment Aggregate is
designed to transport PHB AF41, DSCP 100 010 (the other AF4
PHB group PHBs and DSCPs may be used for future extension of
the set of DSCPs carried by this Treatment Aggregate). This
Treatment Aggregate is intended to provide Diffserv-Intercon
network interconnection of a subset of the Real-Time
Treatment Aggregate defined in RFC 5127, specifically the
portions that consume significant bandwidth. This traffic is
expected to consist of the following classes defined in RFC
4594: Broadcast Video, Real-Time Interactive, and Multimedia
Conferencing. This Treatment Aggregate should be configured
with a rate-based queue (consistent with the recommendation
for the transported TCs in RFC 4594). By comparison to RFC
5127, the number of DSCPs has been reduced to one
(initially). The AF42 and AF43 PHBs could be added if there
is a need for three-color marked Multimedia Conferencing
traffic.
Assured Elastic Treatment Aggregate: This Treatment Aggregate
consists of PHBs AF31 and AF32 (i.e., DSCPs 011 010 and 011
100). By comparison to RFC 5127, the number of DSCPs has
been reduced to two. This document suggests to transport
signaling marked by AF31 (e.g., as recommended by GSMA IR.34
[IR.34]). AF33 is reserved for the extension of PHBs to be
aggregated by this Treatment Aggregate. For Diffserv-
Intercon network interconnection, the following service
Geib & Black Informational PAGE 9
RFC 8100 Diffserv-Intercon March 2017
classes (per RFC 4594) should be mapped to the Assured
Elastic Treatment Aggregate: the Signaling service class
(being marked for lowest loss probability), the Multimedia
Streaming service class, the Low-Latency Data service class,
and the High-Throughput Data service class.
Default / Elastic Treatment Aggregate: Transports the Default PHB,
CS0 with DSCP 000 000. An example in RFC 5127 refers to this
Treatment Aggregate as "Elastic Treatment Aggregate". An
important difference from RFC 5127 is that any traffic with
unrecognized or unsupported DSCPs may be re-marked to this
DSCP. For Diffserv-Intercon network interconnection, the
Standard service class and Low-Priority Data service class
defined in RFC 4594 should be mapped to this Treatment
Aggregate. This document does not specify an interconnection
class for Low-Priority Data (also defined RFC 4594). This
traffic may be forwarded with a Lower Effort PHB in one
domain (e.g., the PHB proposed by Informational [RFC 3662]),
but the methods specified in this document re-mark this
traffic with DSCP CS0 at a Diffserv-Intercon network
interconnection. This has the effect that Low-Priority Data
is treated the same as data sent using the Standard service
class. (Note: In a network that implements RFC 2474, Low-
Priority traffic marked as CS1 would otherwise receive better
treatment than Standard traffic using the default PHB.)
RFC 2475 states that ingress nodes must condition all inbound traffic
to ensure that the DS codepoints are acceptable; packets found to
have unacceptable codepoints must either be discarded or have their
DS codepoints modified to acceptable values before being forwarded.
For example, an ingress node receiving traffic from a domain with
which no enhanced service agreement exists may reset the DS codepoint
to CS0. As a consequence, an interconnect SLA needs to specify not
only the treatment of traffic that arrives with a supported
interconnect DSCP but also the treatment of traffic that arrives with
unsupported or unexpected DSCPs; re-marking to CS0 is a widely
deployed behavior.
During the process of setting up a Diffserv interconnection, both
networks should define the set of acceptable and unacceptable DSCPs
and specify the treatment of traffic marked with each DSCP.
While Diffserv-Intercon allows modification of unacceptable DSCPs, if
traffic using one or more of the PHBs in a PHB group (e.g., AF3x,
consisting of AF31, AF32, and AF33) is accepted as part of a
supported Diffserv-Intercon Treatment Aggregate, then traffic using
other PHBs from the same PHB group should not be modified to use PHBs
outside of that PHB group and, in particular, should not be re-marked
Geib & Black Informational PAGE 10
RFC 8100 Diffserv-Intercon March 2017
to CS0 unless the entire PHB group is re-marked to CS0. This avoids
unexpected forwarding behavior (and potential reordering; see also
[RFC 7657]) when using Assured Forwarding (AF) PHBs [RFC 2597].
4.1. Diffserv-Intercon Example
The overall approach to DSCP marking at network interconnections is
illustrated by the following example. Provider O, provider W, and
provider F are peered with provider T. They have agreed upon a
Diffserv interconnection SLA.
Traffic of provider O terminates within provider T's network, while
provider W's traffic transits through the network of provider T to
provider F. This example assumes that all providers use their own
internal PHB and codepoint (DSCP) that correspond to the AF31 PHB in
the Diffserv-Intercon Assured Elastic Treatment Aggregate (AF21, CS2,
and AF11 are used in the example).
Geib & Black Informational PAGE 11
RFC 8100 Diffserv-Intercon March 2017
Provider O Provider W
| |
+----------+ +----------+
| AF21 | | CS2 |
+----------+ +----------+
V V
+~~~~~~~+ +~~~~~~~+
|Rtr PrO| |Rtr PrW| Rtr: Router
+~~~~~~~+ +~~~~~~~+ Pr[L]: Provider[L]
| Diffserv |
+----------+ +----------+
| AF31 | | AF31 |
+----------+ +----------+
V Intercon V
+~~~~~~~+ |
|RtrPrTI|------------------+ Router Provider T Ingress
+~~~~~~~+
| Provider T Domain
+------------------+
| MPLS TC 2, AF21 |
+------------------+
| | +----------+ +~~~~~~~+
V `--->| AF21 |->-|RtrDstH| Router Destination Host
+----------+ +----------+ +~~~~~~~+
| AF21 | Local DSCPs Provider T
+----------+
|
+~~~~~~~+
|RtrPrTE| Router Provider T Egress
+~~~~~~~+
| Diffserv
+----------+
| AF31 |
+----------+
| Intercon
+~~~~~~~+
|RtrPrF | Router Provider F
+~~~~~~~+
|
+----------+
| AF11 | Provider F
+----------+
Figure 1: Diffserv-Intercon Example
Geib & Black Informational PAGE 12
RFC 8100 Diffserv-Intercon March 2017
Providers only need to deploy mappings of internal DSCPs to/from
Diffserv-Intercon DSCPs, so that they can exchange traffic using the
desired PHBs. In the example, provider O has decided that the
properties of his internal class AF21 are best met by the Diffserv-
Intercon Assured Elastic Treatment Aggregate, PHB AF31. At the
outgoing peering interface connecting provider O with provider T, the
former's peering router re-marks AF21 traffic to AF31. The domain
internal PHB of provider T that meets the requirement of the
Diffserv-Intercon Assured Elastic Treatment Aggregate is from the
AF2x PHB group. Hence, AF31 traffic received at the interconnection
with provider T is re-marked to AF21 by the peering router of domain
T, and domain T has chosen to use MPLS TC value 2 for this aggregate.
At the penultimate MPLS node, the top MPLS label is removed and
exposes the IP header marked by the DSCP that has been set at the
network ingress. The peering router connecting domain T with domain
F classifies the packet by its domain-T-internal DSCP AF21. As the
packet leaves domain T on the interface to domain F, this causes the
packet's DSCP to be re-marked to AF31. The peering router of domain
F classifies the packet for domain-F-internal PHB AF11, as this is
the PHB with properties matching the Diffserv-Intercon Assured
Elastic Treatment Aggregate.
This example can be extended. The figure shows provider W using CS2
for traffic that corresponds to Diffserv-Intercon Assured Elastic
Treatment Aggregate PHB AF31; that traffic is mapped to AF31 at the
Diffserv-Intercon interconnection to provider T. In addition,
suppose that provider O supports a PHB marked by AF22, and this PHB
is supposed to obtain Diffserv transport within provider T's domain.
Then provider O will re-mark it with DSCP AF32 for interconnection to
provider T.
Finally, suppose that provider W supports CS3 for internal use only.
Then no Diffserv-Intercon DSCP mapping needs to be configured at the
peering router. Traffic, sent by provider W to provider T marked by
CS3 due to a misconfiguration may be re-marked to CS0 by provider T.
4.2. End-to-End PHB and DSCP Transparency
This section briefly discusses end-to-end Diffserv approaches related
to the Uniform, Pipe, and Short Pipe Model tunnels [RFC 2983]
[RFC 3270] when used edge-to-edge in a network.
o With the Uniform Model, neither the DSCP nor the PHB change. This
implies that a network management packet received with a CS6 DSCP
would be forwarded with an MPLS TC corresponding to CS6. The
Uniform Model is outside the scope of this document.
Geib & Black Informational PAGE 13
RFC 8100 Diffserv-Intercon March 2017
o With the Pipe Model, the inner tunnel DSCP remains unchanged, but
an outer tunnel DSCP and the PHB could change. For example, a
packet received with a (network-specific) CS1 DSCP would be
transported by a Default PHB and, if MPLS is applicable, forwarded
with an MPLS TC corresponding to the Default PHB. The CS1 DSCP is
not rewritten. Transport of a large variety (much greater than
four) DSCPs may be required across an interconnected network
operating MPLS Short Pipe Model transport for IP traffic. In that
case, a tunnel based on the Pipe Model is among the possible
approaches. The Pipe Model is outside the scope of this document.
o With the Short Pipe Model, the DSCP likely changes, and the PHB
might change. This document describes a method to simplify
Diffserv network interconnection when a DSCP rewrite can't be
avoided.
4.3. Treatment of Network Control Traffic at Carrier Interconnection
Interfaces
As specified in Section 3.2 of RFC 4594, NC traffic marked by CS6 is
expected at some interconnection interfaces. This document does not
change RFC 4594 but observes that network control traffic received at
a network ingress is generally different from network control traffic
within a network that is the primary use of CS6 envisioned by RFC
4594. A specific example is that some CS6 traffic exchanged across
carrier interconnections is terminated at the network ingress node,
e.g., when BGP is used between the two routers on opposite ends of an
interconnection link; in this case, the operators would enter into a
bilateral agreement to use CS6 for that BGP traffic.
The end-to-end discussion in Section 4.2 is generally inapplicable to
network control traffic -- network control traffic is generally
intended to control a network, not be transported between networks.
One exception is that network control traffic makes sense for a
purchased transit agreement, and preservation of the CS6 DSCP marking
for network control traffic that is transited is reasonable in some
cases, although it is generally inappropriate to use CS6 for
forwarding that traffic within the network that provides transit.
Use of an IP tunnel is suggested in order to conceal the CS6 markings
on transiting network control traffic from the network that provides
the transit. In this case, the Pipe Model for Diffserv tunneling is
used.
If the MPLS Short Pipe Model is deployed for unencapsulated IPv4
traffic, an IP network provider should limit access to the CS6 and
CS7 DSCPs, so that they are only used for network control traffic for
the provider's own network.
Geib & Black Informational PAGE 14
RFC 8100 Diffserv-Intercon March 2017
Interconnecting carriers should specify treatment of CS6-marked
traffic received at a carrier interconnection that is to be forwarded
beyond the ingress node. An SLA covering the following cases is
recommended when a provider wishes to send CS6-marked traffic across
an interconnection link and that traffic's destination is beyond the
interconnected ingress node:
o classification of traffic that is network control traffic for both
domains. This traffic should be classified and marked for the CS6
DSCP.
o classification of traffic that is network control traffic for the
sending domain only. This traffic should be forwarded with a PHB
that is appropriate for transiting NC service class traffic
[RFC 4594] in the receiving domain, e.g., AF31 as specified by this
document. As an example, GSMA IR.34 recommends an Interactive
class / AF31 to carry SIP and DIAMETER traffic. While this is
service control traffic of high importance to interconnected
Mobile Network Operators, it is certainly not network control
traffic for a fixed network providing transit among such operators
and hence should not receive CS6 treatment in such a transit
network.
o any other CS6-marked traffic should be re-marked or dropped.
5. IANA Considerations
This document does not require any IANA actions.
6. Security Considerations
The DSCP field in the IP header can expose additional traffic
classification information at network interconnections by comparison
to the use of a zero DSCP for all interconnect traffic. If traffic
classification information is sensitive, the DSCP field could be
re-marked to zero to hide the classification as a countermeasure, at
the cost of loss of Diffserv information and differentiated traffic
handling on the interconnect and subsequent networks. When AF PHBs
are used, any such re-marking should respect AF PHB group boundaries
as further discussed at the end of Section 4.
This document does not introduce new features; it describes how to
use existing ones. The Diffserv security considerations in [RFC 2475]
and [RFC 4594] apply.
Geib & Black Informational PAGE 15
RFC 8100 Diffserv-Intercon March 2017
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC 2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 2474, December 1998,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2474>.
[RFC 2597] Heinanen, J., Baker, F., Weiss, W., and J. Wroclawski,
"Assured Forwarding PHB Group", RFC 2597,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 2597, June 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2597>.
[RFC 3246] Davie, B., Charny, A., Bennet, J., Benson, K., Le Boudec,
J., Courtney, W., Davari, S., Firoiu, V., and D.
Stiliadis, "An Expedited Forwarding PHB (Per-Hop
Behavior)", RFC 3246, DOI 10.17487/RFC 3246, March 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3246>.
[RFC 3270] 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, DOI 10.17487/RFC 3270, May 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3270>.
[RFC 5129] Davie, B., Briscoe, B., and J. Tay, "Explicit Congestion
Marking in MPLS", RFC 5129, DOI 10.17487/RFC 5129, January
2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5129>.
[RFC 5865] Baker, F., Polk, J., and M. Dolly, "A Differentiated
Services Code Point (DSCP) for Capacity-Admitted Traffic",
RFC 5865, DOI 10.17487/RFC 5865, May 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5865>.
7.2. Informative References
[BGP-INTERCONNECTION]
Knoll, T., "BGP Class of Service Interconnection", Work in
Progress, draft-knoll-idr-cos-interconnect-17, November
2016.
[IR.34] GSMA, "Guidelines for IPX Provider networks (Previously
Inter-Service Provider IP Backbone Guidelines)", Official
Document IR.34, Version 11.0, November 2014,
<http://www.gsma.com/newsroom/wp-content/uploads/
IR.34-v11.0.pdf>.
Geib & Black Informational PAGE 16
RFC 8100 Diffserv-Intercon March 2017
[MEF23.1] MEF, "Implementation Agreement MEF 23.1: Carrier Ethernet
Class of Service - Phase 2", MEF 23.1, January 2012,
<http://metroethernetforum.org/PDF_Documents/
technical-specifications/MEF_23.1.pdf>.
[RFC 2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
Services", RFC 2475, DOI 10.17487/RFC 2475, December 1998,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2475>.
[RFC 2983] Black, D., "Differentiated Services and Tunnels",
RFC 2983, DOI 10.17487/RFC 2983, October 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2983>.
[RFC 3662] Bless, R., Nichols, K., and K. Wehrle, "A Lower Effort
Per-Domain Behavior (PDB) for Differentiated Services",
RFC 3662, DOI 10.17487/RFC 3662, December 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3662>.
[RFC 4594] Babiarz, J., Chan, K., and F. Baker, "Configuration
Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes", RFC 4594,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 4594, August 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4594>.
[RFC 5127] Chan, K., Babiarz, J., and F. Baker, "Aggregation of
Diffserv Service Classes", RFC 5127, DOI 10.17487/RFC 5127,
February 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5127>.
[RFC 5160] Levis, P. and M. Boucadair, "Considerations of Provider-
to-Provider Agreements for Internet-Scale Quality of
Service (QoS)", RFC 5160, DOI 10.17487/RFC 5160, March
2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5160>.
[RFC 7657] Black, D., Ed. and P. Jones, "Differentiated Services
(Diffserv) and Real-Time Communication", RFC 7657,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 7657, November 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7657>.
[SLA-EXCHANGE]
Shah, S., Patel, K., Bajaj, S., Tomotaki, L., and M.
Boucadair, "Inter-domain SLA Exchange Attribute", Work in
Progress, draft-ietf-idr-sla-exchange-10, January 2017.
[Y.1566] ITU-T, "Quality of service mapping and interconnection
between Ethernet, Internet protocol and multiprotocol
label switching networks", ITU-T Recommendation Y.1566,
July 2012,
<http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Y.1566-201207-I/en>.
Geib & Black Informational PAGE 17
RFC 8100 Diffserv-Intercon March 2017
Appendix A. The MPLS Short Pipe Model and IP Traffic
The MPLS Short Pipe Model (or penultimate hop label popping) is
widely deployed in carrier networks. If unencapsulated IP traffic is
transported using MPLS Short Pipe, IP headers appear inside the last
section of the MPLS domain. This impacts the number of PHBs and
DSCPs that a network provider can reasonably support. See Figure 2
for an example.
For encapsulated IP traffic, only the outer tunnel header is relevant
for forwarding. If the tunnel does not terminate within the MPLS
network section, only the outer tunnel DSCP is involved, as the inner
DSCP does not affect forwarding behavior; in this case, all DSCPs
could be used in the inner IP header without affecting network
behavior based on the outer MPLS header. Here, the Pipe Model
applies.
Layer 2 and Layer 3 VPN traffic all use an additional MPLS label; in
this case, the MPLS tunnel follows the Pipe Model. Classification
and queuing within an MPLS network is always based on an MPLS label,
as opposed to the outer IP header.
Carriers often select PHBs and DSCPs without regard to
interconnection. As a result, PHBs and DSCPs typically differ
between network carriers. With the exception of best-effort traffic,
a DSCP change should be expected at an interconnection at least for
unencapsulated IP traffic, even if the PHB is suitably mapped by the
carriers involved.
Although RFC 3270 suggests that the Short Pipe Model is only
applicable to VPNs, current networks also use it to transport
non-tunneled IPv4 traffic. This is shown in Figure 2 where Diffserv-
Intercon is not used, resulting in exposure of the internal DSCPs of
the upstream network to the downstream network across the
interconnection.
Geib & Black Informational PAGE 18
RFC 8100 Diffserv-Intercon March 2017
|
\|/ IPv4, DSCP_send
V
|
Peering Router
|
\|/ IPv4, DSCP_send
V
|
MPLS Edge Router
| Mark MPLS Label, TC_internal
\|/ Re-mark DSCP to
V (Inner: IPv4, DSCP_d)
|
MPLS Core Router (penultimate hop label popping)
| \
| IPv4, DSCP_d | The DSCP needs to be in network-
| ^^^^^^^^| internal Diffserv context. The Core
\|/ > Router may require or enforce
V | that. The Edge Router may wrongly
| | classify, if the DSCP is not in
| / network-internal Diffserv context.
MPLS Edge Router
| \ Traffic leaves the network marked
\|/ IPv4, DSCP_d | with the network-internal
V > DSCP_d that must be dealt with
| | by the next network (downstream).
| /
Peer Router
| Re-mark DSCP to
\|/ IPv4, DSCP_send
V
|
Figure 2: Short Pipe Model / Penultimate Hop Popping Example
The packet's IP DSCP must be in a well-understood Diffserv context
for schedulers and classifiers on the interfaces of the ultimate MPLS
link (last link traversed before leaving the network). The necessary
Diffserv context is network-internal, and a network operating in this
mode enforces DSCP usage in order to obtain robust differentiated
forwarding behavior.
Without Diffserv-Intercon treatment, the traffic is likely to leave
each network marked with network-internal DSCP. DSCP_send in the
figure above has to be re-marked into the first network's Diffserv
scheme at the ingress MPLS Edge Router, to DSCP_d in the example.
Geib & Black Informational PAGE 19
RFC 8100 Diffserv-Intercon March 2017
For that reason, the traffic leaves this domain marked by the
network-internal DSCP_d. This structure requires that every carrier
deploys per-peer PHB and DSCP mapping schemes.
If Diffserv-Intercon is applied, DSCPs for traffic transiting the
domain can be mapped from and remapped to an original DSCP. This is
shown in Figure 3. Internal traffic may continue to use internal
DSCPs (e.g., DSCP_d), and they may also be used between a carrier and
its direct customers.
Internal Router
|
| Outer Header
\|/ IPv4, DSCP_send
V
|
Peering Router
| Re-mark DSCP to
\|/ IPv4, DSCP_ds-int Diffserv-Intercon DSCP and PHB
V
|
MPLS Edge Router
|
| Mark MPLS Label, TC_internal
\|/ Re-mark DSCP to
V (Inner: IPv4, DSCP_d) Domain Internal DSCP for
| the PHB
MPLS Core Router (penultimate hop label popping)
|
| IPv4, DSCP_d
| ^^^^^^
\|/
V
|
|
MPLS Edge Router--------------------+
| |
\|/ Re-mark DSCP to \|/ IPv4, DSCP_d
V IPv4, DSCP_ds-int V
| |
| |
Peer Router Domain Internal Broadband
| Access Router
\|/ Re-mark DSCP to \|/
V IPv4, DSCP_send V IPv4, DSCP_d
| |
Figure 3: Short Pipe Model Example with Diffserv-Intercon
Geib & Black Informational PAGE 20
RFC 8100 Diffserv-Intercon March 2017
Acknowledgements
Bob Briscoe and Gorry Fairhurst reviewed this specification and
provided rich feedback. Brian Carpenter, Fred Baker, Al Morton, and
Sebastien Jobert discussed the specification and helped improve it.
Mohamed Boucadair and Thomas Knoll helped by adding awareness of
related work. James Polk's discussion during IETF 89 helped to
improve the text on the relation of this specification to RFCs 4594
and 5127.
Authors' Addresses
Ruediger Geib (editor)
Deutsche Telekom
Heinrich Hertz Str. 3-7
Darmstadt 64295
Germany
Phone: +49 6151 5812747
Email: Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de
David L. Black
Dell EMC
176 South Street
Hopkinton, MA
United States of America
Phone: +1 (508) 293-7953
Email: david.black@dell.com
Geib & Black Informational PAGE 21
RFC TOTAL SIZE: 50264 bytes
PUBLICATION DATE: Friday, March 10th, 2017
LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)
|
