|
|
|
|
|
|
IETF RFC 9599
Last modified on Saturday, August 31st, 2024
 Permanent link to RFC 9599
 Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 9599
 Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 9599
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) B. Briscoe
Request for Comments: 9599 Independent
BCP: 89 J. Kaippallimalil
Updates: 3819 Futurewei
Category: Best Current Practice August 2024
ISSN: 2070-1721
Guidelines for Adding Congestion Notification to Protocols that
Encapsulate IP
 Abstract
The purpose of this document is to guide the design of congestion
notification in any lower-layer or tunnelling protocol that
encapsulates IP. The aim is for explicit congestion signals to
propagate consistently from lower-layer protocols into IP. Then, the
IP internetwork layer can act as a portability layer to carry
congestion notification from non-IP-aware congested nodes up to the
transport layer (L4). Specifications that follow these guidelines,
whether produced by the IETF or other standards bodies, should assure
interworking among IP-layer and lower-layer congestion notification
mechanisms. This document is included in BCP 89 and updates the
single paragraph of advice to subnetwork designers about Explicit
Congestion Notification (ECN) in Section 13 of RFC 3819 by replacing
it with a reference to this document.
Status of This Memo
This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
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). Further information on
BCPs is available in 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
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 9599.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
1.1. Update to RFC 3819
1.2. Scope
2. Terminology
3. Modes of Operation
3.1. Feed-Forward-and-Up Mode
3.2. Feed-Up-and-Forward Mode
3.3. Feed-Backward Mode
3.4. Null Mode
4. Feed-Forward-and-Up Mode: Guidelines for Adding Congestion
Notification
4.1. IP-in-IP Tunnels with Shim Headers
4.2. Wire Protocol Design: Indication of ECN Support
4.3. Encapsulation Guidelines
4.4. Decapsulation Guidelines
4.5. Sequences of Similar Tunnels or Subnets
4.6. Reframing and Congestion Markings
5. Feed-Up-and-Forward Mode: Guidelines for Adding Congestion
Notification
6. Feed-Backward Mode: Guidelines for Adding Congestion
Notification
7. IANA Considerations
8. Security Considerations
9. Conclusions
10. References
10.1. Normative References
10.2. Informative References
Acknowledgements
Contributors
Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction
In certain networks, it might be possible for traffic to congest non-
IP-aware nodes. In such networks, the benefits of Explicit
Congestion Notification (ECN) described in [RFC 8087] and summarized
below can only be fully realized if support for congestion
notification is added to the relevant subnetwork technology, as well
as to IP. When a lower-layer buffer implicitly notifies congestion
by dropping a packet, it obviously does not just drop at that layer;
the packet disappears from all layers. In contrast, when active
queue management (AQM) at a lower layer buffer explicitly notifies
congestion by marking a frame header, the marking needs to be
explicitly propagated up the layers. The same is true if AQM marks
the outer header of a packet that encapsulates inner tunnelled
headers. Forwarding ECN is not as straightforward as other headers
because it has to be assumed ECN may be only partially deployed. If
a lower-layer header that contains congestion indications is stripped
off by a subnet egress that is not ECN-aware, or if the ultimate
receiver or sender is not ECN-aware, congestion needs to be indicated
by dropping the packet, not marking it.
The purpose of this document is to guide the addition of congestion
notification to any subnet technology or tunnelling protocol so that
lower-layer AQM algorithms can signal congestion explicitly and that
signal will propagate consistently into encapsulated (higher-layer)
headers. Otherwise, the signals will not reach their ultimate
destination.
ECN is defined in the IP header (IPv4 and IPv6) [RFC 3168] to allow a
resource to notify the onset of queue buildup without having to drop
packets by explicitly marking a proportion of packets with the
congestion experienced (CE) codepoint.
Given a suitable marking scheme, ECN removes nearly all congestion
loss and it cuts delays for two main reasons:
* It avoids the delay when recovering from congestion losses, which
particularly benefits small flows or real-time flows, making their
delivery time predictably short [RFC 2884].
* As ECN is used more widely by end systems, it will gradually
remove the need to configure a degree of delay into buffers before
they start to notify congestion (the cause of bufferbloat). This
is because drop involves a trade-off between sending a timely
signal and trying to avoid impairment, whereas ECN is solely a
signal and not an impairment, so there is no harm triggering it
earlier.
Some lower-layer technologies (e.g., MPLS, Ethernet) are used to form
subnetworks with IP-aware nodes only at the edges. These networks
are often sized so that it is rare for interior queues to overflow.
However, until recently, this was more due to the inability of TCP to
saturate the links. For many years, fixes such as window scaling
[RFC 7323] proved hard to deploy and the Reno variant of TCP remained
in widespread use despite its inability to scale to high flow rates.
However, now that modern operating systems are finally capable of
saturating interior links, even the buffers of well-provisioned
interior switches will need to signal episodes of queuing.
Propagation of ECN is defined for MPLS [RFC 5129] and TRILL [RFC 7780]
[RFC 9600], but it has yet to be defined for a number of other
subnetwork technologies.
Similarly, ECN propagation is yet to be defined for many tunnelling
protocols. [RFC 6040] defines how ECN should be propagated for IP-in-
IPv4 [RFC 2003], IP-in-IPv6 [RFC 2473], and IPsec [RFC 4301] tunnels,
but there are numerous other tunnelling protocols with a shim and/or
a Layer 2 (L2) header between two IP headers (IPv4 or IPv6). Some
address ECN propagation between the IP headers, but many do not.
This document gives guidance on how to address ECN propagation for
future tunnelling protocols, and a companion Standards Track
specification [RFC 9601] updates existing tunnelling protocols with a
shim between IP headers that are under IETF change control and still
widely used.
Incremental deployment is the most delicate aspect when adding
support for ECN. The original ECN protocol in IP [RFC 3168] was
carefully designed so that a congested buffer would not mark a packet
(rather than drop it) unless both source and destination hosts were
ECN-capable. Otherwise, its congestion markings would never be
detected and congestion would just build up further. However, to
support congestion marking below the IP layer or within tunnels, it
is not sufficient to only check that the two layer 4 transport
endpoints support ECN; correct operation also depends on the
decapsulator at each subnet or tunnel egress faithfully propagating
congestion notification to the higher layer. Otherwise, a legacy
decapsulator might silently fail to propagate any congestion signals
from the outer header to the forwarded header. Then, the lost
signals would never be detected and congestion would build up
further. The guidelines given later require protocol designers to
carefully consider incremental deployment and suggest various safe
approaches for different circumstances.
Of course, the IETF does not have standards authority over every
link-layer protocol; thus, this document gives guidelines for
designing propagation of congestion notification across the interface
between IP and protocols that may encapsulate IP (i.e., that can be
layered beneath IP). Each lower-layer technology will exhibit
different issues and compromises, so the IETF or the relevant
standards body must be free to define the specifics of each lower-
layer congestion notification scheme. Nonetheless, if the guidelines
are followed, congestion notification should interwork between
different technologies using IP in its role as a 'portability layer'.
Therefore, the capitalized terms 'SHOULD' or 'SHOULD NOT' are often
used in preference to 'MUST' or 'MUST NOT' because it is difficult to
know the compromises that will be necessary in each protocol design.
If a particular protocol design chooses not to follow a 'SHOULD' or
'SHOULD NOT' given in the advice below, it MUST include a sound
justification.
It has not been possible to give common guidelines for all lower-
layer technologies because they do not all fit a common pattern.
Instead, they have been divided into a few distinct modes of
operation: feed-forward-and-up, feed-up-and-forward, feed-backward,
and null mode. These modes are described in Section 3, and separate
guidelines are given for each mode in subsequent sections.
1.1. Update to RFC 3819
This document updates the brief advice to subnetwork designers about
ECN in Section 13 of [RFC 3819] by adding this document (RFC 9599) as
an informative reference and replacing the last two paragraphs with
the following sentence:
| By following the guidelines in [RFC 9599], subnetwork designers can
| enable a layer-2 protocol to participate in congestion control
| without dropping packets via propagation of Explicit Congestion
| Notification (ECN) [RFC 3168] to receivers.
1.2. Scope
This document only concerns wire protocol processing of explicit
notification of congestion. It makes no changes or recommendations
concerning algorithms for congestion marking or congestion response
because algorithm issues should be independent of the layer that the
algorithm operates in.
The default ECN semantics are described in [RFC 3168] and updated by
[RFC 8311]. Also, the guidelines for AQM designers [RFC 7567] clarify
the semantics of both drop and ECN signals from AQM algorithms.
[RFC 4774] is the appropriate best current practice specification of
how algorithms with alternative semantics for the ECN field can be
partitioned from Internet traffic that uses the default ECN
semantics. There are two main examples for how alternative ECN
semantics have been defined in practice:
* [RFC 4774] suggests using the ECN field in combination with a
Diffserv codepoint, such as in Pre-Congestion Notification (PCN)
[RFC 6660], Voice over 3G [UTRAN], or Voice over LTE (VoLTE)
[LTE-RA].
* [RFC 8311] suggests using the ECT(1) codepoint of the ECN field to
indicate alternative semantics, such as for the experimental Low
Latency, Low Loss, and Scalable throughput (L4S) service
[RFC 9331].
The aim is that the default rules for encapsulating and decapsulating
the ECN field are sufficiently generic that tunnels and subnets will
encapsulate and decapsulate packets without regard to how algorithms
elsewhere are setting or interpreting the semantics of the ECN field.
[RFC 6040] updates [RFC 4774] to allow alternative encapsulation and
decapsulation behaviours to be defined for alternative ECN semantics.
However, it reinforces the same point -- it is far preferable to try
to fit within the common ECN encapsulation and decapsulation
behaviours because expecting all lower-layer technologies and tunnels
to be updated is likely to be completely impractical.
Alternative semantics for the ECN field can be defined to depend on
the traffic class indicated by the Differentiated Services Code Point
(DSCP). Therefore, correct propagation of congestion signals could
depend on correct propagation of the DSCP between the layers and
along the path. For instance, if the meaning of the ECN field
depends on the DSCP (as in PCN or VoLTE) and the outer DSCP is
stripped on descapsulation, as in the pipe model of [RFC 2983], the
special semantics of the ECN field would be lost. Similarly, if the
DSCP is changed at the boundary between Diffserv domains, the special
ECN semantics would also be lost. This is an important implication
of the localized scope of most Diffserv arrangements. In this
document, correct propagation of traffic class information is assumed
while the meaning of 'correct' and how it is achieved is covered
elsewhere (e.g., [RFC 2983]) and is outside the scope of this
document.
The guidelines in this document do ensure that common encapsulation
and decapsulation rules are sufficiently generic to cover cases where
ECT(1) is used instead of ECT(0) to identify alternative ECN
semantics (as in L4S [RFC 9331]) and where ECN-marking algorithms use
ECT(1) to encode three severity levels into the ECN field (e.g., PCN
[RFC 6660]) rather than the default of two. All these different
semantics for the ECN field work because it has been possible to
define common default decapsulation rules that allow for all cases
[RFC 6040].
Note that the guidelines in this document do not necessarily require
the subnet wire protocol to be changed to add support for congestion
notification. For instance, the feed-up-and-forward mode
(Section 3.2) and the null mode (Section 3.4) do not. Another way to
add congestion notification without consuming header space in the
subnet protocol might be to use a parallel control plane protocol.
This document focuses on the congestion notification interface
between IP and lower-layer or tunnel protocols that can encapsulate
IP, where the term 'IP' includes IPv4 or IPv6, unicast, multicast, or
anycast. However, it is likely that the guidelines will also be
useful when a lower-layer protocol or tunnel encapsulates itself,
e.g., Ethernet Media Access Control (MAC) in MAC ([IEEE802.1Q];
previously 802.1ah), or when it encapsulates other protocols. In the
feed-backward mode, propagation of congestion signals for multicast
and anycast packets is out of scope (because the complexity would
make it unlikely to be attempted).
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC 2119] [RFC 8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
Further terminology used within this document:
Protocol data unit (PDU): Information that is delivered as a unit
among peer entities of a layered network consisting of protocol
control information (typically a header) and possibly user data
(payload) of that layer. The scope of this document includes
Layer 2 and Layer 3 networks, where the PDU is respectively termed
a frame or a packet (or a cell in ATM). PDU is a general term for
any of these. This definition also includes a payload with a shim
header lying somewhere between layer 2 and 3.
Transport: The end-to-end transmission control function,
conventionally considered at layer 4 in the OSI reference model.
Given the audience for this document will often use the word
transport to mean low-level bit carriage, the term will be
qualified whenever it is used, e.g., 'L4 transport'.
Encapsulator: The link or tunnel endpoint function that adds an
outer header to a PDU (also termed the 'link ingress', the 'subnet
ingress', the 'ingress tunnel endpoint', or just the 'ingress'
where the context is clear).
Decapsulator: The link or tunnel endpoint function that removes an
outer header from a PDU (also termed the 'link egress', the
'subnet egress', the 'egress tunnel endpoint', or just the
'egress' where the context is clear).
Incoming header: The header of an arriving PDU before encapsulation.
Outer header: The header added to encapsulate a PDU.
Inner header: The header encapsulated by the outer header.
Outgoing header: The header forwarded by the decapsulator.
CE: Congestion Experienced [RFC 3168]
ECT: ECN-Capable (L4) Transport [RFC 3168]
Not-ECT: Not ECN-Capable (L4) Transport [RFC 3168]
Load Regulator: For each flow of PDUs, the transport function that
is capable of controlling the data rate. Typically located at the
data source, but in-path nodes can regulate load in some
congestion control arrangements (e.g., admission control, policing
nodes, or transport circuit-breakers [RFC 8084]). Note that "a
function capable of controlling the load" deliberately includes a
transport that does not actually control the load responsively,
but ideally it ought to (e.g., a sending application without
congestion control that uses UDP).
ECN-PDU: A PDU at the IP layer or below with a capacity to signal
congestion that is part of a congestion control feedback loop
within which all the nodes necessary to propagate the signal back
to the Load Regulator are capable of doing that propagation. An
IP packet with a non-zero ECN field implies that the endpoints are
ECN-capable, so this would be an ECN-PDU. However, ECN-PDU is
intended to be a general term for a PDU at lower layers, as well
as at the IP layer.
Not-ECN-PDU: A PDU at the IP layer or below that is part of a
congestion control feedback loop that is not capable of
propagating ECN signals back to the Load Regulator because at
least one of the nodes necessary to propagate the signals is
incapable of doing that propagation. Note that this definition is
a property of the feedback loop, not necessarily of the PDU
itself; certainly the PDU will self-describe the property in some
protocols, but in others, the property might be carried in a
separate control plane context (which is somehow bound to the
PDU).
3. Modes of Operation
This section sets down the different modes by which congestion
information is passed between the lower layer and the higher one. It
acts as a reference framework for the subsequent sections that give
normative guidelines for designers of congestion notification
protocols, taking each mode in turn:
Feed-Forward-and-Up: Nodes feed forward congestion notification
towards the egress within the lower layer, then up and along the
layers towards the end-to-end destination at the transport layer.
The following local optimization is possible:
Feed-Up-and-Forward: A lower-layer switch feeds up congestion
notification directly into the higher layer (e.g., into the ECN
field in the IP header), irrespective of whether the node is at
the egress of a subnet.
Feed-Backward: Nodes feed back congestion signals towards the
ingress of the lower layer and (optionally) attempt to control
congestion within their own layer.
Null: Nodes cannot experience congestion at the lower layer except
at the ingress nodes of the subnet (which are IP-aware or
equivalently higher-layer-aware).
3.1. Feed-Forward-and-Up Mode
Like IP and MPLS, many subnet technologies are based on self-
contained PDUs or frames sent unreliably. They provide no feedback
channel at the subnetwork layer, instead relying on higher layers
(e.g., TCP) to feed back loss signals.
In these cases, ECN may best be supported by standardising explicit
notification of congestion into the lower-layer protocol that carries
the data forwards. Then, a specification is needed for how the
egress of the lower-layer subnet propagates this explicit signal into
the forwarded upper-layer (IP) header. This signal continues
forwards until it finally reaches the destination transport (at L4).
Typically, the destination will feed this congestion notification
back to the source transport using an end-to-end protocol (e.g.,
TCP). This is the arrangement that has already been used to add ECN
to IP-in-IP tunnels [RFC 6040], IP-in-MPLS, and MPLS-in-MPLS
[RFC 5129].
This mode is illustrated in Figure 1. Along the middle of the
figure, layers 2, 3, and 4 of the protocol stack are shown. One
packet is shown along the bottom as it progresses across the network
from source to destination, crossing two subnets connected by a
router and crossing two switches on the path across each subnet.
Congestion at the output of the first switch (shown as *) leads to a
congestion marking in the L2 header (shown as C in the illustration
of the packet). The chevrons show the progress of the resulting
congestion indication. It is propagated from link to link across the
subnet in the L2 header. Then, when the router removes the marked L2
header, it propagates the marking up into the L3 (IP) header. The
router forwards the marked L3 header into subnet B. The L2 protocol
used in subnet B does not support congestion notification, but the
signal proceeds across it in the L3 header.
Note that there is no implication that each 'C' marking is encoded
the same; a different encoding might be used for the 'C' marking in
each protocol.
Finally, for completeness, we show the L3 marking arriving at the
destination, where the host transport protocol (e.g., TCP) feeds it
back to the source in the L4 acknowledgement (the 'C' at L4 in the
packet at the top of the diagram).
_ _ _
/_______ | | |C| ACK Packet (V)
\ |_|_|_|
+---+ layer: 2 3 4 header +---+
| <|<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Packet V <<<<<<<<<<<<<|<< |L4
| | +---+ | ^ |
| | . . . . . . Packet U. . | >>|>>> Packet U >>>>>>>>>>>>|>^ |L3
| | +---+ +---+ | ^ | +---+ +---+ | |
| | | *|>>>>>|>>>|>>>>>|>^ | | | | | | |L2
|___|_____|___|_____|___|_____|___|_____|___|_____|___|_____|___|
source subnet A router subnet B dest
__ _ _ _| __ _ _ _| __ _ _| __ _ _ _|
| | | | | | | | |C| | | |C| | | |C| | Data________\
|__|_|_|_| |__|_|_|_| |__|_|_| |__|_|_|_| Packet (U) /
layer:4 3 2A 4 3 2A 4 3 4 3 2B
header
Figure 1: Feed-Forward-and-Up Mode
Of course, modern networks are rarely as simple as this textbook
example, often involving multiple nested layers. For example, a
Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) mobile network may have
two IP-in-IP GTP [GTPv1] tunnels in series and an MPLS backhaul
between the base station and the first router. Nonetheless, the
example illustrates the general idea of feeding congestion
notification forward then upward whenever a header is removed at the
egress of a subnet.
Note that the Forward Explicit Congestion Notification (FECN) bit in
Frame Relay [Buck00] and the Explicit Forward Congestion Indication
(EFCI) [ITU-T.I.371] bit in ATM user data cells follow a feed-forward
pattern. However, in ATM, this arrangement is only part of a feed-
forward-and-backward pattern at the lower layer, not feed-forward-
and-up out of the lower layer -- the intention was never to interface
with IP-ECN at the subnet egress. To our knowledge, Frame Relay FECN
is solely used by network operators to detect where they should
provision more capacity.
3.2. Feed-Up-and-Forward Mode
Ethernet is particularly difficult to extend incrementally to support
congestion notification. One way is to use so-called 'Layer 3
switches'. These are Ethernet switches that dig into the Ethernet
payload to find an IP header and manipulate or act on certain IP
fields (specifically Diffserv and ECN). For instance, in Data Center
TCP [RFC 8257], Layer 3 switches are configured to mark the ECN field
of the IP header within the Ethernet payload when their output buffer
becomes congested. With respect to switching, a Layer 3 switch acts
solely on the addresses in the Ethernet header; it does not use IP
addresses and it does not decrement the TTL field in the IP header.
_ _ _
/_______ | | |C| ACK packet (V)
\ |_|_|_|
+---+ layer: 2 3 4 header +---+
| <|<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Packet V <<<<<<<<<<<<<|<< |L4
| | +---+ | ^ |
| | . . . >>>> Packet U >>>|>>>|>>> Packet U >>>>>>>>>>>>|>^ |L3
| | +--^+ +---+ | v| +---+ +---+ | ^ |
| | | *| | | | >|>>>>>|>>>|>>>>>|>>>|>>>>>|>^ |L2
|___|_____|___|_____|___|_____|___|_____|___|_____|___|_____|___|
source subnet E router subnet F dest
__ _ _ _| __ _ _ _| __ _ _| __ _ _ _|
| | | | | | | |C| | | | |C| | | |C|C| Data________\
|__|_|_|_| |__|_|_|_| |__|_|_| |__|_|_|_| Packet (U) /
layer:4 3 2 4 3 2 4 3 4 3 2
header
Figure 2: Feed-Up-and-Forward Mode
By comparing Figure 2 with Figure 1, it can be seen that subnet E
(perhaps a subnet of Layer 3 Ethernet switches) works in feed-up-and-
forward mode by notifying congestion directly into L3 at the point of
congestion, even though the congested switch does not otherwise act
at L3. In this example, the technology in subnet F (e.g., MPLS) does
support ECN. So, when the router adds the Layer 2 header, it copies
the ECN marking from L3 to L2 as well, as shown by the 'C's in both
layers.
3.3. Feed-Backward Mode
In some Layer 2 technologies, congestion notification has been
defined for use internally within the subnet with its own feedback
and load regulation but the interface with IP for ECN has not been
defined.
For instance, the relative rate mechanism was one of the more popular
ways to manage traffic for the Available Bit Rate (ABR) service in
ATM, and it tended to supersede earlier designs. In this approach,
ATM switches send special resource management (RM) cells in both the
forward and backward directions to control the ingress rate of user
data into a virtual circuit. If a switch buffer is approaching
congestion or is congested, it sends an RM cell back towards the
ingress with respectively the No Increase (NI) or Congestion
Indication (CI) bit set in its message type field [ATM-TM-ABR]. The
ingress then holds or decreases its sending bit rate accordingly.
_ _ _
/_______ | | |C| ACK packet (X)
\ |_|_|_|
+---+ layer: 2 3 4 header +---+
| <|<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Packet X <<<<<<<<<<<<<|<< |L4
| | +---+ | ^ |
| | | *|>>> Packet W >>>>>>>>>>>>|>^ |L3
| | +---+ +---+ | | +---+ +---+ | |
| | | | | | | <|<<<<<|<<<|<(V)<|<<<| | |L2
| | . . | . |Packet U | . . | . | . . | . | . . | .*| . . | |L2
|___|_____|___|_____|___|_____|___|_____|___|_____|___|_____|___|
source subnet G router subnet H dest
__ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ later
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |C| | data________\
|__|_|_|_| |__|_|_|_| |__|_|_| |__|_|_|_| packet (W) /
4 3 2 4 3 2 4 3 4 3 2
_
/__ |C| Feedback control
\ |_| cell/frame (V)
2
__ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ earlier
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | data________\
|__|_|_|_| |__|_|_|_| |__|_|_| |__|_|_|_| packet (U) /
layer: 4 3 2 4 3 2 4 3 4 3 2
header
Figure 3: Feed-Backward Mode
ATM's feed-backward approach does not fit well when layered beneath
IP's feed-forward approach unless the initial data source is the same
node as the ATM ingress. Figure 3 shows the feed-backward approach
being used in subnet H. If the final switch on the path is congested
(*), it does not feed forward any congestion indications on the
packet (U). Instead, it sends a control cell (V) back to the router
at the ATM ingress.
However, the backward feedback does not reach the original data
source directly because IP does not support backward feedback (and
subnet G is independent of subnet H). Instead, the router in the
middle throttles down its sending rate, but the original data sources
don't reduce their rates. The resulting rate mismatch causes the
middle router's buffer at layer 3 to back up until it becomes
congested, which it signals forwards on later data packets at layer 3
(e.g., packet W). Note that the forward signal from the middle
router is not triggered directly by the backward signal. Rather, it
is triggered by congestion resulting from the middle router's
mismatched rate response to the backward signal.
In response to this later forward signalling, end-to-end feedback at
layer 4 finally completes the tortuous path of congestion indications
back to the origin data source as before.
Quantized Congestion Notification (QCN) [IEEE802.1Q] would suffer
from similar problems if extended to multiple subnets. However, QCN
was clearly characterized as solely applicable to a single subnet
from the start (see Section 6).
3.4. Null Mode
Link- and physical-layer resources are often 'non-blocking' by
design. Congestion notification may be implemented in these cases,
but it does not need to be deployed at the lower layer; ECN in IP
would be sufficient.
A degenerate example is a point-to-point Ethernet link. Excess
loading of the link merely causes the queue from the higher layer to
back up, while the lower layer remains immune to congestion. Even a
whole meshed subnetwork can be made immune to interior congestion by
limiting ingress capacity and sufficient sizing of interior links,
e.g., a non-blocking fat-tree network [Leiserson85]. An alternative
to fat links near the root is numerous thin links with multi-path
routing to ensure even worst-case patterns of load cannot congest any
link, e.g., a Clos network [Clos53].
4. Feed-Forward-and-Up Mode: Guidelines for Adding Congestion
Notification
Feed-forward-and-up is the mode already used for signalling ECN up
the layers through MPLS into IP [RFC 5129] and through IP-in-IP
tunnels [RFC 6040], whether encapsulating with IPv4 [RFC 2003], IPv6
[RFC 2473], or IPsec [RFC 4301]. These RFCs take a consistent approach
and the following guidelines are designed to ensure this consistency
continues as ECN support is added to other protocols that encapsulate
IP. The guidelines are also designed to ensure compliance with the
more general best current practice for the design of alternate ECN
schemes given in [RFC 4774] and extended by [RFC 8311].
The rest of this section is structured as follows:
* Section 4.1 addresses the most straightforward cases, where
[RFC 6040] can be applied directly to add ECN to tunnels that are
effectively IP-in-IP tunnels, but with a shim header(s) between
the IP headers.
* The subsequent sections give guidelines for adding congestion
notification to a subnet technology that uses feed-forward-and-up
mode like IP, but it is not so similar to IP that [RFC 6040] rules
can be applied directly. Specifically:
- Sections 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 address how to add ECN support to
the wire protocol and to the encapsulators and decapsulators at
the ingress and egress of the subnet, respectively.
- Section 4.5 deals with the special but common case of sequences
of tunnels or subnets that all use the same technology.
- Section 4.6 deals with the question of reframing when IP
packets do not map 1:1 into lower-layer frames.
4.1. IP-in-IP Tunnels with Shim Headers
A common pattern for many tunnelling protocols is to encapsulate an
inner IP header with a shim header(s) then an outer IP header. A
shim header is defined as one that is not sufficient alone to forward
the packet as an outer header. Another common pattern is for a shim
to encapsulate an L2 header, which in turn encapsulates (or might
encapsulate) an IP header. [RFC 9601] clarifies that [RFC 6040] is
just as applicable when there are shims and even an L2 header between
two IP headers.
However, it is not always feasible or necessary to propagate ECN
between IP headers when separated by a shim. For instance, it might
be too costly to dig to arbitrary depths to find an inner IP header,
there may be little or no congestion within the tunnel by design (see
null mode in Section 3.4 above), or a legacy implementation might not
support ECN. In cases where a tunnel does not support ECN, it is
important that the ingress does not copy the ECN field from an inner
IP header to an outer. Therefore Section 4 of [RFC 9601] requires
network operators to configure the ingress of a tunnel that does not
support ECN so that it zeros the ECN field in the outer IP header.
Nonetheless, in many cases it is feasible to propagate the ECN field
between IP headers separated by shim headers and/or an L2 header.
Particularly in the typical case when the outer IP header and the
shim(s) are added (or removed) as part of the same procedure. Even
if a shim encapsulates an L2 header, it is often possible to find an
inner IP header within the L2 PDU and propagate ECN between that and
the outer IP header. This can be thought of as a special case of the
feed-up-and-forward mode (Section 3.2), so the guidelines for this
mode apply (Section 5).
Numerous shim protocols have been defined for IP tunnelling. More
recent ones, e.g., Geneve [RFC 8926] and Generic UDP Encapsulation
(GUE) [INTAREA-GUE] cite and follow [RFC 6040]. Some earlier ones,
e.g., CAPWAP [RFC 5415] and LISP [RFC 9300], cite [RFC 3168], which is
compatible with [RFC 6040].
However, as Section 9.3 of [RFC 3168] pointed out, ECN support needs
to be defined for many earlier shim-based tunnelling protocols, e.g.,
L2TPv2 [RFC 2661], L2TPv3 [RFC 3931], GRE [RFC 2784], PPTP [RFC 2637],
GTP [GTPv1] [GTPv1-U] [GTPv2-C], and Teredo [RFC 4380], as well as
some recent ones, e.g., VXLAN [RFC 7348], NVGRE [RFC 7637], and NSH
[RFC 8300].
All these IP-based encapsulations can be updated in one shot by
simple reference to [RFC 6040]. However, it would not be appropriate
to update all these protocols from within the present guidance
document. Instead, a companion specification [RFC 9601] has the
appropriate Standards Track status to update Standards Track
protocols. For those that are not under IETF change control
[RFC 9601] can only recommend that the relevant body updates them.
4.2. Wire Protocol Design: Indication of ECN Support
This section is intended to guide the redesign of any lower-layer
protocol that encapsulates IP to add built-in congestion notification
support at the lower layer using feed-forward-and-up mode. It
reflects the approaches used in [RFC 6040] and in [RFC 5129].
Therefore, IP-in-IP tunnels or IP-in-MPLS or MPLS-in-MPLS
encapsulations that already comply with [RFC 6040] or [RFC 5129] will
already satisfy this guidance.
A lower-layer (or subnet) congestion notification system:
1. SHOULD NOT apply explicit congestion notifications to PDUs that
are destined for legacy layer-4 transport implementations that
will not understand ECN; and
2. SHOULD NOT apply explicit congestion notifications to PDUs if the
egress of the subnet might not propagate congestion notification
onward into the higher layer.
We use the term ECN-PDU for a PDU on a feedback loop that will
propagate congestion notification properly because it meets both
the above criteria. Additionally, a Not-ECN-PDU is a PDU on a
feedback loop that does not meet at least one of the criteria,
and therefore will not propagate congestion notification
properly. A corollary of the above is that a lower-layer
congestion notification protocol:
3. SHOULD be able to distinguish ECN-PDUs from Not-ECN-PDUs.
Note that there is no need for all interior nodes within a subnet to
be able to mark congestion explicitly. A mix of drop and explicit
congestion signals from different nodes is fine. However, if _any_
interior nodes might generate congestion markings, Guideline 2 above
says that all relevant egress nodes SHOULD be able to propagate those
markings up to the higher layer.
In IP, if the ECN field in each PDU is cleared to the Not ECN-Capable
Transport (Not-ECT) codepoint, it indicates that the L4 transport
will not understand congestion markings. A congested buffer must not
mark these Not-ECT PDUs; therefore, it has to signal congestion by
increasingly applying drop instead.
The mechanism a lower layer uses to distinguish the ECN capability of
PDUs need not mimic that of IP. The above guidelines merely say that
the lower-layer system as a whole should achieve the same outcome.
For instance, ECN-capable feedback loops might use PDUs that are
identified by a particular set of labels or tags. Alternatively,
logical-link protocols that use flow state might determine whether a
PDU can be congestion marked by checking for ECN support in the flow
state. Other protocols might depend on out-of-band control signals.
The per-domain checking of ECN support in MPLS [RFC 5129] is a good
example of a way to avoid sending congestion markings to L4
transports that will not understand them without using any header
space in the subnet protocol.
In MPLS, header space is extremely limited; therefore, [RFC 5129] does
not provide a field in the MPLS header to indicate whether the PDU is
an ECN-PDU or a Not-ECN-PDU. Instead, interior nodes in a domain are
allowed to set explicit congestion indications without checking
whether the PDU is destined for a L4 transport that will understand
them. Nonetheless, this is made safe by requiring that the network
operator upgrades all decapsulating edges of a whole domain at once
as soon as even one switch within the domain is configured to mark
rather than drop some PDUs during congestion. Therefore, any edge
node that might decapsulate a packet will be capable of checking
whether the higher-layer transport is ECN-capable. When
decapsulating a CE-marked packet, if the decapsulator discovers that
the higher layer (inner header) indicates the transport is not ECN-
capable, it drops the packet -- effectively on behalf of the earlier
congested node (see Decapsulation Guideline 1 in Section 4.4).
It was only appropriate to define such an incremental deployment
strategy because MPLS is targeted solely at professional operators
who can be expected to ensure that a whole subnetwork is consistently
configured. This strategy might not be appropriate for other link
technologies targeted at zero-configuration deployment or deployment
by the general public (e.g., Ethernet). For such 'plug-and-play'
environments, it will be necessary to invent a fail-safe approach
that ensures congestion markings will never fall into black holes, no
matter how inconsistently a system is put together. Alternatively,
congestion notification relying on correct system configuration could
be confined to flavours of Ethernet intended only for professional
network operators, such as Provider Backbone Bridges (PBB)
([IEEE802.1Q]; previously 802.1ah).
ECN support in TRansparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL)
[RFC 9600] provides a good example of how to add congestion
notification to a lower-layer protocol without relying on careful and
consistent operator configuration. TRILL provides an extension
header word with space for flags of different categories depending on
whether logic to understand the extension is critical. The
congestion-experienced marking has been defined as a 'critical
ingress-to-egress' flag. So, if a transit RBridge sets this flag on
a frame and an egress RBridge does not have any logic to process it,
the egress RBridge will drop the frame, which is the desired default
action anyway. Therefore, TRILL RBridges can be updated with support
for congestion notification in no particular order and, at the egress
of the TRILL campus, congestion notification will be propagated to IP
as ECN whenever ECN logic has been implemented at the egress, or as
drop otherwise.
QCN [IEEE802.1Q] is not intended to extend beyond a single subnet or
interoperate with IP-ECN. Nonetheless, the way QCN indicates to
lower-layer devices that the endpoints will not understand QCN
provides another example that a lower-layer protocol designer might
be able to mimic for their scenario. An operator can define certain
Priority Code Points (PCPs [IEEE802.1Q]; previously 802.1p) to
indicate non-QCN frames. Then an ingress bridge has to map each
arriving not-QCN-capable IP packet to one of these non-QCN PCPs.
When drop for non-ECN traffic is deferred to the egress of a subnet,
it cannot necessarily be assumed that one congestion mark is
equivalent to one drop, as was originally required by [RFC 3168].
[RFC 8311] updated [RFC 3168] to allow experimentation with congestion
markings that are not equivalent to drop, particularly for L4S
[RFC 9331]. ECN support in TRILL [RFC 9600] is a good example of a way
to defer drop to the egress of a subnet both when marks are
equivalent to drops (as in [RFC 3168]) and when they are not (as in
L4S). The ECN scheme for MPLS [RFC 5129] was defined before L4S, so
it only currently supports deferred drop that is equivalent to ECN
marking. Nonetheless, in principle, MPLS (and potentially future L2
protocols) could support L4S marking by copying TRILL's approach for
determining the drop level of any non-ECN traffic at the subnet
egress.
4.3. Encapsulation Guidelines
This section is intended to guide the redesign of any node that
encapsulates IP with a lower-layer header when adding built-in
congestion notification support to the lower-layer protocol using
feed-forward-and-up mode. It reflects the approaches used in
[RFC 6040] and [RFC 5129]. Therefore, IP-in-IP tunnels or IP-in-MPLS
or MPLS-in-MPLS encapsulations that already comply with [RFC 6040] or
[RFC 5129] will already satisfy this guidance.
1. Egress Capability Check: A subnet ingress needs to be sure that
the corresponding egress of a subnet will propagate any
congestion notification added to the outer header across the
subnet. This is necessary in addition to checking that an
incoming PDU indicates an ECN-capable (L4) transport. Examples
of how this guarantee might be provided include:
* by configuration (e.g., if any label switch in a domain
supports congestion marking, [RFC 5129] requires all egress
nodes to have been configured to propagate ECN).
* by the ingress explicitly checking that the egress propagates
ECN (e.g., an early attempt to add ECN support to TRILL used
IS-IS to check path capabilities before adding ECN extension
flags to each frame [RFC 7780]).
* by inherent design of the protocol (e.g., by encoding
congestion marking on the outer header in such a way that a
legacy egress that does not understand ECN will consider the
PDU corrupt or invalid and discard it; thus, at least
propagating a form of congestion signal).
2. Egress Fails Capability Check: If the ingress cannot guarantee
that the egress will propagate congestion notification, the
ingress SHOULD disable congestion notification at the lower layer
when it forwards the PDU. An example of how the ingress might
disable congestion notification at the lower layer would be by
setting the outer header of the PDU to identify it as a Not-ECN-
PDU, assuming the subnet technology supports such a concept.
3. Standard Congestion Monitoring Baseline: Once the ingress to a
subnet has established that the egress will correctly propagate
ECN, on encapsulation, it SHOULD encode the same level of
congestion in outer headers as is arriving in incoming headers.
For example, it might copy any incoming congestion notifications
into the outer header of the lower-layer protocol.
This ensures that bulk congestion monitoring of outer headers
(e.g., by a network management node monitoring congestion
markings in passing frames) will measure congestion accumulated
along the whole upstream path, starting from the Load Regulator
and not just starting from the ingress of the subnet. A node
that is not the Load Regulator SHOULD NOT re-initialize the level
of CE markings in the outer header to zero.
It would still also be possible to measure congestion introduced
across one subnet (or tunnel) by subtracting the level of CE
markings on inner headers from that on outer headers (see
Appendix C of [RFC 6040]). For example:
* If this guideline has been followed and if the level of CE
markings is 0.4% on the outer header and 0.1% on the inner
header, 0.4% congestion has been introduced across all the
networks since the Load Regulator, and 0.3% (= 0.4% - 0.1%)
has been introduced since the ingress to the current subnet
(or tunnel).
* Without this guideline, if the subnet ingress had re-
initialized the outer congestion level to zero, the outer and
inner headers would measure 0.1% and 0.3%. It would still be
possible to infer that the congestion introduced since the
Load Regulator was 0.4% (= 0.1% + 0.3%), but only if the
monitoring system somehow knows whether the subnet ingress re-
initialized the congestion level.
As long as subnet and tunnel technologies use the standard
congestion monitoring baseline in this guideline, monitoring
systems will know to use the former approach rather than having
to 'somehow know' which approach to use.
4.4. Decapsulation Guidelines
This section is intended to guide the redesign of any node that
decapsulates IP from within a lower-layer header when adding built-in
congestion notification support to the lower-layer protocol using
feed-forward-and-up mode. It reflects the approaches used in
[RFC 6040] and in [RFC 5129]. Therefore, IP-in-IP tunnels or IP-in-
MPLS or MPLS-in-MPLS encapsulations that already comply with
[RFC 6040] or [RFC 5129] will already satisfy this guidance.
A subnet egress SHOULD NOT simply copy congestion notifications from
outer headers to the forwarded header. It SHOULD calculate the
outgoing congestion notification field from the inner and outer
headers using the following guidelines. If there is any conflict,
rules earlier in the list take precedence over rules later in the
list.
1. If the arriving inner header is a Not-ECN-PDU, it implies the L4
transport will not understand explicit congestion markings.
Then:
* If the outer header carries an explicit congestion marking, it
is likely that a protocol error has occurred, so drop is the
only indication of congestion that the L4 transport will
understand. If the outer congestion marking is the most
severe possible, the packet MUST be dropped. However, if
congestion can be marked with multiple levels of severity and
the packet's outer marking is not the most severe, this
requirement can be relaxed to: the packet SHOULD be dropped.
* If the outer is an ECN-PDU that carries no indication of
congestion or a Not-ECN-PDU the PDU SHOULD be forwarded, but
still as a Not-ECN-PDU.
2. If the outer header does not support congestion notification (a
Not-ECN-PDU), but the inner header does (an ECN-PDU), the inner
header SHOULD be forwarded unchanged.
3. In some lower-layer protocols, congestion may be signalled as a
numerical level, such as in the control frames of QCN
[IEEE802.1Q]. If such a multi-bit encoding encapsulates an ECN-
capable IP data packet, a function will be needed to convert the
quantized congestion level into the frequency of congestion
markings in outgoing IP packets.
4. Congestion indications might be encoded by a severity level. For
instance, increasing levels of congestion might be encoded by
numerically increasing indications, e.g., PCN can be encoded in
each PDU at three severity levels in IP or MPLS [RFC 6660] and the
default encapsulation and decapsulation rules [RFC 6040] are
compatible with this interpretation of the ECN field.
If the arriving inner header is an ECN-PDU, where the inner and
outer headers carry indications of congestion of different
severity, the more severe indication SHOULD be forwarded in
preference to the less severe.
5. The inner and outer headers might carry a combination of
congestion notification fields that should not be possible given
any currently used protocol transitions. For instance, if
Encapsulation Guideline 3 in Section 4.3 had been followed, it
should not be possible to have a less severe indication of
congestion in the outer header than in the inner header. It MAY
be appropriate to log unexpected combinations of headers and
possibly raise an alarm.
If a safe outgoing codepoint can be defined for such a PDU, the
PDU SHOULD be forwarded rather than dropped. Some implementers
discard PDUs with currently unused combinations of headers just
in case they represent an attack. However, an approach using
alarms and policy-mediated drop is preferable to hard-coded drop
so that operators can keep track of possible attacks, but
currently unused combinations are not precluded from future use
through new standards actions.
4.5. Sequences of Similar Tunnels or Subnets
In some deployments, particularly in 3GPP networks, an IP packet may
traverse two or more IP-in-IP tunnels in sequence that all use
identical technology (e.g., GTP).
In such cases, it would be sufficient for every encapsulation and
decapsulation in the chain to comply with [RFC 6040]. Alternatively,
as an optimization, a node that decapsulates a packet and immediately
re-encapsulates it for the next tunnel MAY copy the incoming outer
ECN field directly to the outgoing outer header and the incoming
inner ECN field directly to the outgoing inner header. Then, the
overall behaviour across the sequence of tunnel segments would still
be consistent with [RFC 6040].
Appendix C of [RFC 6040] describes how a tunnel egress can monitor how
much congestion has been introduced within a tunnel. A network
operator might want to monitor how much congestion had been
introduced within a whole sequence of tunnels. Using the technique
in Appendix C of [RFC 6040] at the final egress, the operator could
monitor the whole sequence of tunnels, but only if the above
optimization were used consistently along the sequence of tunnels, in
order to make it appear as a single tunnel. Therefore, tunnel
endpoint implementations SHOULD allow the operator to configure
whether this optimization is enabled.
When congestion notification support is added to a subnet technology,
consideration SHOULD be given to a similar optimization between
subnets in sequence if they all use the same technology.
4.6. Reframing and Congestion Markings
The guidance in this section is worded in terms of framing
boundaries, but it applies equally whether the PDUs are frames,
cells, or packets.
Where an AQM marks the ECN field of IP packets as they queue into a
Layer 2 link, there will be no problem with framing boundaries
because the ECN markings would be applied directly to IP packets.
The guidance in this section is only applicable where a congestion
notification capability is being added to a Layer 2 protocol so that
Layer 2 frames can be marked by an AQM at layer 2. This would only
be necessary where AQM will be applied at pure Layer 2 nodes (without
IP awareness).
Where congestion marking has had to be applied at non-IP-aware nodes
and framing boundaries do not necessarily align with packet
boundaries, the decapsulating IP forwarding node SHOULD propagate
congestion markings from Layer 2 frame headers to IP packets that may
have different boundaries as a consequence of reframing.
Two possible design goals for propagating congestion indications,
described in Section 5.3 of [RFC 3168] and Section 2.4 of [RFC 7141],
are:
1. approximate preservation of the presence (and therefore timing)
of congestion marks on the L2 frames used to construct an IP
packet;
2. a. at high frequency of congestion marking, approximate
preservation of the proportion of congestion marks arriving
and departing;
b. at low frequency of congestion marking, approximate
preservation of the timing of congestion marks arriving and
departing.
In either case, an implementation SHOULD ensure that any new incoming
congestion indication is propagated immediately; not held awaiting
the possibility of further congestion indications to be sufficient to
indicate congestion on an outgoing PDU [RFC 7141]. Nonetheless, to
facilitate pipelined implementation, it would be acceptable for
congestion marks to propagate to a slightly later IP packet.
At decapsulation in either case:
* ECN-marking propagation logically occurs before application of
Decapsulation Guideline 1 in Section 4.4. For instance, if ECN-
marking propagation would cause an ECN congestion indication to be
applied to an IP packet that is a Not-ECN-PDU, then that IP packet
is dropped in accordance with Guideline 1.
* Where a mix of ECN-PDUs and non-ECN-PDUs arrives to construct the
same IP packet, the decapsulation specification SHOULD require
that packet to be discarded.
* Where a mix of different types of ECN-PDUs arrives to construct
the same IP packet, e.g., a mix of frames that map to ECT(0) and
ECT(1) IP packets, the decapsulation specification might consider
this a protocol error. But, if the lower-layer protocol has
defined such a mix of types of ECN-PDU as valid, it SHOULD require
the resulting IP packet to be set to either ECT(0) or ECT(1). In
this case, it SHOULD take into account that the RFC Series has so
far allowed ECT(0) and ECT(1) to be considered equivalent
[RFC 3168]; or ECT(1) can provide a less severe congestion marking
than CE [RFC 6040]; or ECT(1) can indicate an unmarked but ECN-
capable packet that is subject to a different marking algorithm to
ECT(0) packets, e.g., L4S [RFC 8311] [RFC 9331].
The following are two ways that goal 1 might be achieved, but they
are not intended to be the only ways:
* Every IP PDU that is constructed, in whole or in part, from an L2
frame that is marked with a congestion signal has that signal
propagated to it.
* Every L2 frame that is marked with a congestion signal propagates
that signal to one IP PDU that is constructed from it in whole or
in part. If multiple IP PDUs meet this description, the choice
can be made arbitrarily but ought to be consistent.
The following gives one way that goal 2 might be achieved, but it is
not intended to be the only way:
* For each of the streams of frames that encapsulate the IP packets
of each IP-ECN codepoint and follow the same path through the
subnet, a counter ('in') tracks octets arriving within the payload
of marked L2 frames and another ('out') tracks octets departing in
marked IP packets. While 'in' exceeds 'out', forwarded IP packets
are ECN-marked. If 'out' exceeds 'in' for longer than a timeout,
both counters are zeroed to ensure that the start of the next
congestion episode propagates immediately. The 'out' counter
includes octets in reconstructed IP packets that would have been
marked, but had to be dropped because they were Not-ECN-PDUs (by
Decapsulation Guideline 1 in Section 4.4).
Generally, relative to the number of IP PDUs, the number of L2 frames
may be higher (e.g., ATM), roughly the same, or lower (e.g., 802.11
aggregation at an L2-only station). This distinction may influence
the choice of mechanism.
5. Feed-Up-and-Forward Mode: Guidelines for Adding Congestion
Notification
The guidance in this section is applicable, for example, when IP
packets:
* are encapsulated in Ethernet headers, which have no support for
congestion notification;
* are forwarded by the eNode-B (base station) of a 3GPP radio access
network, which is required to apply ECN marking during congestion
[LTE-RA] [UTRAN], but the Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP)
that encapsulates the IP header over the radio access has no
support for ECN.
This guidance also generalizes to encapsulation by other subnet
technologies with no built-in support for congestion notification at
the lower layer, but with support for finding and processing an IP
header. It is unlikely to be applicable or necessary for IP-in-IP
encapsulation, where feed-forward-and-up mode based on [RFC 6040]
would be more appropriate.
Marking the IP header while switching at layer 2 (by using a Layer 3
switch) or while forwarding in a radio access network seems to
represent a layering violation. However, it can be considered as a
benign optimization if the guidelines below are followed. Feed-up-
and-forward is certainly not a general alternative to implementing
feed-forward congestion notification in the lower layer, because:
* IPv4 and IPv6 are not the only Layer 3 protocols that might be
encapsulated by lower-layer protocols.
* Link-layer encryption might be in use, making the Layer 2 payload
inaccessible.
* Many Ethernet switches do not have 'Layer 3 switch' capabilities,
so the ability to read or modify an IP payload cannot be assumed.
* It might be costly to find an IP header (IPv4 or IPv6) when it may
be encapsulated by more than one lower-layer header, e.g.,
Ethernet MAC in MAC ([IEEE802.1Q]; previously 802.1ah).
Nonetheless, configuring lower-layer equipment to look for an ECN
field in an encapsulated IP header is a useful optimization. If the
implementation follows the guidelines below, this optimization does
not have to be confined to a controlled environment, e.g., within a
data centre; it could usefully be applied in any network -- even if
the operator is not sure whether the above issues will never apply:
1. If a built-in lower-layer congestion notification mechanism
exists for a subnet technology, it is safe to mix feed-up-and-
forward with feed-forward-and-up on other switches in the same
subnet. However, it will generally be more efficient to use the
built-in mechanism.
2. The depth of the search for an IP header SHOULD be limited. If
an IP header is not found soon enough, or an unrecognized or
unreadable header is encountered, the switch SHOULD resort to an
alternative means of signalling congestion (e.g., drop or the
built-in lower-layer mechanism if available).
3. It is sufficient to use the first IP header found in the stack;
the egress of the relevant tunnel can propagate congestion
notification upwards to any more deeply encapsulated IP headers
later.
6. Feed-Backward Mode: Guidelines for Adding Congestion Notification
It can be seen from Section 3.3 that congestion notification in a
subnet using feed-backward mode has generally not been designed to be
directly coupled with IP-layer congestion notification. The subnet
attempts to minimize congestion internally, and if the incoming load
at the ingress exceeds the capacity somewhere through the subnet, the
Layer 3 buffer into the ingress backs up. Thus, a feed-backward mode
subnet is in some sense similar to a null mode subnet, in that there
is no need for any direct interaction between the subnet and higher-
layer congestion notification. Therefore, no detailed protocol
design guidelines are appropriate. Nonetheless, a more general
guideline is appropriate:
| A subnetwork technology intended to eventually interface to IP
| SHOULD NOT be designed using only the feed-backward mode, which is
| certainly best for a stand-alone subnet, but would need to be
| modified to work efficiently as part of the wider Internet because
| IP uses feed-forward-and-up mode.
The feed-backward approach at least works beneath IP, where the term
'works' is used only in a narrow functional sense because feed-
backward can result in very inefficient and sluggish congestion
control -- except if it is confined to the subnet directly connected
to the original data source when it is faster than feed-forward. It
would be valid to design a protocol that could work in feed-backward
mode for paths that only cross one subnet, and in feed-forward-and-up
mode for paths that cross subnets.
In the early days of TCP/IP, a similar feed-backward approach was
tried for explicit congestion signalling using source-quench (SQ)
ICMP control packets. However, SQ fell out of favour and is now
formally deprecated [RFC 6633]. The main problem was that it is hard
for a data source to tell the difference between a spoofed SQ message
and a quench request from a genuine buffer on the path. It is also
hard for a lower-layer buffer to address an SQ message to the
original source port number, which may be buried within many layers
of headers and possibly encrypted.
QCN (also known as Backward Congestion Notification (BCN); see
Sections 30-33 of [IEEE802.1Q], previously known as 802.1Qau) uses a
feed-backward mode that is structurally similar to ATM's relative
rate mechanism. However, QCN confines its applicability to scenarios
such as some data centres where all endpoints are directly attached
by the same Ethernet technology. If a QCN subnet were later
connected into a wider IP-based internetwork (e.g., when attempting
to interconnect multiple data centres) it would suffer the
inefficiency shown in Figure 3.
7. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
8. Security Considerations
If a lower-layer wire protocol is redesigned to include explicit
congestion signalling in-band in the protocol header, care SHOULD be
taken to ensure that the field used is specified as mutable during
transit. Otherwise, interior nodes signalling congestion would
invalidate any authentication protocol applied to the lower-layer
header -- by altering a header field that had been assumed as
immutable.
The redesign of protocols that encapsulate IP in order to propagate
congestion signals between layers raises potential signal integrity
concerns. Experimental or proposed approaches exist for assuring the
end-to-end integrity of in-band congestion signals, such as:
* Congestion Exposure (ConEx) for networks:
- to audit that their congestion signals are not being suppressed
by other networks or by receivers; and
- to police that senders are responding sufficiently to the
signals, irrespective of the L4 transport protocol used
[RFC 7713].
* A test for a sender to detect whether a network or the receiver is
suppressing congestion signals (for example, see the second
paragraph of Section 20.2 of [RFC 3168]).
Given these end-to-end approaches are already being specified, it
would make little sense to attempt to design hop-by-hop congestion
signal integrity into a new lower-layer protocol because end-to-end
integrity inherently achieves hop-by-hop integrity.
Section 6 gives vulnerability to spoofing as one of the reasons for
deprecating feed-backward mode.
9. Conclusions
Following the guidance in this document enables ECN support to be
extended consistently to numerous protocols that encapsulate IP (IPv4
and IPv6) so that IP continues to fulfil its role as an end-to-end
interoperability layer. This includes:
* A wide range of tunnelling protocols, including those with various
forms of shim header between two IP headers, possibly also
separated by an L2 header;
* A wide range of subnet technologies, particularly those that work
in the same 'feed-forward-and-up' mode that is used to support ECN
in IP and MPLS.
Guidelines have been defined for supporting propagation of ECN
between Ethernet and IP on so-called Layer 3 Ethernet switches using
a 'feed-up-and-forward' mode. This approach could enable other
subnet technologies to pass ECN signals into the IP layer, even if
the lower-layer protocol does not support ECN.
Finally, attempting to add congestion notification to a subnet
technology in feed-backward mode is deprecated except in special
cases due to its likely sluggish response to congestion.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2119>.
[RFC 3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC 3168, September 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3168>.
[RFC 3819] Karn, P., Ed., Bormann, C., Fairhurst, G., Grossman, D.,
Ludwig, R., Mahdavi, J., Montenegro, G., Touch, J., and L.
Wood, "Advice for Internet Subnetwork Designers", BCP 89,
RFC 3819, DOI 10.17487/RFC 3819, July 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3819>.
[RFC 4774] Floyd, S., "Specifying Alternate Semantics for the
Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Field", BCP 124,
RFC 4774, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4774, November 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4774>.
[RFC 5129] Davie, B., Briscoe, B., and J. Tay, "Explicit Congestion
Marking in MPLS", RFC 5129, DOI 10.17487/RFC 5129, January
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5129>.
[RFC 6040] Briscoe, B., "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion
Notification", RFC 6040, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6040, November
2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6040>.
[RFC 7141] Briscoe, B. and J. Manner, "Byte and Packet Congestion
Notification", BCP 41, RFC 7141, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7141,
February 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7141>.
[RFC 9600] Eastlake 3rd, D. and B. Briscoe, "TRansparent
Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL): Explicit
Congestion Notification (ECN) Support", RFC 9600,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 9600, August 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 9600>.
10.2. Informative References
[ATM-TM-ABR]
Cisco, "Understanding the Available Bit Rate (ABR) Service
Category for ATM VCs", Design Technote 10415, June 2005,
<https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/asynchronous-
transfer-mode-atm/atm-traffic-
management/10415-atmabr.html>.
[Buck00] Buckwalter, J.T., "Frame Relay: Technology and Practice",
Addison-Wesley Professional, ISBN-13 978-0201485240, 2000.
[Clos53] Clos, C., "A Study of Non-Blocking Switching Networks",
The Bell System Technical Journal, Vol. 32, Issue 2,
DOI 10.1002/j.1538-7305.1953.tb01433.x, March 1953,
<https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1953.tb01433.x>.
[GTPv1] 3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS); GPRS
Tunnelling Protocol (GTP) across the Gn and Gp interface",
Technical Specification 29.060.
[GTPv1-U] 3GPP, "General Packet Radio System (GPRS) Tunnelling
Protocol User Plane (GTPv1-U)", Technical
Specification 29.281.
[GTPv2-C] 3GPP, "3GPP Evolved Packet System (EPS); Evolved General
Packet Radio Service (GPRS) Tunnelling Protocol for
Control plane (GTPv2-C); Stage 3", Technical
Specification 29.274.
[IEEE802.1Q]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
Network--Bridges and Bridged Networks", IEEE Std 802.1Q-
2022, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2022.10004498, December 2022,
<https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2022.10004498>.
[INTAREA-GUE]
Herbert, T., Yong, L., and O. Zia, "Generic UDP
Encapsulation", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-intarea-gue-09, 26 October 2019,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-intarea-
gue-09>.
[ITU-T.I.371]
ITU-T, "Traffic control and congestion control in B-ISDN",
ITU-T Recommendation I.371, March 2004,
<https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-I.371-200403-I/en>.
[Leiserson85]
Leiserson, C.E., "Fat-trees: Universal networks for
hardware-efficient supercomputing", IEEE Transactions on
Computers, Vol. C-34, Issue 10,
DOI 10.1109/TC.1985.6312192, October 1985,
<https://doi.org/10.1109/TC.1985.6312192>.
[LTE-RA] 3GPP, "Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA)
and Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network
(E-UTRAN); Overall description; Stage 2", Technical
Specification 36.300.
[RFC 2003] Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 2003, October 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2003>.
[RFC 2473] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in
IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, DOI 10.17487/RFC 2473,
December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2473>.
[RFC 2637] Hamzeh, K., Pall, G., Verthein, W., Taarud, J., Little,
W., and G. Zorn, "Point-to-Point Tunneling Protocol
(PPTP)", RFC 2637, DOI 10.17487/RFC 2637, July 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2637>.
[RFC 2661] Townsley, W., Valencia, A., Rubens, A., Pall, G., Zorn,
G., and B. Palter, "Layer Two Tunneling Protocol "L2TP"",
RFC 2661, DOI 10.17487/RFC 2661, August 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2661>.
[RFC 2784] Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P.
Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 2784, March 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2784>.
[RFC 2884] Hadi Salim, J. and U. Ahmed, "Performance Evaluation of
Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) in IP Networks",
RFC 2884, DOI 10.17487/RFC 2884, July 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2884>.
[RFC 2983] Black, D., "Differentiated Services and Tunnels",
RFC 2983, DOI 10.17487/RFC 2983, October 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2983>.
[RFC 3931] Lau, J., Ed., Townsley, M., Ed., and I. Goyret, Ed.,
"Layer Two Tunneling Protocol - Version 3 (L2TPv3)",
RFC 3931, DOI 10.17487/RFC 3931, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3931>.
[RFC 4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4301,
December 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4301>.
[RFC 4380] Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through
Network Address Translations (NATs)", RFC 4380,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 4380, February 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4380>.
[RFC 5415] Calhoun, P., Ed., Montemurro, M., Ed., and D. Stanley,
Ed., "Control And Provisioning of Wireless Access Points
(CAPWAP) Protocol Specification", RFC 5415,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 5415, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5415>.
[RFC 6633] Gont, F., "Deprecation of ICMP Source Quench Messages",
RFC 6633, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6633, May 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6633>.
[RFC 6660] Briscoe, B., Moncaster, T., and M. Menth, "Encoding Three
Pre-Congestion Notification (PCN) States in the IP Header
Using a Single Diffserv Codepoint (DSCP)", RFC 6660,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 6660, July 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6660>.
[RFC 7323] Borman, D., Braden, B., Jacobson, V., and R.
Scheffenegger, Ed., "TCP Extensions for High Performance",
RFC 7323, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7323, September 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7323>.
[RFC 7348] Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger,
L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual
eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for
Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3
Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7348, August 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7348>.
[RFC 7567] Baker, F., Ed. and G. Fairhurst, Ed., "IETF
Recommendations Regarding Active Queue Management",
BCP 197, RFC 7567, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7567, July 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7567>.
[RFC 7637] Garg, P., Ed. and Y. Wang, Ed., "NVGRE: Network
Virtualization Using Generic Routing Encapsulation",
RFC 7637, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7637, September 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7637>.
[RFC 7713] Mathis, M. and B. Briscoe, "Congestion Exposure (ConEx)
Concepts, Abstract Mechanism, and Requirements", RFC 7713,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 7713, December 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7713>.
[RFC 7780] Eastlake 3rd, D., Zhang, M., Perlman, R., Banerjee, A.,
Ghanwani, A., and S. Gupta, "Transparent Interconnection
of Lots of Links (TRILL): Clarifications, Corrections, and
Updates", RFC 7780, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7780, February 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7780>.
[RFC 8084] Fairhurst, G., "Network Transport Circuit Breakers",
BCP 208, RFC 8084, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8084, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8084>.
[RFC 8087] Fairhurst, G. and M. Welzl, "The Benefits of Using
Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)", RFC 8087,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 8087, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8087>.
[RFC 8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8174>.
[RFC 8257] Bensley, S., Thaler, D., Balasubramanian, P., Eggert, L.,
and G. Judd, "Data Center TCP (DCTCP): TCP Congestion
Control for Data Centers", RFC 8257, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8257,
October 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8257>.
[RFC 8300] Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed.,
"Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8300,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 8300, January 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8300>.
[RFC 8311] Black, D., "Relaxing Restrictions on Explicit Congestion
Notification (ECN) Experimentation", RFC 8311,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 8311, January 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8311>.
[RFC 8926] Gross, J., Ed., Ganga, I., Ed., and T. Sridhar, Ed.,
"Geneve: Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation",
RFC 8926, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8926, November 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8926>.
[RFC 9300] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A.
Cabellos, Ed., "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP)", RFC 9300, DOI 10.17487/RFC 9300, October 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 9300>.
[RFC 9331] De Schepper, K. and B. Briscoe, Ed., "The Explicit
Congestion Notification (ECN) Protocol for Low Latency,
Low Loss, and Scalable Throughput (L4S)", RFC 9331,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 9331, January 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 9331>.
[RFC 9601] Briscoe, B., "Propagating Explicit Congestion Notification
across IP Tunnel Headers Separated by a Shim", RFC 9601,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 9601, August 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 9601>.
[UTRAN] 3GPP, "UTRAN overall description", Technical
Specification 25.401.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Gorry Fairhurst and David Black for extensive reviews.
Thanks also to the following reviewers: Joe Touch, Andrew McGregor,
Richard Scheffenegger, Ingemar Johansson, Piers O'Hanlon, Donald
Eastlake 3rd, Jonathan Morton, Markku Kojo, Sebastian Möller, Martin
Duke, and Michael Welzl, who pointed out that lower-layer congestion
notification signals may have different semantics to those in IP.
Thanks are also due to the Transport and Services Working Group
(tsvwg) chairs, TSV ADs and IETF liaison people such as Eric Gray,
Dan Romascanu and Gonzalo Camarillo for helping with the liaisons
with the IEEE and 3GPP. And thanks to Georg Mayer and particularly
to Erik Guttman for the extensive search and categorization of any
3GPP specifications that cite ECN specifications. Thanks also to the
Area Reviewers Dan Harkins, Paul Kyzivat, Sue Hares, and Dale Worley.
Bob Briscoe was part-funded by the European Community under its
Seventh Framework Programme through the Trilogy project (ICT-216372)
for initial drafts then through the Reducing Internet Transport
Latency (RITE) project (ICT-317700), and for final drafts (from -18)
he was funded by Apple Inc. The views expressed here are solely those
of the authors.
Contributors
Pat Thaler
Broadcom Corporation (retired)
CA
United States of America
Pat was a coauthor of this document, but retired before its
publication.
Authors' Addresses
Bob Briscoe
Independent
United Kingdom
Email: ietf@bobbriscoe.net
URI: https://bobbriscoe.net/
John Kaippallimalil
Futurewei
5700 Tennyson Parkway, Suite 600
Plano, Texas 75024
United States of America
Email: kjohn@futurewei.com
RFC TOTAL SIZE: 82349 bytes
PUBLICATION DATE: Saturday, August 31st, 2024
LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)
|
