Internet Engineering Task Force A. Charny Internet-Draft J. Zhang Intended status: Informational Cisco Systems Expires: September 7, 2010 G. Karagiannis U. Twente M. Menth University of Wuerzburg T. Taylor, Ed. Huawei Technologies March 6, 2010 PCN Boundary Node Behaviour for the Single Marking (SM) Mode of Operation draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-behaviour-02 Abstract Precongestion notification (PCN) is a means for protecting quality of service for inelastic traffic admitted to a Diffserv domain. The overall PCN architecture is described in RFC 5559. This memo is one of a series describing possible boundary node behaviours for a PCN domain. The behaviour described here is that for two-state measurement-based load control, known informally as Single Marking (SM). Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 7, 2010. Charny, et al. Expires September 7, 2010 [Page 1] Internet-Draft PCN SM Boundary Node Behaviour March 2010 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2010 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 BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Assumed Core Network Behaviour for SM . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Node Behaviours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Behaviour of the PCN-Egress-Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2.1. Reporting the PCN Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3. Behaviour of the Ingress Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.4. Behaviour at the Decision Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.4.1. Flow Admission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.4.2. Flow Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.4.3. Decision Point Action For Missing Egress Node Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.5. Summary of Timers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. Identifying Ingress-Egress-Aggregates and Their Edge Points . 9 5. Specification of Diffserv Per-Domain Behaviour . . . . . . . . 9 5.1. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.2. Technical Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.3. Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.4. Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.5. Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.6. Example Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.7. Environmental Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Charny, et al. Expires September 7, 2010 [Page 2] Internet-Draft PCN SM Boundary Node Behaviour March 2010 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Charny, et al. Expires September 7, 2010 [Page 3] Internet-Draft PCN SM Boundary Node Behaviour March 2010 1. Introduction The objective of Pre-Congestion Notification (PCN) is to protect the quality of service (QoS) of inelastic flows within a Diffserv domain, in a simple, scalable, and robust fashion. Two mechanisms are used: admission control, to decide whether to admit or block a new flow request, and (in abnormal circumstances) flow termination to decide whether to terminate some of the existing flows. To achieve this, the overall rate of PCN-traffic is metered on every link in the domain, and PCN-packets are appropriately marked when certain configured rates are exceeded. These configured rates are below the rate of the link thus providing notification to boundary nodes about overloads before any congestion occurs (hence the "pre" of "pre- congestion notification"). The level of marking allows decisions to be made about whether to admit or terminate individual flows. For more details see [RFC5559]. Boundary node behaviours specify a detailed set of algorithms and edge node behaviours used to implement the PCN mechanisms. Since the algorithms depend on specific metering and marking behaviour at the interior nodes, it is also necessary to specify the assumptions made about interior node behaviour. Finally, because PCN uses DSCP values to carry its markings, a specification of boundary node behaviour must include the per domain behaviour (PDB) template specified in [RFC3086], filled out with the appropriate content. The present document accomplishes these tasks for the Single Marking (SM) mode of operation. 1.1. Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [RFC2119]. In addition to the terms defined in [RFC5559], this document uses the following terms: decision point The node that makes the decision about which flows to admit and to terminate. In a given network deployment, this may be the ingress node or a centralized control node. Regardless of the location of the decision point, the ingress node is the point where the decisions are enforced. PCN-admission-state The state ("admit" or "block") derived by the decision point for a given ingress-egress-aggregate based on PCN packet marking statistics. The decision point decides to admit or block new Charny, et al. Expires September 7, 2010 [Page 4] Internet-Draft PCN SM Boundary Node Behaviour March 2010 flows offered to the aggregate based on the current value of the PCN-admission-state. For further details see Section 3.4.1. Congestion level estimate (CLE) A value derived from the measurement of PCN packets received at a PCN-egress-node for a given ingress-egress-aggregate, representing the ratio of excess-traffic-marked to total PCN traffic (measured in octets) over a short period. For further details see Section 3.4.1. Admission decision threshold A fractional value to which decision point compares the CLE to determine the PCN-admission-state for a given ingress-egress- aggregate. If the CLE is below the admission decision threshold the PCN-admission-state is set to "admit". If the CLE is above the admission decision threshold the PCN-admission-state is set to "block". For further details see Section 3.4.1. 2. Assumed Core Network Behaviour for SM This section describes the assumed behaviour for nodes of the PCN- domain when acting in their role as PCN-interior-nodes. The SM mode of operation assumes that: o on each link the reference rate for the excess traffic meter is configured with a PCN-excess-rate to be equal to the PCN- admissible-rate for the link; o PCN-interior-nodes perform excess-traffic-metering of packets according to the rules specified in [RFC5670]. o excess-traffic-marking of packets uses the PCN-Marked (PM) codepoint defined in [RFC5696]; o no link PCN-threshold-rate is configured, and PCN-interior nodes perform no threshold-metering. 3. Node Behaviours 3.1. Overview This section describes the behaviour of the PCN ingress and egress nodes and the decision point (which may be collocated with the ingress node). The PCN egress node collects and reports the rates of total, threshold-marked, and excess-traffic-marked PCN traffic to the decision point. For a detailed description, see Section 3.2. Charny, et al. Expires September 7, 2010 [Page 5] Internet-Draft PCN SM Boundary Node Behaviour March 2010 The PCN ingress node reports the rate of PCN traffic admitted to a given ingress-egress aggregate when requested by the decision point. It also enforces flow admission and termination decisions. For details, see Section 3.3. Finally, the decision point makes flow admission decisions and selects flows to terminate based on the information provided by the ingress and egress nodes for a given ingress-egress-aggregate. For details, see Section 3.4. 3.2. Behaviour of the PCN-Egress-Node The PCN-egress-node MUST meter received PCN traffic in order to derive periodically the following rates for each ingress-egress- aggregate passing through it: o NM-rate: octets per second of PCN traffic in PCN-unmarked packets; o ETM-rate: octets per second of PCN traffic in PCN-excess-marked packets. It is RECOMMENDED that the interval Tcalc between calculation of these quantities be in the range of 100 to 500 ms to provide a reasonable tradeoff between signalling demands on the network and the time taken to react to impending congestion. The PCN-traffic SHOULD be metered continuously and the intervals themselves SHOULD be of equal length, to minimize the statistical variance introduced by the measurement process itself. 3.2.1. Reporting the PCN Data At the end of each interval, the PCN-egress-node SHOULD report the latest calculated rates to the decision point. To reduce the volume of signalling, the egress node MAY choose not to send a report if no PCN traffic was received either during the present interval or during the previous one. The egress node MUST send a report at least once per configurable interval Tmax (of the order of a second) to demonstrate liveness, even if all of the rates have value zero. 3.3. Behaviour of the Ingress Node The PCN-ingress-node MUST provide the estimated current rate of admitted PCN traffic (octets per second) for a specific ingress- egress-aggregate when the decision point requests it. The way this rate estimate is derived is a matter of implementation. Charny, et al. Expires September 7, 2010 [Page 6] Internet-Draft PCN SM Boundary Node Behaviour March 2010 For example, the rate that the PCN-ingress-node supplies MAY be based on a quick sample taken at the time the information is required. It is RECOMMENDED that such a sample be based on observation of at least 30 PCN packets to achieve reasonable statistical reliability. 3.4. Behaviour at the Decision Point 3.4.1. Flow Admission When the decision point (e.g., the PCN-ingress-node) receives a report from the egress node for a given ingress-egress-aggregate that contains non-zero rates, it MUST calculate a congestion level estimate (CLE) for the interval, where CLE = ETM-Rate/(NM-Rate + ETM-Rate). The decision point MUST compare the CLE to an admission decision threshold. If the CLE is less than the threshold, the PCN-admission- state for that aggregate MUST be set to "admit"; otherwise it MUST be set to "block". It is RECOMMENDED that the admission decision threshold for SM be set fairly low, in the order of 0.05. The admission decision threshold MAY vary for different flows based on policy. If the PCN-admission-state for a given ingress-egress-aggregate is "admit", the decision point SHOULD allow new flows to be admitted to that aggregate. If the PCN-admission-state for a given ingress- egress-aggregate is "block", the decision point SHOULD NOT allow new flows to be admitted to that aggregate. These actions MAY be modified by policy in specific cases. 3.4.2. Flow Termination Not all operators will wish to deploy flow termination. Hence deactivation of flow termination at the decision node MUST be a configurable option. When the report from the egress node that the PCN-admission-state computed on the basis of the CLE is "block" for the given ingress- egress-aggregate, the decision point MUST request the PCN-ingress- node to provide an estimate of the rate (Admit-Rate) at which PCN- traffic is being admitted to the aggregate. If the decision point is collocated with the ingress node, the request and response are internal operations. Charny, et al. Expires September 7, 2010 [Page 7] Internet-Draft PCN SM Boundary Node Behaviour March 2010 The decision point MUST then wait, both for the requested rate from the ingress node and for the next report from the egress node. If this next egress node report also includes a non-zero value for the ETM-Rate, the decision point MUST determine an amount of flow to terminate in the following steps: 1. The sustainable aggregate rate (SAR) for the given ingress- egress-aggregate is estimated by the product: SAR = U * NM-Rate for the latest reported interval, where U is a configurable factor less than one which is the same for all ingress-egress- aggregates. 2. The amount of traffic that must be terminated is the difference: Admit-Rate - SAR, where Admit-Rate is the value provided by the ingress node. If the difference calculated in the second step is positive, the decision point MUST select flows to terminate using its knowledge of the bandwidth required by individual flows gained, e.g., from resource signalling, until it determines that the PCN traffic admission rate will no longer be greater than the estimated sustainable aggregate rate. Flow termination MAY be spread out over multiple rounds to avoid over-termination. If this is done, it is RECOMMENDED that enough time elapse between successive rounds of termination to allow the effects of previous rounds to be reflected in the measurements upon which the termination decisions are based (see [I-D.satoh-pcn-performance-termination] and sections 4.2 and 4.3 of [Menth08-sub-9]). 3.4.3. Decision Point Action For Missing Egress Node Reports As mentioned in Section 3.2.1, the egress node MAY choose not to send reports for a configurable interval Tmax while it does not receive any PCN traffic for a given ingress-egress-aggregate. However, if the decision point fails to receive reports for a given ingress- egress-aggregate for a configurable interval Tfail (of the order of 2 * Tmax or less), it SHOULD cease to admit flows to that aggregate and raise an alarm to management. This provides some protection against the case where congestion is preventing the transfer of reports from the egress node to the decision point. Charny, et al. Expires September 7, 2010 [Page 8] Internet-Draft PCN SM Boundary Node Behaviour March 2010 3.5. Summary of Timers This section has referred to three timers: o Tcalc: a timer which SHOULD be configurable, specifying the frequency with which the PCN-egress-node calculates NM-Rate, ThM- Rate, and ETM-Rate and reports them to the decision point. This timer is RECOMMENDED to be of the order of 100 to 500 ms. o Tmax: a configurable timer, specifying the maximum amount of time between successive reports from the PCN-egress-node for a given ingress-egress-aggregate. This is RECOMMENDED to be of the order of one second. o Tfail: a configurable timer, specifying the maximum amount of time between successive reports for a given ingress-egress-aggregate received at the decision point, after which the latter SHOULD cease to admit flows to the aggregate concerned and raise an alarm to management. This is RECOMMENDED to be of the order of 2 * Tmax or less. 4. Identifying Ingress-Egress-Aggregates and Their Edge Points The operation of PCN depends on the ability of the ingress and egress nodes to identify the aggregate to which each flow belongs. The egress node also needs to associate an aggregate with the address of the ingress node for receiving reports, if the ingress node is the decision point. The means by which this is done depends on the packet routing technology in use in the network. In general, classification of individual packets at the ingress node (for enforcement and metering of admission rates) and at the egress node must use the content of the outer packet header. The process may well require configuration of routing information in the ingress and egress nodes. 5. Specification of Diffserv Per-Domain Behaviour This section provides the specification required by [RFC3086] for a per-domain behaviour. 5.1. Applicability This section draws heavily upon points made in the PCN architecture document, [RFC5559]. Charny, et al. Expires September 7, 2010 [Page 9] Internet-Draft PCN SM Boundary Node Behaviour March 2010 The PCN SM boundary node behaviour specified in this document is applicable to inelastic traffic (particularly video and voice) where quality of service for admitted flows is protected primarily by admission control at the ingress to the domain. In exceptional circumstances (e.g. due to network failures) already-admitted flows may be terminated to protect the quality of service of the remainder. The SM boundary node behaviour is more likely to terminate too many flows under such circumstances than some alternative PCN boundary node behaviours. Single-Marking requires no extension to the baseline PCN encoding described in [RFC5696], thus reducing the work expected to be performed in the data path of the high-speed routing equipment, and saving valuable real estate in the packet header. 5.2. Technical Specification The technical specification of the PCN SM per domain behaviour is provided by the contents of [RFC5559], [RFC5696], [RFC5670], and the present document. 5.3. Attributes The purpose of this per-domain behaviour is to achieve low loss and jitter for the target class of traffic. Recovery from overloads by flow termination should happen within 1-3 seconds. 5.4. Parameters The SM per-domain behaviour specifies three timers, two at the PCN- egress-node and one at the PCN-ingress-node; see Section 3.5. Reference rates must be specified at each interior router for the PCN-excess-rate on each link; see Section 2. An admission decision threshold must be specified at each PCN-ingress-node; see Section 3.4.1. A fraction U must be specified at each PCN-ingress- node, with a common value over the whole domain; see Section 3.4.2. 5.5. Assumptions Assumed that a specific portion of link capacity has been reserved for PCN traffic. 5.6. Example Uses The PCN SM behaviour may be used to carry real-time traffic, particularly voice and video. Charny, et al. Expires September 7, 2010 [Page 10] Internet-Draft PCN SM Boundary Node Behaviour March 2010 5.7. Environmental Concerns The PCN SM per-domain behaviour may interfere with the use of end-to- end ECN due to reuse of ECN bits for PCN marking. See Appendix B of [RFC5696] for details. 5.8. Security Considerations Please see the security considerations in Section 6 as well as those in [RFC2474] and [RFC2475]. 6. Security Considerations [RFC5559] provides a general description of the security considerations for PCN. This memo introduces no new considerations. 7. IANA Considerations This memo includes no request to IANA. 8. Acknowledgements The authors thank Ruediger Geib for his useful comments. 9. References 9.1. Normative References [RFC2474] 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, December 1998. [RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z., and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated Services", RFC 2475, December 1998. [RFC5559] Eardley, P., "Pre-Congestion Notification (PCN) Architecture", RFC 5559, June 2009. [RFC5670] Eardley, P., "Metering and Marking Behaviour of PCN- Nodes", RFC 5670, November 2009. [RFC5696] Moncaster, T., Briscoe, B., and M. Menth, "Baseline Charny, et al. Expires September 7, 2010 [Page 11] Internet-Draft PCN SM Boundary Node Behaviour March 2010 Encoding and Transport of Pre-Congestion Information", RFC 5696, November 2009. 9.2. Informative References [I-D.babiarz-pcn-explicit-marking] Liu, X. and J. Babiarz, "Simulations Results for 3sM (expired Internet Draft)", July 2007. [I-D.satoh-pcn-performance-termination] Satoh, D., Ueno, H., and M. Menth, "Performance Evaluation of Termination in CL-Algorithm (Work in progress)", July 2009. [I-D.zhang-pcn-performance-evaluation] Zhang, X., "Performance Evaluation of CL-PHB Admission and Termination Algorithms (expired Internet Draft)", July 2007. [ID.briscoe-CL] Briscoe, B., "An edge-to-edge Deployment Model for Pre- Congestion Notification: Admission Control over a DiffServ Region (expired Internet Draft)", 2006. [Menth08-sub-9] Menth, M. and F. Lehrieder, "PCN-Based Measured Rate Termination", July 2009, . [Menth08f] Menth, M. and F. Lehrieder, "Performance Evaluation of PCN-Based Admission Control", in Proceedings of the 16th International Workshop on Quality of Service (IWQoS)", June 2008, . [RFC3086] Nichols, K. and B. Carpenter, "Definition of Differentiated Services Per Domain Behaviors and Rules for their Specification", RFC 3086, April 2001. Charny, et al. Expires September 7, 2010 [Page 12] Internet-Draft PCN SM Boundary Node Behaviour March 2010 Authors' Addresses Anna Charny Cisco Systems 300 Apollo Drive Chelmsford, MA 01824 USA Email: acharny@cisco.com Xinyan (Joy) Zhang Cisco Systems 300 Apollo Drive Chelmsford, MA 01824 USA Georgios Karagiannis U. Twente Phone: Email: karagian@cs.utwente.nl Michael Menth University of Wuerzburg Am Hubland Wuerzburg D-97074 Germany Phone: +49-931-888-6644 Email: menth@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de Tom Taylor (editor) Huawei Technologies 1852 Lorraine Ave Ottawa, Ontario K1H 6Z8 Canada Phone: +1 613 680 2675 Email: tom111.taylor@bell.net Charny, et al. Expires September 7, 2010 [Page 13]