Maximum Allocation Model for DS-TE March 2004
TEWG
Internet Draft Francois Le Faucheur
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Waisum Lai
AT&T Labs
draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-mam-03.txt
Expires: September 20024 March 2004
Maximum Allocation Bandwidth Constraints Model for
Diff-Serv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 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.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document provides specification for one Bandwidth Constraints
Model for Diff-Serv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering, which is referred
to as the Maximum Allocation Model.
Specification of Requirements
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].
Le Faucheur, et al. [Page 1]
Maximum Allocation Model for DS-TE March 2004
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................2
2. Definitions....................................................2
3. Maximum Allocation Model Definition............................3
4. Example Formulas for Computing "Unreserved TE-Class [i]" with
Maximum Allocation Model..........................................6
5. Security Considerations........................................7
6. Acknowledgments................................................7
7. Intellectual Property Considerations...........................7
8. IANA Considerations............................................7
9. Normative References...........................................8
10. Informative References........................................8
11. Authors' Address:.............................................9
12. Full Copyright Statement......................................9
Appendix A - Addressing [DSTE-REQ] Scenarios.....................10
1. Introduction
[DSTE-REQ] presents the Service Providers requirements for support of
Diff-Serv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering (DS-TE). This includes the
fundamental requirement to be able to enforce different Bandwidth
Constraints for different classes of traffic.
[DSTE-REQ] also defines the concept of Bandwidth Constraints Model
for DS-TE and states that "The DS-TE technical solution MUST specify
at least one Bandwidth Constraints Model and MAY specify multiple
Bandwidth Constraints Models."
This document provides a detailed description of one particular
Bandwidth Constraints Model for DS-TE which is introduced in [DSTE-
REQ] and called the Maximum Allocation Model (MAM).
[DSTE-PROTO] specifies the IGP and RSVP-TE signaling extensions for
support of DS-TE. These extensions support MAM.
2. Definitions
For readability a number of definitions from [DSTE-REQ] are repeated
here:
Class-Type (CT): the set of Traffic Trunks crossing a link that is
governed by a specific set of Bandwidth Constraints. CT is used for
the purposes of link bandwidth allocation, constraint based routing
and admission control. A given Traffic Trunk belongs to the same CT
on all links.
Le Faucheur, et al. [Page 2]
Maximum Allocation Model for DS-TE March 2004
TE-Class: A pair of:
i. a Class-Type
ii. a preemption priority allowed for that Class-Type. This
means that an LSP transporting a Traffic Trunk from
that Class-Type can use that preemption priority as the
set-up priority, as the holding priority or both.
A number of recovery mechanisms under investigation or specification
in the IETF take advantage of the concept of bandwidth sharing across
particular sets of LSPs. "Shared Mesh Restoration" in [GMPLS-RECOV]
and "Facility-based Computation Model" in [MPLS-BACKUP] are example
mechanisms which increase bandwidth efficiency by sharing bandwidth
across backup LSPs protecting against independent failures. To ensure
that the notion of "Reserved (CTc)" introduced in [DSTE-REQ] is
compatible with such a concept of bandwidth sharing across multiple
LSPs, the wording of the "Reserved (CTc)" definition provided in
[DSTE-REQ] is generalized into the following:
Reserved (CTc): For a given Class-Type CTc ( 0 <= c <= MaxCT ) ,let
us define "Reserved(CTc)" as the total amount of the bandwidth
reserved by all the established LSPs which belong to CTc.
With this generalization, the Maximum Allocation Model definition
provided in this document is compatible with Shared Mesh Restoration
defined in [GMPLS-RECOV], so that DS-TE and Shared Mesh Protection
can operate simultaneously, under the assumption that Shared Mesh
Restoration operates independently within each DS-TE Class-Type and
does not operate across Class-Types (for example back up
LSPs protecting Primary LSPs of CTx must also belong to CTx; Excess
Traffic LSPs sharing bandwidth with Backup LSPs of CTx must also
belong to CTx).
We also introduce the following definition:
Reserved(CTb,q) : let us define "Reserved(CTb,q)" as the total amount
of the bandwidth reserved by all the established LSPs which belong to
CTb and have a holding priority of q. Note that if q and CTb do not
form one of the 8 possible configured TE-Classes, then there can not
be any established LSP which belong to CTb and have a holding
priority of q, so in that case, Reserved(CTb,q)=0.
3. Maximum Allocation Model Definition
MAM is defined in the following manner:
o Maximum Number of Bandwidth Constraints (MaxBC)=
Maximum Number of Class-Types (MaxCT) = 8
o for each value of c in the range 0 <= c <= (MaxCT - 1):
Le Faucheur, et al. [Page 3]
Maximum Allocation Model for DS-TE March 2004
Reserved (CTc) <= BCc <= Max-Reservable-Bandwidth,
o SUM (Reserved(CTc)) <= Max-Reservable-Bandwidth
where the SUM is across all values of c in the range
0 <= c <= (MaxCT - 1)
A DS-TE LSR implementing MAM MUST support enforcement of Bandwidth
Constraints in compliance with this definition.
To increase the degree of bandwidth sharing among the different CTs,
the sum of Bandwidth Constraints may exceed the Maximum Reservable
Bandwidth, so that the following relationship may hold true:
o SUM (BCc) > Max-Reservable-Bandwidth,
where the SUM is across all values of c in the range
0 <= c <= (MaxCT - 1)
The sum of Bandwidth Constraints may also be equal to (or below) the
Maximum Reservable Bandwidth. In that case, the Maximum Reservable
Bandwidth does not actually constrain CT bandwidth reservations (in
other words, the 3rd bullet item of the MAM definition above will
never effectively come into play). This is because the 2nd bullet
item of the MAM definition above implies that:
SUM (reserved(CTc)) <= SUM (BCc)
and we assume here that
SUM (BCc) <= Maximum Reservable Bandwidth
therefore, it will always be true that:
SUM (Reserved(CTc)) <= Max-Reservable-Bandwidth.
Both preemption within a Class-Type and across Class-Types is
allowed.
Where 8 Class-Types are active, the MAM Bandwidth Constraints can
also be expressed in the following way:
- All LSPs from CT7 use no more than BC7
- All LSPs from CT6 use no more than BC6
- All LSPs from CT5 use no more than BC5
- etc.
- All LSPs from CT0 use no more than BC0
- All LSPs from all CTs collectively use no more than the
Maximum Reservable Bandwidth
Purely for illustration purposes, the diagram below represents MAM in
a pictorial manner when 3 Class-Types are active:
Le Faucheur, et al. [Page 4]
Maximum Allocation Model for DS-TE March 2004
I----------------------------I
<---BC0---> I
I---------I I
I I I
I CT0 I I
I I I
I---------I I
I I
I I
<-------BC1-------> I
I-----------------I I
I I I
I CT1 I I
I I I
I-----------------I I
I I
I I
<-----BC2-----> I
I-------------I I
I I I
I CT2 I I
I I I
I-------------I I
I I
I CT0+CT1+CT2 I
I I
I----------------------------I
<--Max Reservable Bandwidth-->
(Note that, in this illustration, the sum BC0 + BC1 + BC2 exceeds the
Max Reservable Bandwidth.)
While more flexible/sophisticated Bandwidth Constraints Models can be
defined (and are indeed defined - see [DSTE-RDM]), the Maximum
Allocation Model is attractive in some DS-TE environments for the
following reasons:
- Network administrators generally find MAM simple and
intuitive
- MAM matches simple bandwidth control policies that Network
Administrators may want to enforce such as setting individual
Bandwidth Constraint for a given type of traffic (aka. Class-
Type) and simultaneously limit the aggregate of reserved
bandwidth across all types of traffic.
- MAM can be used in a way which ensures isolation across
Class-Types, whether preemption is used or not.
Le Faucheur, et al. [Page 5]
Maximum Allocation Model for DS-TE March 2004
- MAM can simultaneously achieve isolation, bandwidth
efficiency and protection against QoS degradation of the
premium CT.
- MAM only requires limited protocol extensions such as the
ones defined in [DSTE-PROTO].
MAM may not be attractive in some DS-TE environments because:
- MAM cannot simultaneously achieve isolation, bandwidth
efficiency and protection against QoS degradation of CTs
other than the Premium CT.
Additional considerations on the properties of MAM and its comparison
with RDM can be found in [BC-CONS] and [BC-MODEL].
As a very simple example usage of the MAM Model, a network
administrator using one CT for Voice (CT1) and one CT for Data (CT0)
might configure on a given 2.5 Gb/s link:
- BC0 = 2 Gb/s (i.e. Data is limited to 2 Gb/s)
- BC1 = 1 Gb/s (i.e. Voice is limited to 1 Gb/s)
- Maximum Reservable Bandwidth = 2.5 Gb/s (i.e. aggregate Data
+ Voice is limited to 2.5 Gb/s)
4. Example Formulas for Computing "Unreserved TE-Class [i]" with Maximum
Allocation Model
As specified in [DSTE-PROTO], formulas for computing "Unreserved TE-
Class [i]" MUST reflect all of the Bandwidth Constraints relevant to
the CT associated with TE-Class[i], and thus, depend on the Bandwidth
Constraints Model. Thus, a DS-TE LSR implementing MAM MUST reflect
the MAM Bandwidth Constraints defined in section 3 above when
computing "Unreserved TE-Class [i]".
Keeping in mind, as explained in [DSTE-PROTO], that details of
admission control algorithms as well as formulas for computing
"Unreserved TE-Class [i]" are outside the scope of the IETF work, we
provide in this section, for illustration purposes, an example of how
values for the unreserved bandwidth for TE-Class[i] might be computed
with MAM, assuming the basic admission control algorithm which simply
deducts the exact bandwidth of any established LSP from all of the
Bandwidth Constraints relevant to the CT associated with that LSP.
Then:
"Unreserved TE-Class [i]" =
MIN [
[ BCc - SUM ( Reserved(CTc,q) ) ] for q <= p ,
Le Faucheur, et al. [Page 6]
Maximum Allocation Model for DS-TE March 2004
[ Max-Res-Bw - SUM (Reserved(CTb,q)) ] for q <= p and 0 <= b <= 7,
]
where:
TE-Class [i] <--> < CTc , preemption p>
in the configured TE-Class mapping.
5. Security Considerations
Security considerations related to the use of DS-TE are discussed in
[DSTE-PROTO]. Those apply independently of the Bandwidth Constraints
Model, including MAM specified in this document.
6. Acknowledgments
A lot of the material in this document has been derived from ongoing
discussions within the TEWG work. This involved many people including
Jerry Ash and Dimitry Haskin.
7. Intellectual Property Considerations
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in RFC 2028. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
8. IANA Considerations
Le Faucheur, et al. [Page 7]
Maximum Allocation Model for DS-TE March 2004
[DSTE-PROTO] defines a new name space for "Bandwidth Constraints
Model Id". The guidelines for allocation of values in that name space
are detailed in section 14 of [DSTE-PROTO]. In accordance with these
guidelines, IANA was requested to assign a Bandwidth Constraints
Model Id for MAM from the range 0-127 (which is to be managed as per
the "Specification Required" policy defined in [IANA-CONS]).
Bandwidth Constraints Model Id = TBD was allocated by IANA to MAM.
<IANA-note> To be removed by the RFC editor at the time of
publication
We request IANA to assign value 1 for the MAM model.
Once the value has been assigned, please replace "TBD" above
by the assigned value.
</IANA-note>
9. Normative References
[DSTE-REQ] Le Faucheur et al, Requirements for support of Diff-Serv-
aware MPLS Traffic Engineering, RFC3564.
[DSTE-PROTO] Le Faucheur et al, Protocol extensions for support of
Diff-Serv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering, draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-
proto-06.txt, work in progress.
[RFC2119] S. Bradner, Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels, RFC2119
[IANA-CONS], T. Narten et al, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC2434.
10. Informative References
[BC-CONS] Le Faucheur, "Considerations on Bandwidth Constraints Model
for DS-TE", draft-lefaucheur-tewg-russian-dolls-00.txt, June 2002.
[BC-MODEL] Lai, "Bandwidth Constraints Models for DS-TE",
draft-wlai-tewg-bcmodel-03.txt, work in progress.
[DSTE-RDM] Le Faucheur et al., "Russian Dolls Bandwidth Constraints
Model for Diff-Serv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering",
draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-russian-05.txt, work in progress.
[OSPF-TE] Katz et al., "Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF
Version 2", RFC3630.
Le Faucheur, et al. [Page 8]
Maximum Allocation Model for DS-TE March 2004
[ISIS-TE] Smit et al., IS-IS extensions for Traffic Engineering,
draft-ietf-isis-traffic-05.txt, work in progress.
[RSVP-TE] Awduche et al, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209.
[DIFF-MPLS] Le Faucheur et al, "MPLS Support of Diff-Serv", RFC3270,
May 2002.
[DSTE-MAR] Ash, G., "Max Allocation with Reservation Bandwidth
Constraints Model for MPLS/DiffServ TE & Performance Comparisons",
Work In Progress.
[GMPLS-RECOV] Lang et al, "Generalized MPLS Recovery Functional
Specification", draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-functional-02.txt,
work in progress.
[MPLS-BACKUP] Vasseur et al, "MPLS Traffic Engineering Fast reroute:
bypass tunnel path computation for bandwidth protection", draft-
vasseur-mpls-backup-computation-02.txt, work in progress.
11. Authors' Address:
Francois Le Faucheur
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Village d'Entreprise Green Side - Batiment T3
400, Avenue de Roumanille
06410 Biot-Sophia Antipolis
France
Phone: +33 4 97 23 26 19
Email: flefauch@cisco.com
Wai Sum Lai
AT&T Labs
200 Laurel Avenue
Middletown, New Jersey 07748, USA
Phone: (732) 420-3712
Email: wlai@att.com
12. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
Le Faucheur, et al. [Page 9]
Maximum Allocation Model for DS-TE March 2004
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Appendix A - Addressing [DSTE-REQ] Scenarios
This Appendix provides examples of how the Maximum Allocation
Bandwidth Constraints Model can be used to support each of the
scenarios described in [DSTE-REQ].
1. Scenario 1: Limiting Amount of Voice
By configuring on every link:
- Bandwidth Constraint 1 (for CT1=Voice) = "certain percentage"
of link capacity
- Bandwidth Constraint 0 (for CT0=Data) = link capacity (or a
constraint specific to data traffic)
- Max Reservable Bandwidth = link capacity
By configuring:
- every CT1/Voice TE-LSP with preemption =0
- every CT0/Data TE-LSP with preemption =1
DS-TE with the Maximum Allocation Model will address all the
requirements:
- amount of Voice traffic limited to desired percentage on
every link
- data traffic capable of using all remaining link capacity (or
up to its own specific constraint)
- voice traffic capable of preempting other traffic
2. Scenario 2: Maintain Relative Proportion of Traffic Classes
Le Faucheur, et al. [Page 10]
Maximum Allocation Model for DS-TE March 2004
By configuring on every link:
- BC2 (for CT2) = e.g. 45% of link capacity
- BC1 (for CT1) = e.g. 35% of link capacity
- BC0 (for CT0) = e.g.100% of link capacity
- Max Reservable Bandwidth = link capacity
DS-TE with the Maximum Allocation Model will ensure that the amount
of traffic of each Class Type established on a link is within
acceptable levels as compared to the resources allocated to the
corresponding Diff-Serv PHBs regardless of which order the LSPs are
routed in, regardless of which preemption priorities are used by
which LSPs and regardless of failure situations.
By also configuring:
- every CT2/Voice TE-LSP with preemption =0
- every CT1/Premium Data TE-LSP with preemption =1
- every CT0/Best-Effort TE-LSP with preemption =2
DS-TE with the Maximum Allocation Model will also ensure that:
- CT2 Voice LSPs always have first preemption priority in order
to use the CT2 capacity
- CT1 Premium Data LSPs always have second preemption priority
in order to use the CT1 capacity
- Best-Effort can use up to link capacity whatever is left by
CT2 and CT1.
Optional automatic adjustment of Diff-Serv scheduling configuration
could be used for maintaining very strict relationship between amount
of established traffic of each Class Type and corresponding Diff-Serv
resources.
3. Scenario 3: Guaranteed Bandwidth Services
By configuring on every link:
- BC1 (for CT1) = "given" percentage of link bandwidth
(appropriate to achieve the QoS objectives of the Guaranteed
Bandwidth service)
- BC0 (for CT0=Data) = link capacity (or a constraint specific
to data traffic)
- Max Reservable Bandwidth = link capacity
DS-TE with the Maximum Allocation Model will ensure that the amount
of Guaranteed Bandwidth Traffic established on every link remains
below the given percentage so that it will always meet its QoS
objectives. At the same time it will allow traffic engineering of the
rest of the traffic such that links can be filled up (or limited to
the specific constraint for such traffic).
Le Faucheur, et al. [Page 11]