MPLS Working Group LE ZHANG Internet Draft HUAWEI GANG CHEN HUAWEI Expires: April 2006 October 17, 2005 LABEL-EXP-Inferred-Label Switched Paths draft-zhang-mpls-l-e-lsp-00.txt Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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 April 17, 2006. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). All Rights Reserved. Abstract Solutions have been specified in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated Services(Diff-Serv) defined in RFC3270. This document describes a new type of Differentiated Services(Diff- ZHANG Expires April 17, 2006 [Page 1] Internet-Draft draft-zhang-mpls-L-E-LSP-00.txt October 2005 Serv) LSP: LABEL-EXP-Inferred-LSP(L-E-LSP).It uses both Label and EXP bits for Differentiated Services. Table of Contents 1. Introduce...................................................2 2. Terminology.................................................2 3. L-E-LSP.....................................................3 3.1. Extension to RSVP-TE DiffServ Object...................3 3.2. procedure of L-E-LSP establishment.....................4 4. Security Considerations.....................................5 5. Conclusions.................................................5 6. Acknowledgments.............................................6 7. References..................................................7 7.1. Normative References...................................7 7.2. Informative References.................................7 Author's Addresses.............................................7 Intellectual Property Statement................................8 Disclaimer of Validity.........................................8 Copyright Statement............................................9 Acknowledgment.................................................9 1. Introduction [RFC3270] specifies a set of MPLS Diff-Serv rules and two types of LSP for MPLS Diff-Serv: Label-Only-Inferred-PSC LSPs (L-LSP) and EXP- Inferred-PSC LSPs (E-LSP) But, the E-LSP only provides up to 8 types of Service class, which is not enough for some situations; and L-LSP requires a special LSP-Tunnel for each service class, which uses a lot of resources. In this draft, we provide a new type of Diff-Serv LSP: L-E-LSP, which use both Label field and EXP field to determine Diff-Serv class. 2. 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 RFC 2119 [1]. The use of the term, "silently ignore" is not defined in RFC 2119. However, the term is used in this document and can be similarly construed. draft-zhang-mpls-L-E-LSP-00.txt Expires April 17, 2006 [Page 2] Internet-Draft draft-zhang-mpls-L-E-LSP-00.txt October 2005 This document borrows all of the terminology from RFC3270. 3. LABEL-EXP-Inferred-LSP(L-E-LSP) 3.1. Extension to RSVP-TE DiffServ Object Based on RFC3270 5.2 DIFFSERV Object, we define a new C-Type for L-E- LSP. class = 65, C_Type = TBD 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reserved | PSC | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reserved | MAPnb | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MAP (1) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | // ... // | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MAP (MAPnb) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 1: Extension of DiffServ Object draft-zhang-mpls-L-E-LSP-00.txt Expires April 17, 2006 [Page 3] Internet-Draft draft-zhang-mpls-L-E-LSP-00.txt October 2005 Reserved1 : 16 bits. This field is reserved. It must be set to zero on transmission and must be ignored on receipt. PSC : 16 bits The PSC indicates a PHB Scheduling Class to be supported by the LSP. The PSC is encoded as specified in [PHBID]. Reserved2 : 28 bits This field is reserved. It must be set to zero on transmission and must be ignored on receipt. MAPnb : 4 bits Indicates the number of MAP entries included in the DIFFSERV Object. This can be set to any value from 0 to 8. MAP : 32 bits Each MAP entry defines the mapping between one EXP field value and one PHB. 3.2. Procedure of L-E-LSP establishment [R1]--------[R2]---------[R5] \ / [R3]----------- [R4] Figure 2: procedure of L-E-LSP establishment draft-zhang-mpls-L-E-LSP-00.txt Expires April 17, 2006 [Page 4] Internet-Draft draft-zhang-mpls-L-E-LSP-00.txt October 2005 Suppose there are two types of class services now: data service and voice service. In each service there are sub-class services: golden service, silver service and common service. The topology is as figure 2. Each link has 100M bandwidth, and each service need 80M bandwidth. To setup L-E-LSP, we determine the service class requirements of two services: data service and voice service. Because the voice service needs low delay quality service, voice traffic is given higher priority than data service, we choose the shortest path R1->R2->R5 for voice service, and the LSP for Voice get the name LSP125. In DiffServ Object, it appears with the PSC1. For data service, because the shortest path R1->R2->R5 no longer has enough bandwidth (100M - 80M, not enough), we have to choose path R1->R3->R4->R5 for data service, and the LSP for Voice get the name LSP1345. Voice service has sub-class service: golden service, silver service and common service. For this, we have three PHBIDs in DiffServ Object, and they map to three different EXP bits. Now we can setup the L-E- LSP, it has three sub-class, with the PSC1+EXP1, PSC1+EXP2 and PSC1+EXP3. Each sub-class will has its own qos quality service. For data service's sub-class, it also setup L-E-LSP: PSC2+EXP1, PSC2+EXP2 and PSC2+EXP3. 4. Forwarding Ingress: the router collects the information from packet, and determine which service class the packet belongs to (for example, data service or voice service), and which sub-class it belongs to (golden, silver or common). For golden voice service, the packet will be mapped into LSP125, and the EXP bits of the label will be set to EXP1. The Router will do the QOS behavior based on the information, and then send packet out along LSP125. Transmit and egress: the router determines the service class QOS information based on the in label, and the sub-class service based on EXP bits. The router provides the QOS behavior based on the class service, and the sub-class service. When the behavior is done, the router will forward the packet to its nexthop. 5. Security Considerations This document does not introduce any new security issues beyond those inherent in Diff-Serv, MPLS and RSVP, and may use the same mechanisms proposed for those technologies. draft-zhang-mpls-L-E-LSP-00.txt Expires April 17, 2006 [Page 5] Internet-Draft draft-zhang-mpls-L-E-LSP-00.txt October 2005 6. Conclusions This document described a kind of technique that provide a new type of MPLS Diffserv LSP. It merges the E-LSP and L-LSP, provide more QOS classes of service than E-LSP without consuming resources on a per- class basis, as L-LSP does. 7. Acknowledgments draft-zhang-mpls-L-E-LSP-00.txt Expires April 17, 2006 [Page 6] Internet-Draft draft-zhang-mpls-L-E-LSP-00.txt October 2005 8. References 8.1. Normative References [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [2] Crocker, D. and Overell, P.(Editors), "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, Internet Mail Consortium and Demon Internet Ltd., November 1997. [3] L. Wu, S., "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated Services", RFC3270, May 2002 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2234] Crocker, D. and Overell, P.(Editors), "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, Internet Mail Consortium and Demon Internet Ltd., November 1997. [RFC3270] L. Wu, S., "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated Services", RFC3270, May 2002. 8.2. Informative References [4] Faber, T., Touch, J. and W. Yue, "The TIME-WAIT state in TCP and Its Effect on Busy Servers", Proc. Infocom 1999 pp. 1573- 1583. [Fab1999] Faber, T., Touch, J. and W. Yue, "The TIME-WAIT state in TCP and Its Effect on Busy Servers", Proc. Infocom 1999 pp. 1573-1583. Author's Addresses LE ZHANGLE HUAWEI Hua Wei Bld.,No.3 Xinxi Rd., Shang-Di Information Industry Base Hai-Dian District Beijing P.R.China Phone: +86 010 82882037 Email: zhangle@huawei.com draft-zhang-mpls-L-E-LSP-00.txt Expires April 17, 2006 [Page 7] Internet-Draft draft-zhang-mpls-L-E-LSP-00.txt October 2005 GANG CHEN HUAWEI Hua Wei Bld.,No.3 Xinxi Rd., Shang-Di Information Industry Base Hai-Dian District Beijing P.R.China Phone: +86 010 82882037 Email: chengang@huawei.com Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights 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; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat 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 implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org Disclaimer of Validity This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. draft-zhang-mpls-L-E-LSP-00.txt Expires April 17, 2006 [Page 8] Internet-Draft draft-zhang-mpls-L-E-LSP-00.txt October 2005 Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. draft-zhang-mpls-L-E-LSP-00.txt Expires April 17, 2006 [Page 9]