draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension-05.txt   draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension-06.txt 
Network Working Group B. Cheng Network Working Group B. Cheng
Internet-Draft D. Wiggins Internet-Draft D. Wiggins
Intended status: Standards Track Lincoln Laboratory Intended status: Standards Track MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Expires: November 2, 2018 L. Berger Expires: February 3, 2019 L. Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C. LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
May 1, 2018 August 2, 2018
DLEP DiffServ Aware Credit Window Extension DLEP DiffServ Aware Credit Window Extension
draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension-05 draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension-06
Abstract Abstract
This document defines an extension to the DLEP protocol that enables This document defines an extension to the DLEP protocol that enables
a DiffServ aware credit-window scheme for destination-specific and a DiffServ aware credit-window scheme for destination-specific and
shared flow control. shared flow control.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
skipping to change at page 1, line 34 skipping to change at page 1, line 34
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 2, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 3, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 30 skipping to change at page 2, line 30
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) is defined in [RFC8175]. The Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) is defined in [RFC8175].
It provides the exchange of link related control information between It provides the exchange of link related control information between
DLEP peers. DLEP peers are comprised of a modem and a router. DLEP DLEP peers. DLEP peers are comprised of a modem and a router. DLEP
defines a base set of mechanisms as well as support for possible defines a base set of mechanisms as well as support for possible
extensions. This document defines one such extension. extensions. This document defines one such extension.
The base DLEP specification does not include any flow control The base DLEP specification does not include any flow control
capability. There are various flow control techniques theoretically capability. There are various flow control techniques theoretically
possible with DLEP. For example, a credit-window scheme for possible with DLEP. This document defines a DLEP extension which
destination-specific flow control which provides aggregate flow provides a DiffServ-based flow control mechanism for traffic sent
control for both modem and routers has been proposed in from a router to a modem. Flow control is provided using one or more
[I-D.ietf-manet-credit-window]. logical "Credit Windows", each of which will typically be supported
by an associated virtual or physical queue. Traffic sent by a router
This document defines a DLEP extension which provides a flow control will use traffic flow classification information provided by the
mechanism for traffic sent from a router to a modem. Flow control is modem to identify which traffic is associated with each credit
provided using one or more logical "Credit Windows", each of which window. Credit windows may be shared or dedicated on a per flow
will typically be supported by an associated virtual or physical basis. See [I-D.berger-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension] for an
queue. Traffic sent by a router will use traffic flow classification Ethernet-based version of credit window flow control.
information provided by the modem to identify which traffic is
associated with each credit window. (For general background on
traffic classification see [RFC2475] Section 2.3.) Credit windows
may be shared or dedicated on a per flow basis. The extension is
structured to allow for reuse of the defined credit window based flow
control with different traffic classification techniques.
This document uses the traffic classification and credit window This document uses the traffic classification and credit window
control mechanisms defined in [I-D.ietf-manet-credit-flow-control] to control mechanisms defined in
provided credit window based flow control based on on DLEP [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification] and
destination and DiffServ [RFC2475] DSCPs (differentiated services [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control] to provided credit window
codepoints). The defined mechanism allows for credit windows to be based flow control based on on DLEP destination and DiffServ
shared across traffic sent to multiple DLEP destinations and DSCPs, [RFC2475] DSCPs (differentiated services codepoints). The defined
or used exclusively for traffic sent to a particular destination and/ mechanism allows for credit windows to be shared across traffic sent
or DSCP. The extension also supports the "wildcard" matching of any to multiple DLEP destinations and DSCPs, or used exclusively for
DSCP. traffic sent to a particular destination and/or DSCP. The extension
also supports the "wildcard" matching of any DSCP.
The extension defined in this document is referred to as "DiffServ The extension defined in this document is referred to as "DiffServ
Aware Credit Window" or, more simply, the "DA Credit" extension. The Aware Credit Window" or, more simply, the "DA Credit" extension. The
reader should be familiar with both the traffic classification and reader should be familiar with both the traffic classification and
credit window control mechanisms defined in credit window control mechanisms defined in
[I-D.ietf-manet-credit-flow-control]. [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification] and
[I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control].
This document defines a new DLEP Extension Type Value in Section 2 This document defines a new DLEP Extension Type Value in Section 2
which is used to indicate support for the extension. which is used to indicate support for the extension.
1.1. Key Words 1.1. Key Words
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
2. Extension Usage and Identification 2. Extension Usage and Identification
The extension defined in this document is composed of the mechanisms The extension defined in this document is composed of the mechanisms
and processing defined in [I-D.ietf-manet-credit-flow-control]. To and processing defined in
indicate that the DiffServ Aware Credit Window Extension is to be [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification] and
used, an implementation MUST include the DiffServ Aware Credit Window [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control]. To indicate that the
Type Value in the Extensions Supported Data Item. The Extensions DiffServ Aware Credit Window Extension is to be used, an
implementation MUST include the DiffServ Aware Credit Window Type
Value in the Extensions Supported Data Item. The Extensions
Supported Data Item is sent and processed according to [RFC8175]. Supported Data Item is sent and processed according to [RFC8175].
Any implementation that indicates use of the DiffServ Aware Credit Any implementation that indicates use of the DiffServ Aware Credit
Window Extension MUST support all Messages, Data Items, the DiffServ Window Extension MUST support all Messages, Data Items, the DiffServ
Traffic Classification Sub Data Item, and all related processing Traffic Classification Sub Data Item, and all related processing
defined in [I-D.ietf-manet-credit-flow-control]. defined in [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification] and
[I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control].
The DiffServ Aware Credit Window Extension Type Value is TBA1, see The DiffServ Aware Credit Window Extension Type Value is TBA1, see
Section 5. Section 5.
3. Management Considerations 3. Management Considerations
This section provides several network management guidelines to This section provides several network management guidelines to
implementations supporting the DiffServ Aware Credit Window implementations supporting the DiffServ Aware Credit Window
Extension. Extension.
skipping to change at page 4, line 22 skipping to change at page 4, line 22
a router, the router MAY use a subset of the provided credit windows. a router, the router MAY use a subset of the provided credit windows.
Alternatively, a router MAY reset the session and indicate that the Alternatively, a router MAY reset the session and indicate that the
extension is not supported. In either case, the mismatch of extension is not supported. In either case, the mismatch of
capabilities SHOULD be reported to the user via normal network capabilities SHOULD be reported to the user via normal network
management mechanisms, e.g., user interface or error logging. management mechanisms, e.g., user interface or error logging.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
This document defines a DLEP extension that uses base DLEP mechanisms This document defines a DLEP extension that uses base DLEP mechanisms
and the credit window control and flow mechanisms defined in and the credit window control and flow mechanisms defined in
[I-D.ietf-manet-credit-flow-control]. The use of those mechanisms, [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification] and
and the introduction of a new extension, do not inherently introduce [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control]. The use of those
any additional threats above those documented in [RFC8175]. The mechanisms, and the introduction of a new extension, do not
approach taken to Security in that document applies equally to the inherently introduce any additional threats above those documented in
mechanism defined in this document. [RFC8175]. The approach taken to Security in that document applies
equally to the mechanism defined in this document.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
This document requests one assignment by IANA. All assignments are This document requests one assignment by IANA. All assignments are
to registries defined by [RFC8175]. to registries defined by [RFC8175].
5.1. Extension Type Value 5.1. Extension Type Value
This document requests 1 new assignment to the DLEP Extensions This document requests 1 new assignment to the DLEP Extensions
Registry named "Extension Type Values" in the range with the Registry named "Extension Type Values" in the range with the
skipping to change at page 5, line 6 skipping to change at page 5, line 6
| Code | Description | | Code | Description |
+------+------------------------------+ +------+------------------------------+
| TBA1 | DiffServ Aware Credit Window | | TBA1 | DiffServ Aware Credit Window |
+------+------------------------------+ +------+------------------------------+
Table 1: Requested Extension Type Value Table 1: Requested Extension Type Value
6. References 6. References
6.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-manet-credit-flow-control] [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control]
IETF, "DLEP Credit-Based Flow Control Messages and Data Cheng, B., Wiggins, D., and L. Berger, "DLEP Credit-Based
Items", April 2018. Flow Control Messages and Data Items", draft-ietf-manet-
dlep-credit-flow-control-02 (work in progress), June 2018.
[I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification]
Cheng, B., Wiggins, D., and L. Berger, "DLEP Traffic
Classification Data Item", August 2018.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8175] Ratliff, S., Jury, S., Satterwhite, D., Taylor, R., and B. [RFC8175] Ratliff, S., Jury, S., Satterwhite, D., Taylor, R., and B.
Berry, "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)", RFC 8175, Berry, "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)", RFC 8175,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8175, June 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8175, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8175>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8175>.
6.2. Informative References 6.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-manet-credit-window] [I-D.berger-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension]
Ratliff, S., "Credit Windowing extension for DLEP", draft- Wiggins, D. and L. Berger, "DLEP IEEE 802.1Q Aware Credit
ietf-manet-credit-window-07 (work in progress), November Window Extension", draft-berger-manet-dlep-ether-credit-
2016. extension-00 (work in progress), May 2018.
[RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z., [RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
Services", RFC 2475, DOI 10.17487/RFC2475, December 1998, Services", RFC 2475, DOI 10.17487/RFC2475, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2475>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2475>.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments Appendix A. Acknowledgments
The sub data item format was inspired by Rick Taylor's "Data Item The sub data item format was inspired by Rick Taylor's "Data Item
Containers". He also proposed the separation of credit windows from Containers". He also proposed the separation of credit windows from
skipping to change at page 5, line 44 skipping to change at page 6, line 4
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2475>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2475>.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments Appendix A. Acknowledgments
The sub data item format was inspired by Rick Taylor's "Data Item The sub data item format was inspired by Rick Taylor's "Data Item
Containers". He also proposed the separation of credit windows from Containers". He also proposed the separation of credit windows from
traffic classification at IETF98. Many useful comments were received traffic classification at IETF98. Many useful comments were received
from contributors to the MANET working group. from contributors to the MANET working group.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Bow-Nan Cheng Bow-Nan Cheng
Lincoln Laboratory MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Massachusetts Institute of Technology
244 Wood Street 244 Wood Street
Lexington, MA 02421-6426 Lexington, MA 02421-6426
Email: bcheng@ll.mit.edu Email: bcheng@ll.mit.edu
David Wiggins David Wiggins
Lincoln Laboratory MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Massachusetts Institute of Technology
244 Wood Street 244 Wood Street
Lexington, MA 02421-6426 Lexington, MA 02421-6426
Email: David.Wiggins@ll.mit.edu Email: David.Wiggins@ll.mit.edu
Lou Berger Lou Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C. LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Email: lberger@labn.net Email: lberger@labn.net
 End of changes. 16 change blocks. 
50 lines changed or deleted 55 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/