Network Working Group L. Andersson Internet-Draft Acreo AB Intended status: Standards Track June 4, 2008 Expires: December 6, 2008 "EXP field" renamed to "CoS Field" draft-ietf-mpls-cosfield-def-01.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 December 6, 2008. Andersson Expires December 6, 2008 [Page 1] Internet-Draft MPLS CoS field defintion June 2008 Abstract The early MPLS documents defined the MPLS format, this definition includes three bit field called "EXP field". The documentats leaves the exact description of how the EXP field should be used undefined, it is said said to be for "experimental use". The EXP field has from the start been intended to be used for "Class of Service". At the time the documents were published the use of such a CoS field were considered not to be defined well enough and the field were left for "Experimental use". To avoid misunderstanding about how this field may be used this document re-introduces the name "CoS field" for this field. In doing so it also updates documents that defines and uses this field. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Details of change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. RFC 3032 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. RFC 3270 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.3. RFC 5129 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Use of the CoS field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 12 Andersson Expires December 6, 2008 [Page 2] Internet-Draft MPLS CoS field defintion June 2008 1. Introduction The format of the MPLS label is defined in RFC 3032 [RFC3032], that definition includes three bit field called "EXP field". RFC 3032 leaves the exact description of how the EXP field should be used undefined, it is said to be for "experimental use". The EXP field has from the start been intended to be used for "Class of Service", the field were actually called "Class of Service field" in the early versions of the working group document that was publshed as RFC 3032. However at the time that RFC 3032 were published the "Class of Service" were considered not to be defined well enough and the field were left for "Experimental use". Since the "for Experimental use" terminology has lead other Standards Development Organizations (SDO) and implementors to the assume that it possible to use the field for other purposes that Class of Service we now changes the name of the field to clearly indicate its use. The use of the EXP field was first defined in RFC 3270 [RFC3270] where a method to define a variant of DiffServ LSPs called EXP- Inferred-PSC LSP (E-LSPs). The use of the EXP field as defined in RFC 3270 has been further extended in RFC 5129 [RFC5129], where methods for explicit congestion marking in MPLS is defined. The defintions of how the EXP field are used are perfectly clear in RFC 3270 and RFC 5129. However it is never explicitly stated that these RFCs updates RFC 3032, and it is not captured in the RFC respository. This document changes RFC 3032, RFC 3270 and RFC 5129 to capture these updates. 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 [RFC2119]. Andersson Expires December 6, 2008 [Page 3] Internet-Draft MPLS CoS field defintion June 2008 2. Details of change The three RFCs are now updated according to the following. 2.1. RFC 3032 The RFC 3032 state on page 3: 3. Experimental Use This three-bit field is reserved for experimental use. This paragraph is now changed to: 3. Class of Service (CoS) field This three-bit field is used to carry Class of Service information and the change of the name is applicable to all places it occurs in IETF RFCs and other IETF documents. The definition of how to use the CoS field has been updated by RFC 3270 and RFC 5129. 2.2. RFC 3270 RFC 3270 says on page 6: 1.2 EXP-Inferred-PSC LSPs (E-LSP) A single LSP can be used to support one or more OAs. Such LSPs can support up to eight BAs of a given FEC, regardless of how many OAs these BAs span. With such LSPs, the EXP field of the MPLS Shim Header is used by the LSR to determine the PHB to be applied to the packet. This includes both the PSC and the drop preference. We refer to such LSPs as "EXP-inferred-PSC LSPs" (E-LSP), since the PSC of a packet transported on this LSP depends on the EXP field value for that packet. The mapping from the EXP field to the PHB (i.e., to PSC and drop precedence) for a given such LSP, is either explicitly signaled at label set-up or relies on a pre-configured mapping. Detailed operations of E-LSPs are specified in section 3 below. Section 1.2 on page 5 in RFC 3270 is now changed to: Andersson Expires December 6, 2008 [Page 4] Internet-Draft MPLS CoS field defintion June 2008 1.2 EXP-Inferred-PSC LSPs (E-LSP) The EXP field have been renamed to the CoS field, and thus all references in RFC 3270 to EXP field SHOULD be taken to refer to the CoS field. However, we retain the term E-LSP (EXP-Inferred- PSC LSP) as it is in widespread use. A single LSP can be used to support one or more OAs. Such LSPs can support up to eight BAs of a given FEC, regardless of how many OAs these BAs span. With such LSPs, the CoS field of the MPLS Shim Header is used by the LSR to determine the PHB to be applied to the packet. This includes both the PSC and the drop preference. We refer to such LSPs as "EXP-inferred-PSC LSPs" (E-LSP), since the PSC of a packet transported on this LSP depends on the CoS field (previously called the EXP field) value for that packet. The mapping from the CoS field to the PHB (i.e., to PSC and drop precedence) for a given such LSP, is either explicitly signaled at label set-up or relies on a pre-configured mapping. This is an update to RFC 3032 [RFC3032] in line with the original intent of how this field in the MPLS Shim Header should be used (as CoS field). The RFC 3270 has itself been updated by RFC 5129 [RFC5129]. Detailed operations of E-LSPs are specified in section 3 of RFC3270. 2.3. RFC 5129 Section 2 (bullet 3) on page 6 of RFC 5129 says: o A third possible approach was suggested by [Shayman]. In this scheme, interior LSRs assume that the endpoints are ECN-capable, but this assumption is checked when the final label is popped. If an interior LSR has marked ECN in the EXP field of the shim header, but the IP header says the endpoints are not ECN-capable, the edge router (or penultimate router, if using penultimate hop popping) drops the packet. We recommend this scheme, which we call `per-domain ECT checking', and define it more precisely in the following section. Its chief drawback is that it can cause packets to be forwarded after encountering congestion only to be dropped at the egress of the MPLS domain. The rationale for this decision is given in Section 8.1. RFC 5219 is now updated like this: Andersson Expires December 6, 2008 [Page 5] Internet-Draft MPLS CoS field defintion June 2008 A new paragraph is added at the end of section 1.1 "Background": The EXP field have been renamed to the CoS field, and thus all references in RFC 5219 to EXP field SHOULD be taken to refer to the CoS field. Section 2 (bullet 3) on page 6 ofis now changed to: o A third possible approach was suggested by [Shayman]. In this scheme, interior LSRs assume that the endpoints are ECN-capable, but this assumption is checked when the final label is popped. If an interior LSR has marked ECN in the CoS field of the shim header, but the IP header says the endpoints are not CoS-capable, the edge router (or penultimate router, if using penultimate hop popping) drops the packet. We recommend this scheme, which we call `per-domain ECT checking', and define it more precisely in the following section. Its chief drawback is that it can cause packets to be forwarded after encountering congestion only to be dropped at the egress of the MPLS domain. The rationale for this decision is given in Section 8.1. This scheme is an update to RFC 3032 [RFC3032] and RFC 3270 [RFC3270]. Andersson Expires December 6, 2008 [Page 6] Internet-Draft MPLS CoS field defintion June 2008 3. Use of the CoS field Due to the limited number of bits the particular use of the bits is intended to be flexible - including the defininition of various QoS and ECN functions. Current implementations look at the CoS field with and without label context and the CoS field may be copied to the labels that are pushed onto the laabel stack. This is to avoid that the pushed labels has a different CoS field. CoS and ECN funtions may rewrite all or some of the bits. Andersson Expires December 6, 2008 [Page 7] Internet-Draft MPLS CoS field defintion June 2008 4. IANA considerations There are no request for IANA allocation of code points in this document. Andersson Expires December 6, 2008 [Page 8] Internet-Draft MPLS CoS field defintion June 2008 5. Security considerations This document only changes the name of one field in the MPLS Shim Header and thus do not introduce any new security considerations. Andersson Expires December 6, 2008 [Page 9] Internet-Draft MPLS CoS field defintion June 2008 6. References 6.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y., Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001. [RFC3270] Le Faucheur, F., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S., Vaananen, P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and J. Heinanen, "Multi- Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated Services", RFC 3270, May 2002. [RFC5129] Davie, B., Briscoe, B., and J. Tay, "Explicit Congestion Marking in MPLS", RFC 5129, January 2008. 6.2. Informative references [Shayman] Shayman, M. and R. Jaeger, University of Michigan, "Using ECN to Signal Congestion Within an MPLS Domain", Work in Progress, November 2000.", . Andersson Expires December 6, 2008 [Page 10] Internet-Draft MPLS CoS field defintion June 2008 Author's Address Loa Andersson Acreo AB Email: loa@pi.nu Andersson Expires December 6, 2008 [Page 11] Internet-Draft MPLS CoS field defintion June 2008 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). 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. 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, THE IETF TRUST 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. Intellectual Property 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. Andersson Expires December 6, 2008 [Page 12]