path: root/doc/rfc/rfc3140.txt

Network Working Group                                           D. Black
Request for Comments: 3140                                       S. Brim
Obsoletes: 2836                                             B. Carpenter
Category: Standards Track                                 F. Le Faucheur
                                                               June 2001


                 Per Hop Behavior Identification Codes

Status of this Memo

   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This document defines a 16 bit encoding mechanism for the
   identification of differentiated services Per Hop Behaviors in
   protocol messages.  It replaces RFC 2836.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction.................................................2
   1.1. Usage Scenarios............................................2
   2. Encoding.....................................................3
   3. Signalling the Class Selector Codepoints.....................4
   4. IANA Considerations..........................................5
   5. Security Considerations......................................5
   Changes from RFC 2836...........................................5
   Acknowledgements................................................6
   References......................................................6
   Authors' Addresses..............................................6
   Intellectual Property...........................................7
   Full Copyright Statement........................................8










Black, et al.               Standards Track                     [Page 1]
^L
RFC 3140         Per Hop Behavior Identification Codes         June 2001


1. Introduction

   Differentiated Services [RFC 2474, RFC 2475] introduces the notion of
   Per Hop Behaviors (PHBs) that define how traffic belonging to a
   particular behavior aggregate is treated at an individual network
   node.  In IP packet headers, PHBs are not indicated as such; instead
   Differentiated Services Codepoint (DSCP) values are used.  There are
   only 64 possible DSCP values, but there is no such limit on the
   number of PHBs.  In a given network domain, there is a locally
   defined mapping between DSCP values and PHBs.  Standardized PHBs
   recommend a DSCP mapping, but network operators may choose
   alternative mappings.

   In some cases it is necessary or desirable to identify a particular
   PHB in a protocol message, such as a message negotiating bandwidth
   management or path selection, especially when such messages pass
   between management domains.  Examples where work is in progress
   include communication between bandwidth brokers, and MPLS support of
   diffserv.

   In certain cases, what needs to be identified is not an individual
   PHB, but a set of PHBs.  One example is a set of PHBs that must
   follow the same physical path to prevent re-ordering.  An instance of
   this is the set of three PHBs belonging to a single Assured
   Forwarding class, such as the PHBs AF11, AF12 and AF13 [RFC 2597].

   This document defines a binary encoding to uniquely identify PHBs
   and/or sets of PHBs in protocol messages.  This encoding MUST be used
   when such identification is required.

   This document replaces RFC 2836, which omitted considerations for the
   Class Selector codepoints.

   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].

1.1. Usage Scenarios

   Diffserv services are expected to be supported over various
   underlying technologies which we broadly refer to as "link layers"
   for the purpose of this discussion.  For the transport of IP packets,
   some of these link layers make use of connections or logical
   connections where the forwarding behavior supported by each link
   layer device is a property of the connection.  In particular, within
   the link layer domain, each link layer node will schedule traffic
   depending on which connection the traffic is transported in.
   Examples of such "link layers" include ATM and MPLS.



Black, et al.               Standards Track                     [Page 2]
^L
RFC 3140         Per Hop Behavior Identification Codes         June 2001


   For efficient support of diffserv over these link layers, one model
   is for different Behavior Aggregates (BAs) (or sets of Behavior
   Aggregates) to be transported over different connections so that they
   are granted different (and appropriate) forwarding behaviors inside
   the link layer cloud.  When those connections are dynamically
   established for the transport of diffserv traffic, it is very useful
   to communicate at connection establishment time what forwarding
   behavior(s) is (are) to be granted to each connection by the link
   layer device so that the BAs transported experience consistent
   forwarding behavior inside the link layer cloud.  This can be
   achieved by including in the connection establishment signaling
   messages the encoding of the corresponding PHB, or set of PHBs, as
   defined in this document.  Details on proposed usage of PHB encodings
   by some MPLS label distribution protocols (RSVP and LDP) for support
   of Diff-Serv over MPLS, can be found in [MPLS-DS].

   In another approach, the ATM Forum has a requirement to indicate
   desired IP QOS treatments in ATM signaling, so that ATM switches can
   be just as supportive of the desired service as are IP forwarders.
   To do so the Forum is defining a new VC call setup information
   element is which will carry PHB identification codes (although will
   be generalized to do more if needed).

2. Encoding

   PHBs and sets of PHBs are encoded in an unsigned 16 bit binary field.

   The 16 bit field is arranged as follows:

   Case 1: PHBs defined by standards action, as per [RFC 2474].

   The encoding for a single PHB is the recommended DSCP value for that
   PHB, left-justified in the 16 bit field, with bits 6 through 15 set
   to zero.  Note that the recommended DSCP value MUST be used, even if
   the network in question has chosen a different mapping.

   The encoding for a set of PHBs is the numerically smallest of the set
   of encodings for the various PHBs in the set, with bit 14 set to 1.
   (Thus for the AF1x PHBs, the encoding is that of the AF11 PHB, with
   bit 14 set to 1.)

         0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  11  12  13  14  15
       +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
       |         DSCP          | 0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   X   0 |
       +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+






Black, et al.               Standards Track                     [Page 3]
^L
RFC 3140         Per Hop Behavior Identification Codes         June 2001


   Case 2: PHBs not defined by standards action, i.e., experimental or
   local use PHBs as allowed by [RFC 2474].  In this case an arbitrary
   12 bit PHB identification code, assigned by the IANA, is placed
   left-justified in the 16 bit field.  Bit 15 is set to 1, and bit 14
   is zero for a single PHB or 1 for a set of PHBs.  Bits 12 and 13 are
   zero.

         0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  11  12  13  14  15
       +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
       |                      PHB id code              | 0   0   X   1 |
       +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+

   Bits 12 and 13 are reserved either for expansion of the PHB
   identification code, or for other use, at some point in the future.

   In both cases, when a single PHBID is used to identify a set of PHBs
   (i.e., bit 14 is set to 1), that set of PHBs MUST constitute a PHB
   Scheduling Class (i.e., use of PHBs from the set MUST NOT cause
   intra-microflow traffic reordering when different PHBs from the set
   are applied to traffic in the same microflow).  The set of AF1x PHBs
   [RFC 2597] is an example of a PHB Scheduling Class.  Sets of PHBs
   that do not constitute a PHB Scheduling Class can be identified by
   using more than one PHBID.

3. Signalling the Class Selector Codepoints

   [RFC 2474] defines the eight DS codepoint values of the form 'xxx000'
   (where x may be '0' or '1') as the Class Selector Codepoints.
   Codepoint 000000 is the recommended DSCP value for the Default PHB,
   and hence the Case 1 PHBID constructed from that codepoint is used to
   signal the Default PHB (see Section 2 above).

   For convenience and consistent operation with networks that employ IP
   Precedence [RFC 1812], the Case 1 format PHBIDs constructed from the
   other seven Class Selector Codepoints may also be used to signal
   PHBs.  In each case, the PHB signaled by such a PHBID is the PHB to
   which the embedded class selector codepoint (or IP Precedence value
   that corresponds to it in non-diffserv domains) is mapped in the
   recipient's network.  Note that different networks will employ
   different mappings; see Section 4 of [RFC 2474] for further
   discussion.

   Any specified use of PHBIDs SHOULD allow the use of the eight Case 1
   PHBIDs constructed from the Class Selector Codepoints.







Black, et al.               Standards Track                     [Page 4]
^L
RFC 3140         Per Hop Behavior Identification Codes         June 2001


4. IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to create a new assignment registry for "Per-Hop
   Behavior Identification Codes", initially allowing values in the
   range 0 to 4095 decimal.

   Assignment of values in this field require:

      -  the identity of the assignee
      -  a brief description of the new PHB, with enough detail to
         distinguish it from existing standardized and non-standardized
         PHBs. In the case of a set of PHBs, this description should
         cover all PHBs in the set.
      -  a reference to a stable document describing the PHB in detail.

   During the first year of existence of this registry, IANA is
   requested to refer all requests to the IETF diffserv WG for review.
   Subsequently, requests should be reviewed by the IETF Transport Area
   Directors or by an expert that they designate.

   If the number of assignments begins to approach 4096, the Transport
   Area Directors should be alerted.

5. Security Considerations

   This encoding in itself raises no security issues. However, users of
   this encoding should consider that modifying a PHB identification
   code may constitute theft or denial of service, so protocols using
   this encoding must be adequately protected.

   Just signalling a PHBID SHOULD NOT be sufficient to grant the sender
   access to a PHB that it would otherwise not be able to use.  In cases
   where this is an issue, receivers SHOULD treat received PHBIDs as
   requests for service, and use local policy to determine whether to
   grant or deny such requests.

Changes from RFC 2836

   [RFC 2836] did not consider the Class Selector code points, which are
   covered by section 3 of the present document. A clarification has
   been added at the end of section 2 for the case of PHB Scheduling
   Classes.  The second paragraph of section 5 has been added.









Black, et al.               Standards Track                     [Page 5]
^L
RFC 3140         Per Hop Behavior Identification Codes         June 2001


Acknowledgements

   Useful comments were made by members of the IETF Diffserv working
   group.

References

   [RFC 2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
               Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC 2474]  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.

   [RFC 2475]  Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.
               and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
               Services", RFC 2475, December 1998.

   [RFC 2597]  Heinanen, J., Baker, F., Weiss, W. and J. Wroclawski,
               "Assured Forwarding PHB Group", RFC 2597, June 1999.

   [RFC 2836]  Brim, S., Carpenter, B. and F. Le Faucheur, "Per Hop
               Behavior Identification Codes", RFC 2836, May 2000.

   [MPLS-DS]   Le Faucheur, F., et al., "MPLS Support of Differentiated
               Services", Work in Progress.

Authors' Addresses

   David L. Black
   EMC Corporation
   42 South St.
   Hopkinton, MA   01748

   EMail: black_david@emc.com


   Scott W. Brim
   146 Honness Lane
   Ithaca, NY 14850
   USA

   EMail: sbrim@cisco.com







Black, et al.               Standards Track                     [Page 6]
^L
RFC 3140         Per Hop Behavior Identification Codes         June 2001


   Brian E. Carpenter
   IBM
   c/o iCAIR
   Suite 150
   1890 Maple Avenue
   Evanston, IL 60201
   USA

   EMail: brian@icair.org


   Francois Le Faucheur
   Cisco Systems
   Petra B - Les Lucioles
   291, rue Albert Caquot
   06560 Valbonne
   France

   EMail: flefauch@cisco.com

Intellectual Property

   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 BCP-11.  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.










Black, et al.               Standards Track                     [Page 7]
^L
RFC 3140         Per Hop Behavior Identification Codes         June 2001


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001).  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
   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.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.



















Black, et al.               Standards Track                     [Page 8]
^L