path: root/doc/rfc/rfc3246.txt

Network Working Group                                           B. Davie
Request for Comments: 3246                                     A. Charny
Obsoletes: 2598                                      Cisco Systems, Inc.
Category: Standards Track                                 J.C.R. Bennett
                                                                Motorola
                                                               K. Benson
                                                                 Tellabs
                                                          J.Y. Le Boudec
                                                                    EPFL
                                                             W. Courtney
                                                                     TRW
                                                               S. Davari
                                                              PMC-Sierra
                                                               V. Firoiu
                                                         Nortel Networks
                                                            D. Stiliadis
                                                     Lucent Technologies
                                                              March 2002


             An Expedited Forwarding PHB (Per-Hop Behavior)

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 PHB (per-hop behavior) called Expedited
   Forwarding (EF).  The PHB is a basic building block in the
   Differentiated Services architecture.  EF is intended to provide a
   building block for low delay, low jitter and low loss services by
   ensuring that the EF aggregate is served at a certain configured
   rate.  This document obsoletes RFC 2598.









Davie, et. al.              Standards Track                     [Page 1]
^L
RFC 3246              An Expedited Forwarding PHB             March 2002


Table of Contents

   1      Introduction  ...........................................   2
   1.1    Relationship to RFC 2598  ...............................   3
   2      Definition of EF PHB  ...................................   3
   2.1    Intuitive Description of EF  ............................   3
   2.2    Formal Definition of the EF PHB  ........................   5
   2.3    Figures of merit  .......................................   8
   2.4    Delay and jitter  .......................................   8
   2.5    Loss  ...................................................   9
   2.6    Microflow misordering  ..................................   9
   2.7    Recommended codepoint for this PHB  .....................   9
   2.8    Mutability  .............................................  10
   2.9    Tunneling  ..............................................  10
   2.10   Interaction with other PHBs  ............................  10
   3      Security Considerations  ................................  10
   4      IANA Considerations  ....................................  11
   5      Acknowledgments  ........................................  11
   6      References  .............................................  11
   Appendix: Implementation Examples ..............................  12
   Authors' Addresses .............................................  14
   Full Copyright Statement .......................................  16

1. Introduction

   Network nodes that implement the differentiated services enhancements
   to IP use a codepoint in the IP header to select a per-hop behavior
   (PHB) as the specific forwarding treatment for that packet [3, 4].
   This memo describes a particular PHB called expedited forwarding
   (EF).

   The intent of the EF PHB is to provide a building block for low loss,
   low delay, and low jitter services.  The details of exactly how to
   build such services are outside the scope of this specification.

   The dominant causes of delay in packet networks are fixed propagation
   delays (e.g. those arising from speed-of-light delays) on wide area
   links and queuing delays in switches and routers.  Since propagation
   delays are a fixed property of the topology, delay and jitter are
   minimized when queuing delays are minimized.  In this context, jitter
   is defined as the variation between maximum and minimum delay.  The
   intent of the EF PHB is to provide a PHB in which suitably marked
   packets usually encounter short or empty queues.  Furthermore, if
   queues remain short relative to the buffer space available, packet
   loss is also kept to a minimum.






Davie, et. al.              Standards Track                     [Page 2]
^L
RFC 3246              An Expedited Forwarding PHB             March 2002


   To ensure that queues encountered by EF packets are usually short, it
   is necessary to ensure that the service rate of EF packets on a given
   output interface exceeds their arrival rate at that interface over
   long and short time intervals, independent of the load of other
   (non-EF) traffic.  This specification defines a PHB in which EF
   packets are guaranteed to receive service at or above a configured
   rate and provides a means to quantify the accuracy with which this
   service rate is delivered over any time interval.  It also provides a
   means to quantify the maximum delay and jitter that a packet may
   experience under bounded operating conditions.

   Note that the EF PHB only defines the behavior of a single node.  The
   specification of behavior of a collection of nodes is outside the
   scope of this document.  A Per-Domain Behavior (PDB) specification
   [7] may provide such information.

   When a DS-compliant node claims to implement the EF PHB, the
   implementation MUST conform to the specification given in this
   document.  However, the EF PHB is not a mandatory part of the
   Differentiated Services architecture - a node is NOT REQUIRED to
   implement the EF PHB in order to be considered DS-compliant.

   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 [2].

1.1. Relationship to RFC 2598

   This document replaces RFC 2598 [1].  The main difference is that it
   adds mathematical formalism to give a more rigorous definition of the
   behavior described.  The full rationale for this is given in [6].

2. Definition of EF PHB

2.1. Intuitive Description of EF

   Intuitively, the definition of EF is simple: the rate at which EF
   traffic is served at a given output interface should be at least the
   configured rate R, over a suitably defined interval, independent of
   the offered load of non-EF traffic to that interface.  Two
   difficulties arise when we try to formalize this intuition:

      -  it is difficult to define the appropriate timescale at which to
         measure R. By measuring it at short timescales we may introduce
         sampling errors; at long timescales we may allow excessive
         jitter.





Davie, et. al.              Standards Track                     [Page 3]
^L
RFC 3246              An Expedited Forwarding PHB             March 2002


      -  EF traffic clearly cannot be served at rate R if there are no
         EF packets waiting to be served, but it may be impossible to
         determine externally whether EF packets are actually waiting to
         be served by the output scheduler.  For example, if an EF
         packet has entered the router and not exited, it may be
         awaiting service, or it may simply have encountered some
         processing or transmission delay within the router.

   The formal definition below takes account of these issues.  It
   assumes that EF packets should ideally be served at rate R or faster,
   and bounds the deviation of the actual departure time of each packet
   from the "ideal" departure time of that packet.  We define the
   departure time of a packet as the time when the last bit of that
   packet leaves the node.  The "ideal" departure time of each EF packet
   is computed iteratively.

   In the case when an EF packet arrives at a device when all the
   previous EF packets have already departed, the computation of the
   ideal departure time is simple.  Service of the packet should
   (ideally) start as soon as it arrives, so the ideal departure time is
   simply the arrival time plus the ideal time to transmit the packet at
   rate R. For a packet of length L_j, that transmission time at the
   configured rate R is L_j/R. (Of course, a real packet will typically
   get transmitted at line rate once its transmission actually starts,
   but we are calculating the ideal target behavior here; the ideal
   service takes place at rate R.)

   In the case when an EF packet arrives at a device that still contains
   EF packets awaiting service, the computation of the ideal departure
   time is more complicated.  There are two cases to be considered.  If
   the previous (j-1-th) departure occurred after its own ideal
   departure time, then the scheduler is running "late".  In this case,
   the ideal time to start service of the new packet is the ideal
   departure time of the previous (j-1-th) packet, or the arrival time
   of the new packet, whichever is later, because we cannot expect a
   packet to begin service before it arrives.  If the previous (j-1-th)
   departure occurred before its own ideal departure time, then the
   scheduler is running "early".  In this case, service of the new
   packet should begin at the actual departure time of the previous
   packet.

   Once we know the time at which service of the j-th packet should
   (ideally) begin, then the ideal departure time of the j-th packet is
   L_j/R seconds later.  Thus we are able to express the ideal departure
   time of the j-th packet in terms of the arrival time of the j-th
   packet, the actual departure time of the j-1-th packet, and the ideal
   departure time of the j-1-th packet.  Equations eq_1 and eq_2 in
   Section 2.2 capture this relationship.



Davie, et. al.              Standards Track                     [Page 4]
^L
RFC 3246              An Expedited Forwarding PHB             March 2002


   Whereas the original EF definition did not provide any means to
   guarantee the delay of an individual EF packet, this property may be
   desired.  For this reason, the equations in Section 2.2 consist of
   two parts: an "aggregate behavior" set and a "packet-identity-aware"
   set of equations.  The aggregate behavior equations (eq_1 and eq_2)
   simply describe the properties of the service delivered to the EF
   aggregate by the device.  The "packet-identity-aware" equations (eq_3
   and eq_4) enable the bound on delay of an individual packet to be
   calculated given a knowledge of the operating conditions of the
   device.  The significance of these two sets of equations is discussed
   further in Section 2.2. Note that these two sets of equations provide
   two ways of characterizing the behavior of a single device, not two
   different modes of behavior.

2.2. Formal Definition of the EF PHB

   A node that supports EF on an interface I at some configured rate R
   MUST satisfy the following equations:

      d_j <= f_j + E_a for all j > 0                             (eq_1)

   where f_j is defined iteratively by

      f_0 = 0, d_0 = 0

      f_j = max(a_j, min(d_j-1, f_j-1)) + l_j/R,  for all j > 0  (eq_2)

   In this definition:

      -  d_j is the time that the last bit of the j-th EF packet to
         depart actually leaves the node from the interface I.

      -  f_j is the target departure time for the j-th EF packet to
         depart from I, the "ideal" time at or before which the last bit
         of that packet should leave the node.

      -  a_j is the time that the last bit of the j-th EF packet
         destined to the output I actually arrives at the node.

      -  l_j is the size (bits) of the j-th EF packet to depart from I.
         l_j is measured on the IP datagram (IP header plus payload) and
         does not include any lower layer (e.g. MAC layer) overhead.

      -  R is the EF configured rate at output I (in bits/second).







Davie, et. al.              Standards Track                     [Page 5]
^L
RFC 3246              An Expedited Forwarding PHB             March 2002


      -  E_a is the error term for the treatment of the EF aggregate.
         Note that E_a represents the worst case deviation between the
         actual departure time of an EF packet and the ideal departure
         time of the same packet, i.e. E_a provides an upper bound on
         (d_j - f_j) for all j.

      -  d_0 and f_0 do not refer to a real packet departure but are
         used purely for the purposes of the recursion.  The time origin
         should be chosen such that no EF packets are in the system at
         time 0.

      -  for the definitions of a_j and d_j, the "last bit" of the
         packet includes the layer 2 trailer if present, because a
         packet cannot generally be considered available for forwarding
         until such a trailer has been received.

   An EF-compliant node MUST be able to be characterized by the range of
   possible R values that it can support on each of its interfaces while
   conforming to these equations, and the value of E_a that can be met
   on each interface.  R may be line rate or less.  E_a MAY be specified
   as a worst-case value for all possible R values or MAY be expressed
   as a function of R.

   Note also that, since a node may have multiple inputs and complex
   internal scheduling, the j-th EF packet to arrive at the node
   destined for a certain interface may not be the j-th EF packet to
   depart from that interface.  It is in this sense that eq_1 and eq_2
   are unaware of packet identity.

   In addition, a node that supports EF on an interface I at some
   configured rate R MUST satisfy the following equations:

      D_j <= F_j + E_p for all j > 0                             (eq_3)

   where F_j is defined iteratively by

      F_0 = 0, D_0 = 0

      F_j = max(A_j, min(D_j-1, F_j-1)) + L_j/R,  for all j > 0  (eq_4)

   In this definition:

      -  D_j is the actual departure time of the individual EF packet
         that arrived at the node destined for interface I at time A_j,
         i.e., given a packet which was the j-th EF packet destined for
         I to arrive at the node via any input, D_j is the time at which
         the last bit of that individual packet actually leaves the node
         from the interface I.



Davie, et. al.              Standards Track                     [Page 6]
^L
RFC 3246              An Expedited Forwarding PHB             March 2002


      -  F_j is the target departure time for the individual EF packet
         that arrived at the node destined for interface I at time A_j.

      -  A_j is the time that the last bit of the j-th EF packet
         destined to the output I to arrive actually arrives at the
         node.

      -  L_j is the size (bits) of the j-th EF packet to arrive at the
         node that is destined to output I. L_j is measured on the IP
         datagram (IP header plus payload) and does not include any
         lower layer (e.g. MAC layer) overhead.

      -  R is the EF configured rate at output I (in bits/second).

      -  E_p is the error term for the treatment of individual EF
         packets.  Note that E_p represents the worst case deviation
         between the actual departure time of an EF packet and the ideal
         departure time of the same packet, i.e. E_p provides an upper
         bound on (D_j - F_j) for all j.

      -  D_0 and F_0 do not refer to a real packet departure but are
         used purely for the purposes of the recursion.  The time origin
         should be chosen such that no EF packets are in the system at
         time 0.

      -  for the definitions of A_j and D_j, the "last bit" of the
         packet includes the layer 2 trailer if present, because a
         packet cannot generally be considered available for forwarding
         until such a trailer has been received.

   It is the fact that D_j and F_j refer to departure times for the j-th
   packet to arrive that makes eq_3 and eq_4 aware of packet identity.
   This is the critical distinction between the last two equations and
   the first two.

   An EF-compliant node SHOULD be able to be characterized by the range
   of possible R values that it can support on each of its interfaces
   while conforming to these equations, and the value of E_p that can be
   met on each interface.  E_p MAY be specified as a worst-case value
   for all possible R values or MAY be expressed as a function of R. An
   E_p value of "undefined" MAY be specified.  For discussion of
   situations in which E_p may be undefined see the Appendix and [6].

   For the purposes of testing conformance to these equations, it may be
   necessary to deal with packet arrivals on different interfaces that
   are closely spaced in time.  If two or more EF packets destined for
   the same output interface arrive (on different inputs) at almost the




Davie, et. al.              Standards Track                     [Page 7]
^L
RFC 3246              An Expedited Forwarding PHB             March 2002


   same time and the difference between their arrival times cannot be
   measured, then it is acceptable to use a random tie-breaking method
   to decide which packet arrived "first".

2.3. Figures of merit

   E_a and E_p may be thought of as "figures of merit" for a device.  A
   smaller value of E_a means that the device serves the EF aggregate
   more smoothly at rate R over relatively short timescales, whereas a
   larger value of E_a implies a more bursty scheduler which serves the
   EF aggregate at rate R only when measured over longer intervals.  A
   device with a larger E_a can "fall behind" the ideal service rate R
   by a greater amount than a device with a smaller E_a.

   A lower value of E_p implies a tighter bound on the delay experienced
   by an individual packet.  Factors that might lead to a higher E_p
   might include a large number of input interfaces (since an EF packet
   might arrive just behind a large number of EF packets that arrived on
   other interfaces), or might be due to internal scheduler details
   (e.g. per-flow scheduling within the EF aggregate).

   We observe that factors that increase E_a such as those noted above
   will also increase E_p, and that E_p is thus typically greater than
   or equal to E_a.  In summary, E_a is a measure of deviation from
   ideal service of the EF aggregate at rate R, while E_p measures both
   non-ideal service and non-FIFO treatment of packets within the
   aggregate.

   For more discussion of these issues see the Appendix and [6].

2.4. Delay and jitter

   Given a known value of E_p and a knowledge of the bounds on the EF
   traffic offered to a given output interface, summed over all input
   interfaces, it is possible to bound the delay and jitter that will be
   experienced by EF traffic leaving the node via that interface.  The
   delay bound is

      D = B/R + E_p          (eq_5)

   where

      -  R is the configured EF service rate on the output interface

      -  the total offered load of EF traffic destined to the output
         interface, summed over all input interfaces, is bounded by a
         token bucket of rate r <= R and depth B




Davie, et. al.              Standards Track                     [Page 8]
^L
RFC 3246              An Expedited Forwarding PHB             March 2002


   Since the minimum delay through the device is clearly at least zero,
   D also provides a bound on jitter.  To provide a tighter bound on
   jitter, the value of E_p for a device MAY be specified as two
   separate components such that

      E_p = E_fixed + E_variable

   where E_fixed represents the minimum delay that can be experienced by
   an EF packet through the node.

2.5. Loss

   The EF PHB is intended to be a building block for low loss services.
   However, under sufficiently high load of EF traffic (including
   unexpectedly large bursts from many inputs at once), any device with
   finite buffers may need to discard packets.  Thus, it must be
   possible to establish whether a device conforms to the EF definition
   even when some packets are lost.  This is done by performing an
   "off-line" test of conformance to equations 1 through 4.  After
   observing a sequence of packets entering and leaving the node, the
   packets which did not leave are assumed lost and are notionally
   removed from the input stream.  The remaining packets now constitute
   the arrival stream (the a_j's) and the packets which left the node
   constitute the departure stream (the d_j's).  Conformance to the
   equations can thus be verified by considering only those packets that
   successfully passed through the node.

   In addition, to assist in meeting the low loss objective of EF, a
   node MAY be characterized by the operating region in which loss of EF
   due to congestion will not occur.  This MAY be specified, using a
   token bucket of rate r <= R and burstsize B, as the sum of traffic
   across all inputs to a given output interface that can be tolerated
   without loss.

   In the event that loss does occur, the specification of which packets
   are lost is beyond the scope of this document.  However it is a
   requirement that those packets not lost MUST conform to the equations
   of Section 2.2.

2.6. Microflow misordering

   Packets belonging to a single microflow within the EF aggregate
   passing through a device SHOULD NOT experience re-ordering in normal
   operation of the device.

2.7. Recommended codepoint for this PHB

   Codepoint 101110 is RECOMMENDED for the EF PHB.



Davie, et. al.              Standards Track                     [Page 9]
^L
RFC 3246              An Expedited Forwarding PHB             March 2002


2.8. Mutability

   Packets marked for EF PHB MAY be remarked at a DS domain boundary
   only to other codepoints that satisfy the EF PHB.  Packets marked for
   EF PHBs SHOULD NOT be demoted or promoted to another PHB by a DS
   domain.

2.9. Tunneling

   When EF packets are tunneled, the tunneling packets SHOULD be marked
   as EF.  A full discussion of tunneling issues is presented in [5].

2.10.  Interaction with other PHBs

   Other PHBs and PHB groups may be deployed in the same DS node or
   domain with the EF PHB.  The equations of Section 2.2 MUST hold for a
   node independent of the amount of non-EF traffic offered to it.

   If the EF PHB is implemented by a mechanism that allows unlimited
   preemption of other traffic (e.g., a priority queue), the
   implementation MUST include some means to limit the damage EF traffic
   could inflict on other traffic (e.g., a token bucket rate limiter).
   Traffic that exceeds this limit MUST be discarded.  This maximum EF
   rate, and burst size if appropriate, MUST be settable by a network
   administrator (using whatever mechanism the node supports for non-
   volatile configuration).

3. Security Considerations

   To protect itself against denial of service attacks, the edge of a DS
   domain SHOULD strictly police all EF marked packets to a rate
   negotiated with the adjacent upstream domain.  Packets in excess of
   the negotiated rate SHOULD be dropped.  If two adjacent domains have
   not negotiated an EF rate, the downstream domain SHOULD use 0 as the
   rate (i.e., drop all EF marked packets).

   In addition, traffic conditioning at the ingress to a DS-domain MUST
   ensure that only packets having DSCPs that correspond to an EF PHB
   when they enter the DS-domain are marked with a DSCP that corresponds
   to EF inside the DS-domain.  Such behavior is as required by the
   Differentiated Services architecture [4].  It protects against
   denial-of-service and theft-of-service attacks which exploit DSCPs
   that are not identified in any Traffic Conditioning Specification
   provisioned at an ingress interface, but which map to EF inside the
   DS-domain.






Davie, et. al.              Standards Track                    [Page 10]
^L
RFC 3246              An Expedited Forwarding PHB             March 2002


4. IANA Considerations

   This document allocates one codepoint, 101110, in Pool 1 of the code
   space defined by [3].

5. Acknowledgments

   This document was the result of collaboration and discussion among a
   large number of people.  In particular, Fred Baker, Angela Chiu,
   Chuck Kalmanek, and K. K. Ramakrishnan made significant contributions
   to the new EF definition.  John Wroclawski provided many helpful
   comments to the authors.  This document draws heavily on the original
   EF PHB definition of Jacobson, Nichols, and Poduri.  It was also
   greatly influenced by the work of the EFRESOLVE team of Armitage,
   Casati, Crowcroft, Halpern, Kumar, and Schnizlein.

6. References

   [1]   Jacobson, V., Nichols, K. and K. Poduri, "An Expedited
         Forwarding PHB", RFC 2598, June 1999.

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

   [3]   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.

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

   [5]   Black, D., "Differentiated Services and Tunnels", RFC 2983,
         October 2000.

   [6]   Charny, A., Baker, F., Davie, B., Bennett, J.C.R., Benson, K.,
         Le Boudec, J.Y., Chiu, A., Courtney, W., Davari, S., Firoiu,
         V., Kalmanek, C., Ramakrishnan, K.K. and D. Stiliadis,
         "Supplemental Information for the New Definition of the EF PHB
         (Expedited Forwarding Per-Hop Behavior)", RFC 3247, March 2002.

   [7]   Nichols K. and B. Carpenter, "Definition of Differentiated
         Services Per Domain Behaviors and Rules for their
         Specification", RFC 3086, April 2001.







Davie, et. al.              Standards Track                    [Page 11]
^L
RFC 3246              An Expedited Forwarding PHB             March 2002


Appendix: Implementation Examples

   This appendix is not part of the normative specification of EF.
   However, it is included here as a possible source of useful
   information for implementors.

   A variety of factors in the implementation of a node supporting EF
   will influence the values of E_a and E_p.  These factors are
   discussed in more detail in [6], and include both output schedulers
   and the internal design of a device.

   A priority queue is widely considered as the canonical example of an
   implementation of EF.  A "perfect" output buffered device (i.e. one
   which delivers packets immediately to the appropriate output queue)
   with a priority queue for EF traffic will provide both a low E_a and
   a low E_p.  We note that the main factor influencing E_a will be the
   inability to pre-empt an MTU-sized non-EF packet that has just begun
   transmission at the time when an EF packet arrives at the output
   interface, plus any additional delay that might be caused by non-
   pre-emptable queues between the priority queue and the physical
   interface.  E_p will be influenced primarily by the number of
   interfaces.

   Another example of an implementation of EF is a weighted round robin
   scheduler.  Such an implementation will typically not be able to
   support values of R as high as the link speeds, because the maximum
   rate at which EF traffic can be served in the presence of competing
   traffic will be affected by the number of other queues and the
   weights given to them.  Furthermore, such an implementation is likely
   to have a value of E_a that is higher than a priority queue
   implementation, all else being equal, as a result of the time spent
   serving non-EF queues by the round robin scheduler.

   Finally, it is possible to implement hierarchical scheduling
   algorithms, such that some non-FIFO scheduling algorithm is run on
   sub-flows within the EF aggregate, while the EF aggregate as a whole
   could be served at high priority or with a large weight by the top-
   level scheduler.  Such an algorithm might perform per-input
   scheduling or per-microflow scheduling within the EF aggregate, for
   example.  Because such algorithms lead to non-FIFO service within the
   EF aggregate, the value of E_p for such algorithms may be higher than
   for other implementations.  For some schedulers of this type it may
   be difficult to provide a meaningful bound on E_p that would hold for
   any pattern of traffic arrival, and thus a value of "undefined" may
   be most appropriate.






Davie, et. al.              Standards Track                    [Page 12]
^L
RFC 3246              An Expedited Forwarding PHB             March 2002


   It should be noted that it is quite acceptable for a Diffserv domain
   to provide multiple instances of EF.  Each instance should be
   characterizable by the equations in Section 2.2 of this
   specification.  The effect of having multiple instances of EF on the
   E_a and E_p values of each instance will depend considerably on how
   the multiple instances are implemented.  For example, in a multi-
   level priority scheduler, an instance of EF that is not at the
   highest priority may experience relatively long periods when it
   receives no service while higher priority instances of EF are served.
   This would result in relatively large values of E_a and E_p.  By
   contrast, in a WFQ-like scheduler, each instance of EF would be
   represented by a queue served at some configured rate and the values
   of E_a and E_p could be similar to those for a single EF instance.






































Davie, et. al.              Standards Track                    [Page 13]
^L
RFC 3246              An Expedited Forwarding PHB             March 2002


Authors' Addresses

   Bruce Davie
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   300 Apollo Drive
   Chelmsford, MA, 01824

   EMail: bsd@cisco.com

   Anna Charny
   Cisco Systems
   300 Apollo Drive
   Chelmsford, MA 01824

   EMail: acharny@cisco.com

   Jon Bennett
   Motorola
   3 Highwood Drive East
   Tewksbury, MA 01876

   EMail: jcrb@motorola.com

   Kent Benson
   Tellabs Research Center
   3740 Edison Lake Parkway #101
   Mishawaka, IN  46545

   EMail: Kent.Benson@tellabs.com

   Jean-Yves Le Boudec
   ICA-EPFL, INN
   Ecublens, CH-1015
   Lausanne-EPFL, Switzerland

   EMail: jean-yves.leboudec@epfl.ch

   Bill Courtney
   TRW
   Bldg. 201/3702
   One Space Park
   Redondo Beach, CA 90278

   EMail: bill.courtney@trw.com







Davie, et. al.              Standards Track                    [Page 14]
^L
RFC 3246              An Expedited Forwarding PHB             March 2002


   Shahram Davari
   PMC-Sierra Inc
   411 Legget Drive
   Ottawa, ON K2K 3C9, Canada

   EMail: shahram_davari@pmc-sierra.com

   Victor Firoiu
   Nortel Networks
   600 Tech Park
   Billerica, MA 01821

   EMail: vfiroiu@nortelnetworks.com

   Dimitrios Stiliadis
   Lucent Technologies
   101 Crawfords Corner Road
   Holmdel, NJ 07733

   EMail: stiliadi@bell-labs.com































Davie, et. al.              Standards Track                    [Page 15]
^L
RFC 3246              An Expedited Forwarding PHB             March 2002


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.



















Davie, et. al.              Standards Track                    [Page 16]
^L