DSCP and other packet markings for RTCWeb QoS
draft-dhesikan-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-03

Abstract

Many networks, such as service provider and enterprise networks, can provide per packet treatments based on Differentiated Services Code Points (DSCP) on a per hop basis. This document provides the recommended DSCP values for browsers to use for various classes of traffic.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

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."

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

• 1. Introduction
• 2. Relation to Other Standards
• 3. Terminology
• 4. Inputs
• 5. DSCP Mappings
• 6. Security Considerations
• 7. IANA Considerations
• 8. Downward References
• 9. Acknowledgements
• 10. Document History
• 11. References
• 11.1. Normative References
• 11.2. Informative References
• Authors' Addresses

1. Introduction

Differentiated Services Code Points (DSCP)[RFC2474] style packet marking can help provide QoS in some environments. There are many use cases where such marking does not help, but it seldom makes things worse if packets are marked appropriately. In other words, if too many packets, say all audio or all audio and video, are marked for a given network condition then it can prevent desirable results. Either too much other traffic will be starved, or there is not enough capacity for the preferentially marked packets (i.e., audio and/or video).

This draft proposes how a browser and other VoIP applications can mark packets. This draft does not contradict or redefine any advice from previous IETF RFCs but simply provides a simple set of recommendations for implementers based on the previous RFCs.

There are some environments where priority markings frequently help. These include:

1. Private networks (Wide Area).

2. If the congested link is the broadband uplink in a Cable or DSL scenario, often residential routers/NAT support preferential treatment based on DSCP.

3. If the congested link is a local WiFi network, marking may help.

Traditionally DSCP values have been thought of as being site specific, with each site selecting its own code points for each QoS level. However in the RTCWeb use cases, the browsers need to set them to something when there is no site specific information. This document describes a reasonable default set of DSCP code point values drawn from existing RFCs and common usage. These code points are solely defaults. Future drafts may define mechanisms for site specific mappings to override the values provided in this draft.

This draft defines some inputs that the browser can look at to determine how to set the various packet markings and defines the mapping from abstract QoS policies (data type, priority level) to those packet markings.

2. Relation to Other Standards

This specification does not change or override the advice in any other standards about setting packet markings. It simply provides a summary of them and provides the context of how they relate into the RTCWeb context. In some cases, such as DSCP where the normative RFC leaves open multiple options to choose from, this clarifies which choice should be used in the RTCWeb context. This document also specifies the inputs that are needed by browser to provide to the media engine.

3. Terminology

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", and "MAY" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

4. Inputs

The following are the inputs that the browser provides to the media engine:

• Data Type: The browser provides this input as it knows if the flow is audio, interactive video with or without audio, non-interactive video with or without audio, or data.
• Priority: Another input is the relative treatment of the stream within that data type. Many applications have multiple video flows and often some are more important than others. Likewise, in a videoconference where the audio and video streams of the conference is of the same data type, the audio stream may be more important than the video stream. JavaScript applications can tell the browser whether a particular media flow is high, medium, low or very low importance to the application.

Multiplexing behaviour of multiple media streams onto a single 5-tuple is covered in draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes and is not in the scope for this document.

5. DSCP Mappings

Below is a table of DSCP markings for each data type of interest to RTCWeb. These DSCPs for each data type listed are a reasonable default set of code point values taken from [RFC4594]. A web browser SHOULD use these values to mark the appropriate media packets. More information on EF can be found in [RFC3246]. More information on AF can be found in [RFC2597].