| Transport Working Group | T. Szigeti |
| Internet-Draft | J. Henry |
| Intended status: Standards Track | Cisco Systems |
| Expires: November 26, 2017 | F. Baker |
| May 25, 2017 |
Diffserv to IEEE 802.11 Mapping
draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11-03
As internet traffic is increasingly sourced-from and destined-to wireless endpoints, it is crucial that Quality of Service be aligned between wired and wireless networks; however, this is not always the case by default. This document specifies a set Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) to IEEE 802.11 User Priority (UP) mappings to reconcile the marking recommendations offered by the IETF and the IEEE so as to maintain consistent QoS treatment between wired and IEEE 802.11 wireless networks.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 26, 2017.
Copyright (c) 2017 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.
Wireless has become the preferred medium for endpoints connecting to business and private networks. However, the wireless medium defined by IEEE 802.11 [IEEE.802.11-2016] presents several design challenges for ensuring end-to-end quality of service. Some of these challenges relate to the nature of the IEEE 802.11 RF medium itself, being a half-duplex and shared medium, while other challenges relate to the fact that the IEEE 802.11 standard is not administered by the same standards body as IP networking standards. While the IEEE has developed tools to enable QoS over wireless networks, little guidance exists on how to maintain consistency of QoS treatment between wired IP and wireless IEEE 802.11 networks. The purpose of this document is to provide such guidance.
Several RFCs outline Diffserv QoS recommendations over IP networks, including:
Note: [RFC4594] is intended to be viewed as a set of "project plans" for building all the (diffserv) furniture that one might want. Thus, it describes different types of traffic expected in IP networks and provides guidance as to what DSCP marking(s) should be associated with each traffic type. As such, this document draws heavily on [RFC4594], [RFC5127], and [RFC8100].
In turn, the relevant standard for wireless QoS is IEEE 802.11, which is being progressively updated; the current version of which (at the time of writing) is [IEEE.802.11-2016].
There is also a recommendation from the GSMA, Mapping Quality of Service (QoS) Procedures of Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) and WLAN [RFC7561]. The GSMA specification was developed without reference to existing IETF specifications for various services, referenced in Section 1.1. Thus, [RFC7561] conflicts with the overall Diffserv traffic-conditioning service plan, both in the services specified and the code points specified for them. As such, these two plans cannot be normalized. Rather, as discussed in [RFC2474] Section 2, the two domains (IEEE 802.11 and GSMA) are different Differentiated Services Domains separated by a Differentiated Services Boundary. At that boundary, code points from one domain are translated to code points for the other, and maybe to Default (zero) if there is no corresponding service to translate to.
This document is applicable to the use of Differentiated Services that interconnect with IEEE 802.11 wireless LANs (referred to as Wi-Fi, throughout this document, for simplicity). These guidelines are applicable whether the wireless access points (APs) are deployed in an autonomous manner, managed by (centralized or distributed) WLAN controllers or some hybrid deployment option. This is because in all these cases, the wireless access point is the bridge between wired and wireless media.
This document applies to IP networks using WiFi infrastructure at the link layer. Such networks typically include wired LANs with wireless access points at their edges, however, such networks can also include Wi-Fi backhaul, wireless mesh solutions or any other type of AP-to-AP wireless network that extends the wired network infrastructure.
This document is organized as follows:
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", "OPTIONAL", and "NOT RECOMMENDED" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Key terminology used in this document includes:
(Section 6 provides a brief overview of IEEE 802.11 QoS.)
The following comparisons between IEEE 802.11 and Diffserv services should be noted:
As such, these high-level considerations should be kept in mind when mapping from Diffserv to [IEEE.802.11-2016] (and vice-versa); however, access points may or may not always be positioned at Diffserv domain boundaries, as will be discussed next.
It is important to note that the wired-to-wireless edge may or may not equate to the edge of the Diffserv domain.
In most commonly-deployed WLAN models, the wireless access point represents not only the edge of the Diffserv domain, but also the edge of the network infrastructure itself. As such, only client devices (and no infrastructure devices) are downstream from the access points in these deployment models. In such deployment models, it is RECOMMENDED that all packets marked to Diffserv Codepoints not in use over the wireless network be dropped or remarked at the edge of the Diffserv domain, as will be discussed in detail in Section 4.1.1.
Alternatively, in other deployment models, such as Wi-Fi backhaul, wireless mesh infrastructures, or other types of wireless AP-to-AP deployments, the wireless access points extend the network infrastructure and thus, typically, the Diffserv domain. In such deployments, both client devices and infrastructure devices may be expected downstream from the access points.
Thus the QoS treatment of packets at the access point will depend on the position of the AP in the network infrastructure and on the WLAN deployment model.
However, regardless of the access point being at the Diffserv boundary or not, Diffserv to [IEEE.802.11-2016] (and vice-versa) marking-specific incompatibilities exist that must be reconciled, as will be discussed next.
While no explicit guidance is offered in mapping (6-Bit) Layer 3 DSCP values to (3-Bit) Layer 2 markings (such as IEEE 802.1D, 802.1p or 802.11e), a common practice in the networking industry is to map these by what we will refer to as 'Default DSCP-to-UP Mapping' (for lack of a better term), wherein the 3 Most Significant Bits (MSB) of the DSCP are used as the corresponding L2 markings.
Note: There are mappings provided in [IEEE.802.11-2016] Annex V Tables V-1 and V2, but it bears mentioning that these mappings are provided as examples (as opposed to explicit recommendations). Furthermore, some of these mappings do not align with the intent and recommendations expressed in [RFC4594], as will be discussed in this and the following section (Section 2.3).
However, when this default DSCP-to-UP mapping method is applied to packets marked per [RFC4594] recommendations and destined to 802.11 WLAN clients, it will yield a number of inconsistent QoS mappings, specifically:
It should also be noted that while [IEEE.802.11-2016] defines an intended use for each access category through the AC naming convention (for example, UP 6 and UP 7 belong to AC_VO, the Voice Access Category), [IEEE.802.11-2016] does not:
In the opposite direction of flow (the upstream direction, that is, from wireless-to-wired), many APs use what we will refer to as 'Default UP-to-DSCP Mapping' (for lack of a better term), wherein DSCP values are derived from UP values by multiplying the UP values by 8 (i.e. shifting the 3 UP bits to the left and adding three additional zeros to generate a DSCP value). This derived DSCP value is then used for QoS treatment between the wireless access point and the nearest classification and marking policy enforcement point (which may be the centralized wireless LAN controller, relatively deep within the network). Alternatively, in the case where there is no other classification and marking policy enforcement point, then this derived DSCP value will be used on the remainder of the Internet path.
It goes without saying that when 6 bits of marking granularity are derived from 3, then information is lost in translation. Servicing differentiation cannot be made for 12 classes of traffic (as recommended in [RFC4594]), but for only 8 (with one of these classes being reserved for future use (i.e. UP 7 which maps to DSCP CS7).
Such default upstream mapping can also yield several inconsistencies with [RFC4594], including:
The following sections address these limitations and concerns in order to reconcile [RFC4594] and [IEEE.802.11-2016]. First downstream (wired-to-wireless) DSCP-to-UP mappings will be aligned and then upstream (wireless-to-wired) models will be addressed.
This document assumes and RECOMMENDS that all wireless access points (as the bridges between wired-and-wireless networks) support the ability to:
This document further assumes and RECOMMENDS that all wireless endpoint devices support the ability to:
Having made the assumptions and recommendations above, it bears mentioning while the mappings presented in this document are RECOMMENDED to replace the current common default practices (as discussed in Section 2.2 and Section 2.3), these mapping recommendations are not expected to fit every last deployment model, and as such MAY be overridden by network administrators, as needed.
The following section specifies downstream (wired-to-wireless) mappings between [RFC4594] Configuration Guidelines for Diffserv Service Classes and [IEEE.802.11-2016]. As such, this section draws heavily from [RFC4594], including service class definitions and recommendations.
This section assumes [IEEE.802.11-2016] wireless access points and/or WLAN controllers that support customizable, non-default DSCP-to-UP mapping schemes.
This section also assumes that [IEEE.802.11-2016] access points and endpoint devices differentiate UP markings with corresponding queuing and dequeuing treatments. To illustrate, [IEEE.802.11-2016] displays a reference implementation model in Figure 10-24 which depicts four transmit queues, one per access category. In practical implementations, however, it is common for WLAN network equipment vendors to implement dedicated transmit queues on a per-UP (versus a per access category) basis, which are then dequeued into their associated access category in a preferred (or even in a strict priority manner). For example, it is common for vendors to dequeue UP 5 ahead of UP 4 to the hardware performing the EDCA function (EDCAF) for the Video Access Category (AC_VI). As such, Signaling traffic (marked UP 5, per the recommendations made in Section 4.2.2) may benefit from such a treatment versus other video flows in the same access category which are marked to UP 4 (in addition to a preferred treatment over flows in the Best Effort and Background access categories).
Network control traffic is defined as packet flows that are essential for stable operation of the administered network [RFC4594] Section 3. Network control traffic is different from user application control (signaling) that may be generated by some applications or services. Network control traffic MAY be split into two service classes:
The Network Control service class is used for transmitting packets between network devices (routers) that require control (routing) information to be exchanged between nodes within the administrative domain as well as across a peering point between different administrative domains. The RECOMMENDED DSCP marking for Network Control is CS6, per [RFC4594] Section 3.2.
Before discussing a mapping recommendation for Network Control traffic marked CS6 DSCP, it is interesting to note a relevant recommendation from [RFC4594] pertaining to traffic marked CS7 DSCP: in [RFC4594] Section 3.1 it is RECOMMENDED that packets marked CS7 DSCP (a codepoint that SHOULD be reserved for future use) be dropped or remarked at the edge of the Diffserv domain.
Following this recommendation, it is RECOMMENDED that all packets marked to Diffserv Codepoints not in use over the wireless network be dropped or remarked at the edge of the Diffserv domain.
It is important to note that the wired-to-wireless edge may or may not equate to the edge of the Diffserv domain, as discussed in Section 2.1; as such, this recommendation may or may not apply at the wired-to-wireless edge (and vice-versa).
In most commonly-deployed WLAN models, where wireless access point represents not only the edge of the Diffserv domain, but also the edge of the network infrastructure itself. Traffic marked CS7 DSCP SHOULD be dropped or remarked at this edge (as it is typically unused, as CS7 SHOULD be reserved for future use). Network control traffic marked CS6 DSCP SHOULD also be dropped or remarked at this edge, considering that only client devices (and no network infrastructure devices) are downstream from the wireless access points in these deployment models; such client devices would be considered as untrusted sources of a network control traffic. In such cases, no Network control traffic would be (legitimately) expected to be sent or received from wireless client endpoint devices, and thus this recommendation would apply.
Alternatively, in other deployment models, where the wireless access point extends the network infrastructure and thus, typically, the Diffserv domain, the above recommendation would not apply, as the wired-to-wireless edge does not represent the edge of the Diffserv domain. Furthermore, as these deployment models require Network Control traffic to be propagated across the wireless network, it is RECOMMENDED to map Network Control traffic marked CS6 to UP 7 (per [IEEE.802.11-2016] Section 10.2.4.2, Table 10-1), thereby admitting it to the Voice Access Category (AC_VO). Similarly, if CS7 is in use as a network control protocol it would be RECOMMENDED to map it also to UP 7.
It should be noted that encapsulated routing protocols for encapsulated or overlay networks (e.g., VPN, NVO3) are not network control traffic for any physical network at the AP, and hence SHOULD NOT be marked with CS6 in the first place.
The OAM (Operations, Administration, and Management) service class is RECOMMENDED for OAM&P (Operations, Administration, and Management and Provisioning). The RECOMMENDED DSCP marking for OAM is CS2, per [RFC4594] Section 3.3.
By default, packets marked DSCP CS2 will be mapped to UP 2 and serviced with the Background Access Category (AC_BK). Such servicing is a contradiction to the intent expressed in [RFC4594] Section 3.3. As such, it is RECOMMENDED that a non-default mapping be applied to OAM traffic, such that CS2 DSCP is mapped to UP 0, thereby admitting it to the Best Effort Access Category (AC_BE).
User traffic is defined as packet flows between different users or subscribers. It is the traffic that is sent to or from end-terminals and that supports a very wide variety of applications and services [RFC4594] Section 4.
Network administrators can categorize their applications according to the type of behavior that they require and MAY choose to support all or a subset of the defined service classes.
The Telephony service class is RECOMMENDED for applications that require real-time, very low delay, very low jitter, and very low packet loss for relatively constant-rate traffic sources (inelastic traffic sources). This service class SHOULD be used for IP telephony service. The fundamental service offered to traffic in the Telephony service class is minimum jitter, delay, and packet loss service up to a specified upper bound. The RECOMMENDED DSCP marking for Telephony is EF ([RFC4594] Section 4.1).
Traffic marked to DSCP EF will map by default to UP 5, and thus to the Video Access Category (AC_VI), rather than to the Voice Access Category (AC_VO), for which it is intended. Therefore, a non-default DSCP-to-UP mapping is RECOMMENDED, such that EF DSCP is mapped to UP 6, thereby admitting it into the Voice Access Category (AC_VO).
Similarly, the [RFC5865] VOICE-ADMIT DSCP (44/101100) is RECOMMENDED to be mapped to UP 6, thereby admitting it also into the Voice Access Category (AC_VO).
The Signaling service class is RECOMMENDED for delay-sensitive client-server (e.g. traditional telephony) and peer-to-peer application signaling. Telephony signaling includes signaling between IP phone and soft-switch, soft-client and soft-switch, and media gateway and soft-switch as well as peer-to-peer using various protocols. This service class is intended to be used for control of sessions and applications. The RECOMMENDED DSCP marking for Signaling is CS5 ([RFC4594] Section 4.2).
While Signaling is RECOMMENDED to receive a superior level of service relative to the default class (i.e. AC_BE), it does not require the highest level of service (i.e. AC_VO). This leaves only the Video Access Category (AC_VI), which it will map to by default. Therefore it is RECOMMENDED to map Signaling traffic marked CS5 DSCP to UP 5, thereby admitting it to the Video Access Category (AC_VI).
Note: Signaling traffic is not control plane traffic from the perspective of the network (but rather is data plane traffic); as such, it does not merit provisioning in the Network Control service class (marked CS6 and mapped to UP 6). However, Signaling traffic is control-plane traffic from the perspective of the voice/video telephony overlay-infrastructure. As such, Signaling should be treated with preferential servicing vs. other data plane flows. One way this may be achieved in certain WLAN deployments is by mapping Signaling traffic marked CS5 to UP 5 (as recommended above and following the EDCAF treatment logic described in Section 4.
The Multimedia Conferencing service class is RECOMMENDED for applications that require real-time service for rate-adaptive traffic. The RECOMMENDED DSCP markings for Multimedia Conferencing are AF41, AF42 and AF43 ([RFC4594] Section 4.3).
The primary media type typically carried within the Multimedia Conferencing service class is video; as such, it is RECOMMENDED to map this class into the Video Access Category (which it does by default). Specifically, it is RECOMMENDED to map AF41, AF42 and AF43 to UP 4, thereby admitting Multimedia Conferencing into the Video Access Category (AC_VI).
The Real-Time Interactive service class is RECOMMENDED for applications that require low loss and jitter and very low delay for variable rate inelastic traffic sources. Such applications may include inelastic video-conferencing applications, but may also include gaming applications (as pointed out in [RFC4594] Sections 2.1 through 2.3, and Section 4.4). The RECOMMENDED DSCP marking for Real-Time Interactive traffic is CS4 ([RFC4594] Section 4.4).
The primary media type typically carried within the Real-Time Interactive service class is video; as such, it is RECOMMENDED to map this class into the Video Access Category (which it does by default). Specifically, it is RECOMMENDED to map CS4 to UP 4, thereby admitting Real-Time Interactive traffic into the Video Access Category (AC_VI).
The Multimedia Streaming service class is RECOMMENDED for applications that require near-real-time packet forwarding of variable rate elastic traffic sources. Typically these flows are unidirectional. The RECOMMENDED DSCP markings for Multimedia Streaming are AF31, AF32 and AF33 ([RFC4594] Section 4.5).
The primary media type typically carried within the Multimedia Streaming service class is video; as such, it is RECOMMENDED to map this class into the Video Access Category. Specifically, it is RECOMMENDED to map AF31, AF32 and AF33 to UP 4, thereby admitting Multimedia Streaming into the Video Access Category (AC_VI).
The Broadcast Video service class is RECOMMENDED for applications that require near-real-time packet forwarding with very low packet loss of constant rate and variable rate inelastic traffic sources. Typically these flows are unidirectional. The RECOMMENDED DSCP marking for Broadcast Video is CS3 ([RFC4594] Section 4.6).
As directly implied by the name, the primary media type typically carried within the Broadcast Video service class is video; as such, it is RECOMMENDED to map this class into the Video Access Category. Specifically, it is RECOMMENDED to map CS4 to UP 4, thereby admitting Broadcast Video into the Video Access Category (AC_VI).
The Low-Latency Data service class is RECOMMENDED for elastic and time-sensitive data applications, often of a transactional nature, where a user is waiting for a response via the network in order to continue with a task at hand. As such, these flows are considered foreground traffic, with delays or drops to such traffic directly impacting user-productivity. The RECOMMENDED DSCP markings for Low-Latency Data are AF21, AF22 and AF23 ([RFC4594] Section 4.7).
In line with the assumption made in Section 4, mapping Low-Latency Data to UP 3 may allow such to receive a superior level of service via transmit queues servicing the EDCAF hardware for the Best Effort Access Category (AC_BE). Therefore it is RECOMMENDED to map Low-Latency Data traffic marked AF2x DSCP to UP 3, thereby admitting it to the Best Effort Access Category (AC_BE).
The High-Throughput Data service class is RECOMMENDED for elastic applications that require timely packet forwarding of variable rate traffic sources and, more specifically, is configured to provide efficient, yet constrained (when necessary) throughput for TCP longer-lived flows. These flows are typically non-user-interactive. Per [RFC4594]-Section 4.8, it can be assumed that this class will consume any available bandwidth and that packets traversing congested links may experience higher queuing delays or packet loss. It is also assumed that this traffic is elastic and responds dynamically to packet loss. The RECOMMENDED DSCP markings for High-Throughput Data are AF11, AF12 and AF13 ([RFC4594] Section 4.8).
Unfortunately, there really is no corresponding fit for the High-Throughput Data service class within the constrained 4 Access Category [IEEE.802.11-2016] model. If the High-Throughput Data service class is assigned to the Best Effort Access Category (AC_BE), then it would contend with Low-Latency Data (while [RFC4594] recommends a distinction in servicing between these service classes) as well as with the default service class; alternatively, if it is assigned to the Background Access Category (AC_BK), then it would receive a less-then-best-effort service and contend with Low-Priority Data (as discussed in Section 4.2.10).
As such, since there is no directly corresponding fit for the High-Throughout Data service class within the [IEEE.802.11-2016] model, it is generally RECOMMENDED to map High-Throughput Data to UP 0, thereby admitting it to the Best Effort Access Category (AC_BE).
The Standard service class is RECOMMENDED for traffic that has not been classified into one of the other supported forwarding service classes in the Diffserv network domain. This service class provides the Internet's "best-effort" forwarding behavior. The RECOMMENDED DSCP marking for the Standard Service Class is DF. ([RFC4594] Section 4.9)
The Standard Service Class loosely corresponds to the [IEEE.802.11-2016] Best Effort Access Category (AC_BK) and therefore it is RECOMMENDED to map Standard Service Class traffic marked DF DSCP to UP 0, thereby admitting it to the Best Effort Access Category (AC_BE).
The Low-Priority Data service class serves applications that the user is willing to accept without service assurances. This service class is specified in [RFC3662] and [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-le-phb].
The Low-Priority Data service class loosely corresponds to the [IEEE.802.11-2016] Background Access Category (AC_BK) and therefore it is RECOMMENDED to map Low-Priority Data traffic marked CS1 DSCP to UP 1, thereby admitting it to the Background Access Category (AC_BK).
Figure 1 summarizes the [RFC4594] DSCP marking recommendations mapped to [IEEE.802.11-2016] UP and access categories applied in the downstream direction (i.e. from wired-to-wireless networks).
+------------------------------------------------------------------+ | IETF Diffserv | PHB |Reference| IEEE 802.11 | | Service Class | | RFC |User Priority| Access Category | |===============+======+=========+=============+===================| | | | | 7 | AC_VO (Voice) | |Network Control| CS7 | RFC2474 | OR | |(reserved for | | | Remark/Drop at Diffserv Boundary| | future use) | | | (See Section 4.1.1) | +---------------+------+---------+-------------+-------------------+ | | | | 7 | AC_VO (Voice) | |Network Control| CS6 | RFC2474 | OR | | | | | Remark/Drop at Diffserv Boundary| | | | | (See Section 4.1.1) | +---------------+------+---------+-------------+-------------------+ | Telephony | EF | RFC3246 | 6 | AC_VO (Voice) | +---------------+------+---------+-------------+-------------------+ | VOICE-ADMIT |VOICE-| RFC5865 | 6 | AC_VO (Voice) | | |ADMIT | | | | +---------------+------+---------+-------------+-------------------+ | Signaling | CS5 | RFC2474 | 5 | AC_VI (Video) | +---------------+------+---------+-------------+-------------------+ | Multimedia | AF41 | | | | | Conferencing | AF42 | RFC2597 | 4 | AC_VI (Video) | | | AF43 | | | | +---------------+------+---------+-------------+-------------------+ | Real-Time | CS4 | RFC2474 | 4 | AC_VI (Video) | | Interactive | | | | | +---------------+------+---------+-------------+-------------------+ | Multimedia | AF31 | | | | | Streaming | AF32 | RFC2597 | 4 | AC_VI (Video) | | | AF33 | | | | +---------------+------+---------+-------------+-------------------+ |Broadcast Video| CS3 | RFC2474 | 4 | AC_VI (Video) | +---------------+------+---------+-------------+-------------------+ | Low- | AF21 | | | | | Latency | AF22 | RFC2597 | 3 |AC_BE (Best Effort)| | Data | AF23 | | | | +---------------+------+---------+-------------+-------------------+ | OAM | CS2 | RFC2474 | 0 |AC_BE (Best Effort)| +---------------+------+---------+-------------+-------------------+ | High- | AF11 | | | | | Throughput | AF12 | RFC2597 | 0 |AC_BE (Best Effort)| | Data | AF13 | | | | +---------------+------+---------+-------------+-------------------+ | Standard | DF | RFC2474 | 0 |AC_BE (Best Effort)| +---------------+------+---------+-------------+-------------------+ | Low-Priority | CS1 | RFC3662 | 1 | AC_BK (Background)| | Data | | | | | +------------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 1: Summary of Downstream DSCP to IEEE 802.11 UP and AC Mapping Recommendations
In the upstream direction (i.e. wireless-to-wired), there are three types of mapping that MAY be implemented:
Alternatively, the network administrator MAY choose to use the wireless-to-wired edge as a Diffserv boundary and explicitly set (or reset) DSCP markings according to administrative policy, thus making the wireless edge a Diffserv policy enforcement point.
Each of these options will now be considered.
Some operating systems on wireless client devices utilize a similar default DSCP-to-UP mapping scheme as described in Section 2.2. As such, this can lead to the same conflicts as described in that section, but in the upstream direction.
Therefore, to improve on these default mappings, and to achieve parity and consistency with downstream QoS, it is RECOMMENDED that such wireless client operating systems utilize instead the same DSCP-to-UP mapping recommendations presented in Section 4.
UP-to-DSCP mapping generates a DSCP value for the IP packet (either an unencapsulated IP packet or an IP packet encapsulated within a tunneling protocol such as CAPWAP - and destined towards a wireless LAN controller for decapsulation and forwarding) from the Layer 2 [IEEE.802.11-2016] UP marking. This is typically done in the manner described in Section 2.3.
It should be noted that any explicit remarking policy to be performed on such a packet only takes place at the nearest classification and marking policy enforcement point, which may be:
As such, UP-to-DSCP mapping allows for wireless L2 markings to affect the QoS treatment of a packet over the wired IP network (that is, until the packet reaches the nearest classification and marking policy enforcement point).
It should be further noted that nowhere in the [IEEE.802.11-2016] specifications is there an intent expressed for UP markings to be used to influence QoS treatment over wired IP networks. Furthermore, [RFC2474], [RFC2475] and [RFC8100] all allow for the host to set DSCP markings for end-to-end QoS treatment over IP networks. Therefore, it is NOT RECOMMENDED that wireless access points trust Layer 2 [IEEE.802.11-2016] UP markings as set by wireless hosts and subsequently perform a UP-to-DSCP mapping in the upstream direction, but rather, if wireless host markings are to be trusted (as per business requirements, technical constraints and administrative policies), then it is RECOMMENDED to trust the Layer 3 DSCP markings set by these wireless hosts instead, as is discussed in the next section.
It is NOT RECOMMENDED to trust DSCP markings from devices that are not authenticated and authorized; these are considered untrusted sources.
When business requirements and/or technical constraints and/or administrative policies require a trust function at the wireless edge, then it is RECOMMENDED to trust DSCP (over [IEEE.802.11-2016] UP markings) markings in the upstream direction, for the following reasons:
An alternative option to mapping is for the administrator to treat the wireless edge as the edge of the Diffserv domain and explicitly set (or reset) DSCP markings in the upstream direction according to administrative policy. This option is RECOMMENDED over mapping, as this typically is the most secure solution, as the network administrator directly enforces the Diffserv policy across the IP network (versus an application developer and/or the wireless endpoint device operating system developer, who may be functioning completely independently of the network administrator).
QoS is enabled on wireless networks by means of the Hybrid Coordination Function (HCF). To give better context to the enhancements in HCF that enable QoS, it may be helpful to begin with a review of the original Distributed Coordination Function (DCF).
As has been noted, the Wi-Fi medium is a shared medium, with each station-including the wireless access point-contending for the medium on equal terms. As such, it shares the same challenge as any other shared medium in requiring a mechanism to prevent (or avoid) collisions which can occur when two (or more) stations attempt simultaneous transmission.
The IEEE Ethernet working group solved this challenge by implementing a Carrier Sense Multiple Access/Collision Detection (CSMA/CD) mechanism that could detect collisions over the shared physical cable (as collisions could be detected as reflected energy pulses over the physical wire). Once a collision was detected, then a pre-defined set of rules was invoked that required stations to back off and wait random periods of time before re-attempting transmission. While CSMA/CD improved the usage of Ethernet as a shared medium, it should be noted the ultimate solution to solving Ethernet collisions was the advance of switching technologies, which treated each Ethernet cable as a dedicated collision domain.
However, unlike Ethernet (which uses physical cables), collisions cannot be directly detected over the wireless medium, as RF energy is radiated over the air and colliding bursts are not necessarily reflected back to the transmitting stations. Therefore, a different mechanism is required for this medium.
As such, the IEEE modified the CSMA/CD mechanism to adapt it to wireless networks to provide Carrier Sense Multiple Access/Collision Avoidance (CSMA/CA). The original CSMA/CA mechanism used in IEEE 802.11 was the Distributed Coordination Function. DCF is a timer-based system that leverages three key sets of timers, the slot time, interframe spaces and contention windows.
The slot time is the basic unit of time measure for both DCF and HCF, on which all other timers are based. The slot time duration varies with the different generations of data-rates and performances described by the [IEEE.802.11-2016] standard. For example, the [IEEE.802.11-2016] standard specifies the slot time to be 20 us ([IEEE.802.11-2016] Table 15-5) for legacy implementations (such as IEEE 802.11b, supporting 1, 2, 5.5 and 11 Mbps data rates), while newer implementations (including IEEE 802.11g, 80.11a, 802.11n and 802.11ac, supporting data rates from 500 Mbps to over 1 Gbps) define a shorter slot time of 9 us ([IEEE.802.11-2016], Section 17.4.4, Table 17-21).
The time interval between frames that are transmitted over the air is called the Interframe Space (IFS). Several IFS are defined in [IEEE.802.11-2016], with the two most relevant to DCF being the Short Interframe Space (SIFS) and the DCF Interframe Space (DIFS).
The SIFS is the amount of time in microseconds required for a wireless interface to process a received RF signal and its associated [IEEE.802.11-2016] frame and to generate a response frame. Like slot times, the SIFS can vary according to the performance implementation of the [IEEE.802.11-2016] standard. The SIFS for IEEE 802.11a, 802.11n and 802.11ac (in 5 GHz) is 16 us ([IEEE.802.11-2016], Section 17.4.4, Table 17-21).
Additionally, a station must sense the status of the wireless medium before transmitting. If it finds that the medium is continuously idle for the duration of a DIFS, then it is permitted to attempt transmission of a frame (after waiting an additional random backoff period, as will be discussed in the next section). If the channel is found busy during the DIFS interval, the station must defer its transmission until the medium is found idle for the duration of a DIFS interval. The DIFS is calculated as:
However, if all stations waited only a fixed amount of time before attempting transmission then collisions would be frequent. To offset this, each station must wait, not only a fixed amount of time (the DIFS), but also a random amount of time (the random backoff) prior to transmission. The range of the generated random backoff timer is bounded by the Contention Window.
Contention windows bound the range of the generated random backoff timer that each station must wait (in addition to the DIFS) before attempting transmission. The initial range is set between 0 and the Contention Window minimum value (CWmin), inclusive. The CWmin for DCF (in 5 GHz) is specified as 15 slot times ([IEEE.802.11-2016], Section 17.4.4, Table 17-21).
However, it is possible that two (or more) stations happen to pick the exact same random value within this range. If this happens then a collision may occur. At this point, the stations effectively begin the process again, waiting a DIFS and generate a new random backoff value. However, a key difference is that for this subsequent attempt, the Contention Window approximatively doubles in size (thus exponentially increasing the range of the random value). This process repeats as often as necessary if collisions continue to occur, until the maximum Contention Window size (CWmax) is reached. The CWmax for DCF is specified as 1023 slot times ([IEEE.802.11-2016], Section 17.4.4, Table 17-21).
At this point, transmission attempts may still continue (until some other pre-defined limit is reached), but the Contention Window sizes are fixed at the CWmax value.
Incidentally it may be observed that a significant amount of jitter can be introduced by this contention process for wireless transmission access. For example, the incremental transmission delay of 1023 slot times (CWmax) using 9 us slot times may be as high as 9 ms of jitter per attempt. And, as previously noted, multiple attempts can be made at CWmax.
Therefore, as can be seen from the preceding description of DCF, there is no preferential treatment of one station over another when contending for the shared wireless media; nor is there any preferential treatment of one type of traffic over another during the same contention process. To support the latter requirement, the IEEE enhanced DCF in 2005 to support QoS, specifying HCF in IEEE 802.11, which was integrated into the main IEEE 802.11 standard in 2007.
One of the key changes to the [IEEE.802.11-2016] frame format is the inclusion of a QoS Control field, with 3 bits dedicated for QoS markings. These bits are referred to the User Priority (UP) bits and these support eight distinct marking values: 0-7, inclusive.
While such markings allow for frame differentiation, these alone do not directly affect over-the-air treatment. Rather it is the non-configurable and standard-specified mapping of UP markings to [IEEE.802.11-2016] Access Categories (AC) that generate differentiated treatment over wireless media.
Pairs of UP values are mapped to four defined access categories that correspondingly specify different treatments of frames over the air. These access categories (in order of relative priority from the top down) and their corresponding UP mappings are shown in Figure 2 (adapted from [IEEE.802.11-2016], Section 10.2.4.2, Table 10-1).
+-----------------------------------------+ | User | Access | Designative | | Priority | Category | (informative) | |===========+============+================| | 7 | AC_VO | Voice | +-----------+------------+----------------+ | 6 | AC_VO | Voice | +-----------+------------+----------------+ | 5 | AC_VI | Video | +-----------+------------+----------------+ | 4 | AC_VI | Video | +-----------+------------+----------------+ | 3 | AC_BE | Best Effort | +-----------+------------+----------------+ | 0 | AC_BE | Best Effort | +-----------+------------+----------------+ | 2 | AC_BK | Background | +-----------+------------+----------------+ | 1 | AC_BK | Background | +-----------------------------------------+
Figure 2: IEEE 802.11 Access Categories and User Priority Mappings
The manner in which these four access categories achieve differentiated service over-the-air is primarily by tuning the fixed and random timers that stations have to wait before sending their respective types of traffic, as will be discussed next.
As previously mentioned, each station must wait a fixed amount of time to ensure the medium is idle before attempting transmission. With DCF, the DIFS is constant for all types of traffic. However, with [IEEE.802.11-2016] the fixed amount of time that a station has to wait will depend on the access category and is referred to as an Arbitration Interframe Space (AIFS). AIFS are defined in slot times and the AIFS per access category are shown in Figure 3 (adapted from [IEEE.802.11-2016], Section 9.4.2.29, Table 9-137).
+------------------------------------------+ | Access | Designative | AIFS | | Category | (informative) |(slot times)| |===========+=================+============| | AC_VO | Voice | 2 | +-----------+-----------------+------------+ | AC_VI | Video | 2 | +-----------+-----------------+------------+ | AC_BE | Best Effort | 3 | +-----------+-----------------+------------+ | AC_BK | Background | 7 | +-----------+-----------------+------------+
Figure 3: Arbitration Interframe Spaces by Access Category
Not only is the fixed amount of time that a station has to wait skewed according to [IEEE.802.11-2016] access category, but so are the relative sizes of the Contention Windows that bound the random backoff timers, as shown in Figure 4 (adapted from [IEEE.802.11-2016], Section 9.4.2.29, Table 9-137).
+-------------------------------------------------------+ | Access | Designative | CWmin | CWmax | | Category | (informative) |(slot times)|(slot times)| |===========+=================+============|============| | AC_VO | Voice | 3 | 7 | +-----------+-----------------+------------+------------+ | AC_VI | Video | 7 | 15 | +-----------+-----------------+------------+------------+ | AC_BE | Best Effort | 15 | 1023 | +-----------+-----------------+------------+------------+ | AC_BK | Background | 15 | 1023 | +-----------+-----------------+------------+------------+
Figure 4: Contention Window Sizes by Access Category
When the fixed and randomly generated timers are added together on a per access category basis, then traffic assigned to the Voice Access Category (i.e. traffic marked to UP 6 or 7) will receive a statistically superior service relative to traffic assigned to the Video Access Category (i.e. traffic marked UP 5 and 4), which, in turn, will receive a statistically superior service relative to traffic assigned to the Best Effort Access Category traffic (i.e. traffic marked UP 3 and 0), which finally will receive a statistically superior service relative to traffic assigned to the Background Access Category traffic (i.e. traffic marked to UP 2 and 1).
IEEE 802.11u [IEEE.802-11u.2011] is an addendum that has now been included within the main [IEEE.802.11-2016] standard, and which includes, among other enhancements, a mechanism by which wireless access points can communicate DSCP to/from UP mappings that have been configured on the wired IP network. Specifically, a QoS Map Set information element (described in [IEEE.802.11-2016] Section 9.4.2.95 and commonly referred to as the QoS Map element) is transmitted from an AP to a wireless endpoint device in an association / re-association Response frame (or within a special QoS Map Configure frame).
The purpose of the QoS Map element is to provide the mapping of higher layer Quality of Service constructs (i.e. DSCP) to User Priorities. One intended effect of receiving such a map is for the wireless endpoint device (that supports this function and is administratively configured to enable it) to perform corresponding DSCP-to-UP mapping within the device (i.e. between applications and the operating system / wireless network interface hardware drivers) to align with what the APs are mapping in the downstream direction, so as to achieve consistent end-to-end QoS in both directions.
The QoS Map element includes two key components:
1) each of the eight UP values (0-7) are associated with a range of DSCP values, and
2) (up to 21) exceptions from these range-based DSCP to/from UP mapping associations may be optionally and explicitly specified.
In line with the recommendations put forward in this document, the following recommendations apply when the QoS Map element is enabled:
1) each of the eight UP values (0-7) are RECOMMENDED to be mapped to DSCP 0 (as a baseline, so as to meet the recommendation made in Section 4.1.1 that packets marked to unused Diffserv Codepoints be remarked at the edge of the Diffserv domain), and
2) (up to 21) exceptions from this baseline mapping are RECOMMENDED to be made in line with Section 4.3, to correspond to the Diffserv Codepoints that are in use over the IP network.
It is important to note that the QoS Map element is intended to be transmitted from a wireless access point to a non-AP station. As such, the model where this element is used is that of a network where the AP is the edge of the Diffserv domain. Networks where the AP extends the Diffserv domain by connecting other APs and infrastructure devices through the IEEE 802.11 medium are not included in the cases covered by the presence of the QoS Map element, and therefore are not included in the present recommendation.
This memo asks the IANA for no new parameters.
The recommendations put forward in this document do not present any additional security concerns that do not already exist in wired and wireless devices. In fact, several of the recommendations made in this document serve to mitigate and protect wired and wireless networks from potential abuse arising from existing vulnerabilities.
For example, it may be possible for a wireless device, either a host or a network device, to mark packets in a manner that interferes with or degrades existing QoS policies. Similarly, it may be possible for a device to map L2/L3 markings in a manner that causes similar effects. Such marking or mapping may be done intentionally or unintentionally by the developers and/or users and/or administrators of such devices. To illustrate: A gaming application designed to run on a smart-phone or tablet may request that all its packets be marked DSCP EF and/or UP 6. However, if the traffic from such an application is trusted over a business network, then this could interfere with QoS policies intended to provide priority services for enterprise voice applications. To mitigate such attack vectors it is RECOMMENDED to implement security measures, such as policing EF marked packet flows, as detailed in [RFC2474] Section 7 and [RFC3246] Section 3.
Furthermore, several recommendations have been made in this document to mitigate the potential for deliberate or inadvertent violations. Specifically the following recommendations have been made for primarily security reasons:
Furthermore, it should be noted that the recommendations put forward in this document are not intended to address all attack vectors leveraging QoS marking abuse. Mechanisms that may further help mitigate security risks include strong device- and/or user-authentication, access-control, rate limiting, control-plane policing, encryption and other techniques; however, the implementation recommendations for such mechanisms are beyond the scope of this document to address in detail. Suffice it to say that the security of the devices and networks implementing QoS, including QoS mapping between wired and wireless networks, SHOULD be considered in actual deployments.
The authors wish to thank David Black, Gorry Fairhurst, Ruediger Geib, Vincent Roca, Brian Carpenter, David Blake, Cullen Jennings, David Benham and the TSVWG.
The authors also acknowledge a great many inputs, notably from David Kloper, Mark Montanez, Glen Lavers, Michael Fingleton, Sarav Radhakrishnan, Karthik Dakshinamoorthy, Simone Arena, Ranga Marathe, Ramachandra Murthy and many others.
| [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-le-phb] | Bless, R., A Lower Effort Per-Hop Behavior (LE PHB)", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-01, February 2017. |
| [IEEE.802-11u.2011] | Information technology - Telecommunications and information exchange between systems - Local and metropolitan area networks - Specific requirements - Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) specifications", IEEE Standard 802.11, 2011. | , "
| [RFC7561] | Kaippallimalil, J., Pazhyannur, R. and P. Yegani, "Mapping Quality of Service (QoS) Procedures of Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) and WLAN", RFC 7561, DOI 10.17487/RFC7561, June 2015. |