Internet DRAFT - draft-zhang-mpls-l-e-lsp
draft-zhang-mpls-l-e-lsp
MPLS Working Group LE ZHANG
Internet Draft HUAWEI
GANG CHEN
HUAWEI
Expires: April 2006 October 17, 2005
LABEL-EXP-Inferred-Label Switched Paths
draft-zhang-mpls-l-e-lsp-00.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that
any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is
aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she
becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of
BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 17, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
Solutions have been specified in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)
Support of Differentiated Services(Diff-Serv) defined in RFC3270.
This document describes a new type of Differentiated Services(Diff-
ZHANG Expires April 17, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-zhang-mpls-L-E-LSP-00.txt October 2005
Serv) LSP: LABEL-EXP-Inferred-LSP(L-E-LSP).It uses both Label and EXP
bits for Differentiated Services.
Table of Contents
1. Introduce...................................................2
2. Terminology.................................................2
3. L-E-LSP.....................................................3
3.1. Extension to RSVP-TE DiffServ Object...................3
3.2. procedure of L-E-LSP establishment.....................4
4. Security Considerations.....................................5
5. Conclusions.................................................5
6. Acknowledgments.............................................6
7. References..................................................7
7.1. Normative References...................................7
7.2. Informative References.................................7
Author's Addresses.............................................7
Intellectual Property Statement................................8
Disclaimer of Validity.........................................8
Copyright Statement............................................9
Acknowledgment.................................................9
1. Introduction
[RFC3270] specifies a set of MPLS Diff-Serv rules and two types of
LSP for MPLS Diff-Serv: Label-Only-Inferred-PSC LSPs (L-LSP) and EXP-
Inferred-PSC LSPs (E-LSP) But, the E-LSP only provides up to 8 types
of Service class, which is not enough for some situations; and L-LSP
requires a special LSP-Tunnel for each service class, which uses a
lot of resources.
In this draft, we provide a new type of Diff-Serv LSP: L-E-LSP, which
use both Label field and EXP field to determine Diff-Serv class.
2. Terminology
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 [1]. The use
of the term, "silently ignore" is not defined in RFC 2119. However,
the term is used in this document and can be similarly construed.
draft-zhang-mpls-L-E-LSP-00.txt Expires April 17, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-zhang-mpls-L-E-LSP-00.txt October 2005
This document borrows all of the terminology from RFC3270.
3. LABEL-EXP-Inferred-LSP(L-E-LSP)
3.1. Extension to RSVP-TE DiffServ Object
Based on RFC3270 5.2 DIFFSERV Object, we define a new C-Type for L-E-
LSP.
class = 65, C_Type = TBD
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | PSC |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | MAPnb |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MAP (1) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// ... //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MAP (MAPnb) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Extension of DiffServ Object
draft-zhang-mpls-L-E-LSP-00.txt Expires April 17, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-zhang-mpls-L-E-LSP-00.txt October 2005
Reserved1 : 16 bits.
This field is reserved. It must be set to zero on transmission
and must be ignored on receipt.
PSC : 16 bits
The PSC indicates a PHB Scheduling Class to be supported by the
LSP. The PSC is encoded as specified in [PHBID].
Reserved2 : 28 bits
This field is reserved. It must be set to zero on transmission
and must be ignored on receipt.
MAPnb : 4 bits
Indicates the number of MAP entries included in the DIFFSERV
Object. This can be set to any value from 0 to 8.
MAP : 32 bits
Each MAP entry defines the mapping between one EXP field value
and one PHB.
3.2. Procedure of L-E-LSP establishment
[R1]--------[R2]---------[R5]
\ /
[R3]----------- [R4]
Figure 2: procedure of L-E-LSP establishment
draft-zhang-mpls-L-E-LSP-00.txt Expires April 17, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-zhang-mpls-L-E-LSP-00.txt October 2005
Suppose there are two types of class services now: data service and
voice service. In each service there are sub-class services: golden
service, silver service and common service. The topology is as figure
2. Each link has 100M bandwidth, and each service need 80M bandwidth.
To setup L-E-LSP, we determine the service class requirements of two
services: data service and voice service. Because the voice service
needs low delay quality service, voice traffic is given higher
priority than data service, we choose the shortest path R1->R2->R5
for voice service, and the LSP for Voice get the name LSP125. In
DiffServ Object, it appears with the PSC1. For data service, because
the shortest path R1->R2->R5 no longer has enough bandwidth (100M -
80M, not enough), we have to choose path R1->R3->R4->R5 for data
service, and the LSP for Voice get the name LSP1345.
Voice service has sub-class service: golden service, silver service
and common service. For this, we have three PHBIDs in DiffServ Object,
and they map to three different EXP bits. Now we can setup the L-E-
LSP, it has three sub-class, with the PSC1+EXP1, PSC1+EXP2 and
PSC1+EXP3. Each sub-class will has its own qos quality service.
For data service's sub-class, it also setup L-E-LSP: PSC2+EXP1,
PSC2+EXP2 and PSC2+EXP3.
4. Forwarding
Ingress: the router collects the information from packet, and
determine which service class the packet belongs to (for example,
data service or voice service), and which sub-class it belongs to
(golden, silver or common). For golden voice service, the packet will
be mapped into LSP125, and the EXP bits of the label will be set to
EXP1. The Router will do the QOS behavior based on the information,
and then send packet out along LSP125.
Transmit and egress: the router determines the service class QOS
information based on the in label, and the sub-class service based on
EXP bits. The router provides the QOS behavior based on the class
service, and the sub-class service. When the behavior is done, the
router will forward the packet to its nexthop.
5. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any new security issues beyond those
inherent in Diff-Serv, MPLS and RSVP, and may use the same
mechanisms proposed for those technologies.
draft-zhang-mpls-L-E-LSP-00.txt Expires April 17, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-zhang-mpls-L-E-LSP-00.txt October 2005
6. Conclusions
This document described a kind of technique that provide a new type
of MPLS Diffserv LSP. It merges the E-LSP and L-LSP, provide more QOS
classes of service than E-LSP without consuming resources on a per-
class basis, as L-LSP does.
7. Acknowledgments
draft-zhang-mpls-L-E-LSP-00.txt Expires April 17, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-zhang-mpls-L-E-LSP-00.txt October 2005
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Crocker, D. and Overell, P.(Editors), "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, Internet Mail Consortium and
Demon Internet Ltd., November 1997.
[3] L. Wu, S., "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of
Differentiated Services", RFC3270, May 2002
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2234] Crocker, D. and Overell, P.(Editors), "Augmented BNF for
Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, Internet Mail
Consortium and Demon Internet Ltd., November 1997.
[RFC3270] L. Wu, S., "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support
of Differentiated Services", RFC3270, May 2002.
8.2. Informative References
[4] Faber, T., Touch, J. and W. Yue, "The TIME-WAIT state in TCP
and Its Effect on Busy Servers", Proc. Infocom 1999 pp. 1573-
1583.
[Fab1999] Faber, T., Touch, J. and W. Yue, "The TIME-WAIT state in
TCP and Its Effect on Busy Servers", Proc. Infocom 1999 pp.
1573-1583.
Author's Addresses
LE ZHANGLE
HUAWEI
Hua Wei Bld.,No.3 Xinxi Rd.,
Shang-Di Information Industry Base
Hai-Dian District
Beijing P.R.China
Phone: +86 010 82882037
Email: zhangle@huawei.com
draft-zhang-mpls-L-E-LSP-00.txt Expires April 17, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-zhang-mpls-L-E-LSP-00.txt October 2005
GANG CHEN
HUAWEI
Hua Wei Bld.,No.3 Xinxi Rd.,
Shang-Di Information Industry Base
Hai-Dian District
Beijing P.R.China
Phone: +86 010 82882037
Email: chengang@huawei.com
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
draft-zhang-mpls-L-E-LSP-00.txt Expires April 17, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft draft-zhang-mpls-L-E-LSP-00.txt October 2005
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
draft-zhang-mpls-L-E-LSP-00.txt Expires April 17, 2006 [Page 9]
