The Internet has traditionally provided support for best effort
traffic only. However, with the recent advances in link layer
technology, and with numerous emerging real time applications such as
video conferencing and Internet telephony, there has been much
interest for developing mechanisms which enable real time services
over the Internet. A framework for meeting these new requirements
was set out in RFC 1633 [8] and this has driven the specification of
various classes of network service by the Integrated Services working
group of the IETF, such as Controlled Load and Guaranteed Service
[6,7]. Each of these service classes is designed to provide certain
Quality of Service (QoS) to traffic conforming to a specified set of
parameters. Applications are expected to choose one of these classes
according to their QoS requirements. One mechanism for end stations
to utilize such services in an IP network is provided by a QoS
signaling protocol, the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) [5]
developed by the RSVP working group of the IETF. The IEEE under its
Project 802 has defined standards for many different local area
network technologies. These all typically offer the same MAC layer
datagram service [1] to higher layer protocols such as IP although
they often provide different dynamic behavior characteristics -- it
is these that are important when considering their ability to support
real time services. Later in this memo we describe some of the
relevant characteristics of the different MAC layer LAN technologies.
In addition, IEEE 802 has defined standards for bridging multiple LAN
segments together using devices known as "MAC Bridges" or "Switches"
[2]. Recent work has also defined traffic classes, multicast
filtering, and virtual LAN capabilities for these devices [3,4].
Such LAN technologies often constitute the last hop(s) between users
and the Internet as well as being a primary building block for entire
campus networks. It is therefore necessary to provide standardized
mechanisms for using these technologies to support end-to-end real
time services. In order to do this, there must be some mechanism for
resource management at the data link layer. Resource management in
this context encompasses the functions of admission control,
scheduling, traffic policing, etc. The ISSLL (Integrated Services
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 3]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
over Specific Link Layers) working group in the IETF was chartered
with the purpose of exploring and standardizing such mechanisms for
various link layer technologies.
This document is concerned with specifying a framework for providing
Integrated Services over shared and switched LAN technologies such as
Ethernet/IEEE 802.3, Token Ring/IEEE 802.5, FDDI, etc. We begin in
Section 4 with a discussion of the capabilities of various IEEE 802
MAC layer technologies. Section 5 lists the requirements and goals
for a mechanism capable of providing Integrated Services in a LAN.
The resource management functions outlined in Section 5 are provided
by an entity referred to as a Bandwidth Manager (BM). The
architectural model of the BM is described in Section 6 and its
various components are discussed in Section 7. Some implementation
issues with respect to link layer support for Integrated Services are
examined in Section 8. Section 9 discusses a taxonomy of topologies
for the LAN technologies under consideration with an emphasis on the
capabilities of each which can be leveraged for enabling Integrated
Services. This framework makes no assumptions about the topology at
the link layer. The framework is intended to be as exhaustive as
possible; this means that it is possible that all the functions
discussed may not be supportable by a particular topology or
technology, but this should not preclude the usage of this model for
it.
The following is a list of terms used in this and other ISSLL
documents.
- Link Layer or Layer 2 or L2: Data link layer technologies such as
Ethernet/IEEE 802.3 and Token Ring/IEEE 802.5 are referred to as
Layer 2 or L2.
- Link Layer Domain or Layer 2 Domain or L2 Domain: Refers to a set
of nodes and links interconnected without passing through a L3
forwarding function. One or more IP subnets can be overlaid on a
L2 domain.
- Layer 2 or L2 Devices: Devices that only implement Layer 2
functionality as Layer 2 or L2 devices. These include IEEE 802.1D
[2] bridges or switches.
- Internetwork Layer or Layer 3 or L3: Refers to Layer 3 of the ISO
OSI model. This memo is primarily concerned with networks that
use the Internet Protocol (IP) at this layer.
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 4]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
- Layer 3 Device or L3 Device or End Station: These include hosts
and routers that use L3 and higher layer protocols or application
programs that need to make resource reservations.
- Segment: A physical L2 segment that is shared by one or more
senders. Examples of segments include: (a) a shared Ethernet or
Token Ring wire resolving contention for media access using CSMA
or token passing; (b) a half duplex link between two stations or
switches; (c) one direction of a switched full duplex link.
- Managed Segment: A managed segment is a segment with a DSBM
(designated subnet bandwidth manager, see [14]) present and
responsible for exercising admission control over requests for
resource reservation. A managed segment includes those
interconnected parts of a shared LAN that are not separated by
DSBMs.
- Traffic Class: Refers to an aggregation of data flows which are
given similar service within a switched network.
- Subnet: Used in this memo to indicate a group of L3 devices
sharing a common L3 network address prefix along with the set of
segments making up the L2 domain in which they are located.
- Bridge/Switch: A Layer 2 forwarding device as defined by IEEE
802.1D [2]. The terms bridge and switch are used synonymously in
this memo.
The user_priority is a value associated with the transmission and
reception of all frames in the IEEE 802 service model. It is
supplied by the sender that is using the MAC service and is provided
along with the data to a receiver using the MAC service. It may or
may not be actually carried over the network. Token Ring/IEEE 802.5
carries this value encoded in its FC octet while basic Ethernet/IEEE
802.3 does not carry it. IEEE 802.12 may or may not carry it
depending on the frame format in use. When the frame format in use
is IEEE 802.5, the user_priority is carried explicitly. When IEEE
802.3 frame format is used, only the two levels of priority
(high/low) that are used to determine access priority can be
recovered. This is based on the value of priority encoded in the
start delimiter of the IEEE 802.3 frame.
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 5]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
NOTE: The original IEEE 802.1D standard [2] contains the
specifications for the operation of MAC bridges. This has recently
been extended to include support for traffic classes and dynamic
multicast filtering [3]. In this document, the reader should be
aware that references to the IEEE 802.1D standard refer to [3],
unless explicitly noted otherwise.
IEEE 802.1D [3] defines a consistent way for carrying the value of
the user_priority over a bridged network consisting of Ethernet,
Token Ring, Demand Priority, FDDI or other MAC layer media using an
extended frame format. The usage of user_priority is summarized
below. We refer the interested reader to the IEEE 802.1D
specification for further information.
If the user_priority is carried explicitly in packets, its utility is
as a simple label enabling packets within a data stream in different
classes to be discriminated easily by downstream nodes without having
to parse the packet in more detail.
Apart from making the job of desktop or wiring closet switches
easier, an explicit field means they do not have to change hardware
or software as the rules for classifying packets evolve; e.g. based
on new protocols or new policies. More sophisticated Layer 3
switches, perhaps deployed in the core of a network, may be able to
provide added value by performing packet classification more
accurately and, hence, utilizing network resources more efficiently
and providing better isolation between flows. This appears to be a
good economic choice since there are likely to be very many more
desktop/wiring closet switches in a network than switches requiring
Layer 3 functionality.
The IEEE 802 specifications make no assumptions about how
user_priority is to be used by end stations or by the network.
Although IEEE 802.1D defines static priority queuing as the default
mode of operation of switches that implement multiple queues, the
user_priority is really a priority only in a loose sense since it
depends on the number of traffic classes actually implemented by a
switch. The user_priority is defined as a 3 bit quantity with a
value of 7 representing the highest priority and a value of 0 as the
lowest. The general switch algorithm is as follows. Packets are
queued within a particular traffic class based on the received
user_priority, the value of which is either obtained directly from
the packet if an IEEE 802.1Q header or IEEE 802.5 network is used, or
is assigned according to some local policy. The queue is selected
based on a mapping from user_priority (0 through 7) onto the number
of available traffic classes. A switch may implement one or more
traffic classes. The advertised IntServ parameters and the switch's
admission control behavior may be used to determine the mapping from
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 6]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
user_priority to traffic classes within the switch. A switch is not
precluded from implementing other scheduling algorithms such as
weighted fair queuing and round robin.
IEEE 802.1D makes no recommendations about how a sender should select
the value for user_priority. One of the primary purposes of this
document is to propose such usage rules, and to discuss the
communication of the semantics of these values between switches and
end stations. In the remainder of this document we use the term
traffic class synonymously with user_priority.
There is no explicit traffic class or user_priority field carried in
Ethernet packets. This means that user_priority must be regenerated
at a downstream receiver or switch according to some defaults or by
parsing further into higher layer protocol fields in the packet.
Alternatively, IEEE 802.1Q encapsulation [4] may be used which
provides an explicit user_priority field on top of the basic MAC
frame format.
For the different IP packet encapsulations used over Ethernet/IEEE
802.3, it will be necessary to adjust any admission control
calculations according to the framing and padding requirements as
shown in Table 1. Here, "ip_len" refers to the length of the IP
packet including its headers.
Table 1: Ethernet encapsulations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Encapsulation Framing Overhead IP MTU
bytes/pkt bytes
---------------------------------------------------------------
IP EtherType (ip_len<=46 bytes) 64-ip_len 1500
(1500>=ip_len>=46 bytes) 18 1500
IP EtherType over 802.1D/Q (ip_len<=42) 64-ip_len 1500*
(1500>=ip_len>=42 bytes) 22 1500*
IP EtherType over LLC/SNAP (ip_len<=40) 64-ip_len 1492
(1500>=ip_len>=40 bytes) 24 1492
---------------------------------------------------------------
*Note that the packet length of an Ethernet frame using the IEEE
802.1Q specification exceeds the current IEEE 802.3 maximum packet
length values by 4 bytes. The change of maximum MTU size for IEEE
802.1Q frames is being accommodated by IEEE 802.3ac [21].
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 7]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
The Token Ring standard [6] provides a priority mechanism that can be
used to control both the queuing of packets for transmission and the
access of packets to the shared media. The priority mechanisms are
implemented using bits within the Access Control (AC) and the Frame
Control (FC) fields of a LLC frame. The first three bits of the AC
field, the Token Priority bits, together with the last three bits of
the AC field, the Reservation bits, regulate which stations get
access to the ring. The last three bits of the FC field of a LLC
frame, the User Priority bits, are obtained from the higher layer in
the user_priority parameter when it requests transmission of a
packet. This parameter also establishes the Access Priority used by
the MAC. The user_priority value is conveyed end-to-end by the User
Priority bits in the FC field and is typically preserved through
Token Ring bridges of all types. In all cases, 0 is the lowest
priority.
Token Ring also uses a concept of Reserved Priority which relates to
the value of priority which a station uses to reserve the token for
its next transmission on the ring. When a free token is circulating,
only a station having an Access Priority greater than or equal to the
Reserved Priority in the token will be allowed to seize the token for
transmission. Readers are referred to [14] for further discussion of
this topic.
A Token Ring station is theoretically capable of separately queuing
each of the eight levels of requested user_priority and then
transmitting frames in order of priority. A station sets Reservation
bits according to the user_priority of frames that are queued for
transmission in the highest priority queue. This allows the access
mechanism to ensure that the frame with the highest priority
throughout the entire ring will be transmitted before any lower
priority frame. Annex I to the IEEE 802.5 Token Ring standard
recommends that stations send/relay frames as follows.
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 8]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
Table 2: Recommended use of Token Ring User Priority
-------------------------------------
Application User Priority
-------------------------------------
Non-time-critical data 0
- 1
- 2
- 3
LAN management 4
Time-sensitive data 5
Real-time-critical data 6
MAC frames 7
-------------------------------------
To reduce frame jitter associated with high priority traffic, the
annex also recommends that only one frame be transmitted per token
and that the maximum information field size be 4399 octets whenever
delay sensitive traffic is traversing the ring. Most existing
implementations of Token Ring bridges forward all LLC frames with a
default access priority of 4. Annex I recommends that bridges
forward LLC frames that have a user_priority greater than 4 with a
reservation equal to the user_priority (although IEEE 802.1D [3]
permits network management override this behavior). The capabilities
provided by the Token Ring architecture, such User Priority and
Reserved Priority, can provide effective support for Integrated
Services flows that require QoS guarantees.
For the different IP packet encapsulations used over Token Ring/IEEE
802.5, it will be necessary to adjust any admission control
calculations according to the framing requirements as shown in Table
3.
Table 3: Token Ring encapsulations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Encapsulation Framing Overhead IP MTU
bytes/pkt bytes
---------------------------------------------------------------
IP EtherType over 802.1D/Q 29 4370*
IP EtherType over LLC/SNAP 25 4370*
---------------------------------------------------------------
*The suggested MTU from RFC 1042 [13] is 4464 bytes but there are
issues related to discovering the maximum supported MTU between any
two points both within and between Token Ring subnets. The MTU
reported here is consistent with the IEEE 802.5 Annex I
recommendation.
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 9]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
The Fiber Distributed Data Interface (FDDI) standard [16] provides a
priority mechanism that can be used to control both the queuing of
packets for transmission and the access of packets to the shared
media. The priority mechanisms are implemented using similar
mechanisms to Token Ring described above. The standard also makes
provision for "Synchronous" data traffic with strict media access and
delay guarantees. This mode of operation is not discussed further
here and represents area within the scope of the ISSLL working group
that requires further work. In the remainder of this document, for
the discussion of QoS mechanisms, FDDI is treated as a 100 Mbps Token
Ring technology using a service interface compatible with IEEE 802
networks.
IEEE 802.12 [19] is a standard for a shared 100 Mbps LAN. Data
packets are transmitted using either the IEEE 802.3 or IEEE 802.5
frame format. The MAC protocol is called Demand Priority. Its main
characteristics with respect to QoS are the support of two service
priority levels, normal priority and high priority, and the order of
service for each of these. Data packets from all network nodes (end
hosts and bridges/switches) are served using a simple round robin
algorithm.
If the IEEE 802.3 frame format is used for data transmission then the
user_priority is encoded in the starting delimiter of the IEEE 802.12
data packet. If the IEEE 802.5 frame format is used then the
user_priority is additionally encoded in the YYY bits of the FC field
in the IEEE 802.5 packet header (see also Section 4.3). Furthermore,
the IEEE 802.1Q encapsulation with its own user_priority field may
also be applied in IEEE 802.12 networks. In all cases, switches are
able to recover any user_priority supplied by a sender.
The same rules apply for IEEE 802.12 user_priority mapping in a
bridge as with other media types. The only additional information is
that normal priority is used by default for user_priority values 0
through 4 inclusive, and high priority is used for user_priority
levels 5 through 7. This ensures that the default Token Ring
user_priority level of 4 for IEEE 802.5 bridges is mapped to normal
priority on IEEE 802.12 segments.
The medium access in IEEE 802.12 LANs is deterministic. The Demand
Priority mechanism ensures that, once the normal priority service has
been preempted, all high priority packets have strict priority over
packets with normal priority. In the event that a normal priority
packet has been waiting at the head of line of a MAC transmit queue
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 10]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
for a time period longer than PACKET_PROMOTION (200 - 300 ms) [19],
its priority is automatically promoted to high priority. Thus, even
normal priority packets have a maximum guaranteed access time to the
medium.
Integrated Services can be built on top of the IEEE 802.12 medium
access mechanism. When combined with admission control and bandwidth
enforcement mechanisms, delay guarantees as required for a Guaranteed
Service can be provided without any changes to the existing IEEE
802.12 MAC protocol.
Since the IEEE 802.12 standard supports the IEEE 802.3 and IEEE 802.5
frame formats, the same framing overhead as reported in Sections 4.2
and 4.3 must be considered in the admission control computations for
IEEE 802.12 links.
This section discusses the requirements and goals which should drive
the design of an architecture for supporting Integrated Services over
LAN technologies. The requirements refer to functions and features
which must be supported, while goals refer to functions and features
which are desirable, but are not an absolute necessity. Many of the
requirements and goals are driven by the functionality supported by
Integrated Services and RSVP.
- Resource Reservation: The mechanism must be capable of reserving
resources on a single segment or multiple segments and at
bridges/switches connecting them. It must be able to provide
reservations for both unicast and multicast sessions. It should
be possible to change the level of reservation while the session
is in progress.
- Admission Control: The mechanism must be able to estimate the
level of resources necessary to meet the QoS requested by the
session in order to decide whether or not the session can be
admitted. For the purpose of management, it is useful to provide
the ability to respond to queries about availability of resources.
It must be able to make admission control decisions for different
types of services such as Guaranteed Service, Controlled Load,
etc.
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 11]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
- Flow Separation and Scheduling: It is necessary to provide a
mechanism for traffic flow separation so that real time flows can
be given preferential treatment over best effort flows. Packets
of real time flows can then be isolated and scheduled according to
their service requirements.
- Policing/Shaping: Traffic must be shaped and/or policed by end
stations (workstations, routers) to ensure conformance to
negotiated traffic parameters. Shaping is the recommended
behavior for traffic sources. A router initiating an ISSLL
session must have implemented traffic control mechanisms according
to the IntServ requirements which would ensure that all flows sent
by the router are in conformance. The ISSLL mechanisms at the
link layer rely heavily on the correct implementation of
policing/shaping mechanisms at higher layers by devices capable of
doing so. This is necessary because bridges and switches are not
typically capable of maintaining per flow state which would be
required to check flows for conformance. Policing is left as an
option for bridges and switches, which if implemented, may be used
to enforce tighter control over traffic flows. This issue is
further discussed in Section 8.
- Soft State: The mechanism must maintain soft state information
about the reservations. This means that state information must
periodically be refreshed if the reservation is to be maintained;
otherwise the state information and corresponding reservations
will expire after some pre-specified interval.
- Centralized or Distributed Implementation: In the case of a
centralized implementation, a single entity manages the resources
of the entire subnet. This approach has the advantage of being
easier to deploy since bridges and switches may not need to be
upgraded with additional functionality. However, this approach
scales poorly with geographical size of the subnet and the number
of end stations attached. In a fully distributed implementation,
each segment will have a local entity managing its resources.
This approach has better scalability than the former. However, it
requires that all bridges and switches in the network support new
mechanisms. It is also possible to have a semi-distributed
implementation where there is more than one entity, each managing
the resources of a subset of segments and bridges/switches within
the subnet. Ideally, implementation should be flexible; i.e. a
centralized approach may be used for small subnets and a
distributed approach can be used for larger subnets. Examples of
centralized and distributed implementations are discussed in
Section 6.
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 12]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
- Scalability: The mechanism and protocols should have a low
overhead and should scale to the largest receiver groups likely to
occur within a single link layer domain.
- Fault Tolerance and Recovery: The mechanism must be able to
function in the presence of failures; i.e. there should not be a
single point of failure. For instance, in a centralized
implementation, some mechanism must be specified for back-up and
recovery in the event of failure.
- Interaction with Existing Resource Management Controls: The
interaction with existing infrastructure for resource management
needs to be specified. For example, FDDI has a resource
management mechanism called the "Synchronous Bandwidth Manager".
The mechanism must be designed so that it takes advantage of, and
specifies the interaction with, existing controls where available.
- Independence from higher layer protocols: The mechanism should,
as far as possible, be independent of higher layer protocols such
as RSVP and IP. Independence from RSVP is desirable so that it can
interwork with other reservation protocols such as ST2 [10].
Independence from IP is desirable so that it can interwork with
other network layer protocols such as IPX, NetBIOS, etc.
- Receiver heterogeneity: this refers to multicast communication
where different receivers request different levels of service.
For example, in a multicast group with many receivers, it is
possible that one of the receivers desires a lower delay bound
than the others. A better delay bound may be provided by
increasing the amount of resources reserved along the path to that
receiver while leaving the reservations for the other receivers
unchanged. In its most complex form, receiver heterogeneity
implies the ability to simultaneously provide various levels of
service as requested by different receivers. In its simplest
form, receiver heterogeneity will allow a scenario where some of
the receivers use best effort service and those requiring service
guarantees make a reservation. Receiver heterogeneity, especially
for the reserved/best effort scenario, is a very desirable
function. More details on supporting receiver heterogeneity are
provided in Section 8.
- Support for different filter styles: It is desirable to provide
support for the different filter styles defined by RSVP such as
fixed filter, shared explicit and wildcard. Some of the issues
with respect to supporting such filter styles in the link layer
domain are examined in Section 8.
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 13]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
- Path Selection: In source routed LAN technologies such as Token
Ring/IEEE 802.5, it may be useful for the mechanism to incorporate
the function of path selection. Using an appropriate path
selection mechanism may optimize utilization of network resources.
This document describes service mappings onto existing IEEE and ANSI
defined standard MAC layers and uses standard MAC layer services as
in IEEE 802.1 bridging. It does not attempt to make use of or
describe the capabilities of other proprietary or standard MAC layer
protocols although it should be noted that published work regarding
MAC layers suitable for QoS mappings exists. These are outside the
scope of the ISSLL working group charter.
This framework assumes that typical subnetworks that are concerned
about QoS will be "switch rich"; i.e. most communication between end
stations using integrated services support is expected to pass
through at least one switch. The mechanisms and protocols described
will be trivially extensible to communicating systems on the same
shared medium, but it is important not to allow problem
generalization which may complicate the targeted practical
application to switch rich LAN topologies. There have also been
developments in the area of MAC enhancements to ensure delay
deterministic access on network links e.g. IEEE 802.12 [19] and also
proprietary schemes.
Although we illustrate most examples for this model using RSVP as the
upper layer QoS signaling protocol, there are actually no real
dependencies on this protocol. RSVP could be replaced by some other
dynamic protocol, or the requests could be made by network management
or other policy entities. The SBM signaling protocol [14], which is
based upon RSVP, is designed to work seamlessly in the architecture
described in this memo.
There may be a heterogeneous mix of switches with different
capabilities, all compliant with IEEE 802.1D [2,3], but implementing
varied queuing and forwarding mechanisms ranging from simple systems
with two queues per port and static priority scheduling, to more
complex systems with multiple queues using WFQ or other algorithms.
The problem is decomposed into smaller independent parts which may
lead to sub-optimal use of the network resources but we contend that
such benefits are often equivalent to very small improvement in
network efficiency in a LAN environment. Therefore, it is a goal
that the switches in a network operate using a much simpler set of
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 14]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
information than the RSVP engine in a router. In particular, it is
assumed that such switches do not need to implement per flow queuing
and policing (although they are not precluded from doing so).
A fundamental assumption of the IntServ model is that flows are
isolated from each other throughout their transit across a network.
Intermediate queuing nodes are expected to shape or police the
traffic to ensure conformance to the negotiated traffic flow
specification. In the architecture proposed here for mapping to
Layer 2, we diverge from that assumption in the interest of
simplicity. The policing/shaping functions are assumed to be
implemented in end stations. In some LAN environments, it is
reasonable to assume that end stations are trusted to adhere to their
negotiated contracts at the inputs to the network, and that we can
afford to over-allocate resources during admission control to
compensate for the inevitable packet jitter/bunching introduced by
the switched network itself. This divergence has some implications
on the types of receiver heterogeneity that can be supported and the
statistical multiplexing gains that may be exploited, especially for
Controlled Load flows. This is discussed in Section 8.7 of this
document.
The functional requirements described in Section 5 will be performed
by an entity which we refer to as the Bandwidth Manager (BM). The BM
is responsible for providing mechanisms for an application or higher
layer protocol to request QoS from the network. For architectural
purposes, the BM consists of the following components.
The Requester Module (RM) resides in every end station in the subnet.
One of its functions is to provide an interface between applications
or higher layer protocols such as RSVP, ST2, SNMP, etc. and the BM.
An application can invoke the various functions of the BM by using
the primitives for communication with the RM and providing it with
the appropriate parameters. To initiate a reservation, in the link
layer domain, the following parameters must be passed to the RM: the
service desired (Guaranteed Service or Controlled Load), the traffic
descriptors contained in the TSpec, and an RSpec specifying the
amount of resources to be reserved [9]. More information on these
parameters may be found in the relevant Integrated Services documents
[6,7,8,9]. When RSVP is used for signaling at the network layer,
this information is available and needs to be extracted from the RSVP
PATH and RSVP RESV messages (See [5] for details). In addition to
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 15]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
these parameters, the network layer addresses of the end points must
be specified. The RM must then translate the network layer addresses
to link layer addresses and convert the request into an appropriate
format which is understood by other components of the BM responsible
admission control. The RM is also responsible for returning the
status of requests processed by the BM to the invoking application or
higher layer protocol.
The Bandwidth Allocator (BA) is responsible for performing admission
control and maintaining state about the allocation of resources in
the subnet. An end station can request various services, e.g.
bandwidth reservation, modification of an existing reservation,
queries about resource availability, etc. These requests are
processed by the BA. The communication between the end station and
the BA takes place through the RM. The location of the BA will depend
largely on the implementation method. In a centralized
implementation, the BA may reside on a single station in the subnet.
In a distributed implementation, the functions of the BA may be
distributed in all the end stations and bridges/switches as
necessary. The BA is also responsible for deciding how to label
flows, e.g. based on the admission control decision, the BA may
indicate to the RM that packets belonging to a particular flow be
tagged with some priority value which maps to the appropriate traffic
class.
The protocols for communication between the various components of the
BM system must be specified. These include the following:
- Communication between the higher layer protocols and the RM: The
BM must define primitives for the application to initiate
reservations, query the BA about available resources, change
change or delete reservations, etc. These primitives could be
implemented as an API for an application to invoke functions of
the BM via the RM.
- Communication between the RM and the BA: A signaling mechanism
must be defined for the communication between the RM and the BA.
This protocol will specify the messages which must be exchanged
between the RM and the BA in order to service various requests by
the higher layer entity.
- Communication between peer BAs: If there is more than one BA in
the subnet, a means must be specified for inter-BA communication.
Specifically, the BAs must be able to decide among themselves
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 16]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
about which BA would be responsible for which segments and bridges
or switches. Further, if a request is made for resource
reservation along the domain of multiple BAs, the BAs must be able
to handle such a scenario correctly. Inter-BA communication will
also be responsible for back-up and recovery in the event of
failure.
Example scenarios are provided showing the location of the components
of the bandwidth manager in centralized and fully distributed
implementations. Note that in either case, the RM must be present in
all end stations that need to make reservations. Essentially,
centralized or distributed refers to the implementation of the BA,
the component responsible for resource reservation and admission
control. In the figures below, "App" refers to the application
making use of the BM. It could either be a user application, or a
higher layer protocol process such as RSVP.
+---------+
.-->| BA |<--.
/ +---------+ \
/ .-->| Layer 2 |<--. \
/ / +---------+ \ \
/ / \ \
/ / \ \
+---------+ / / \ \ +---------+
| App |<----- /-/---------------------------\-\----->| App |
+---------+ / / \ \ +---------+
| RM |<----. / \ .--->| RM |
+---------+ / +---------+ +---------+ \ +---------+
| Layer 2 |<------>| Layer 2 |<------>| Layer 2 |<------>| Layer 2 |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
RSVP Host/ Intermediate Intermediate RSVP Host/
Router Bridge/Switch Bridge/Switch Router
Figure 1: Bandwidth Manager with centralized Bandwidth Allocator
Figure 1 shows a centralized implementation where a single BA is
responsible for admission control decisions for the entire subnet.
Every end station contains a RM. Intermediate bridges and switches in
the network need not have any functions of the BM since they will not
be actively participating in admission control. The RM at the end
station requesting a reservation initiates communication with its BA.
For larger subnets, a single BA may not be able to handle the
reservations for the entire subnet. In that case it would be
necessary to deploy multiple BAs, each managing the resources of a
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 17]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
non-overlapping subset of segments. In a centralized implementation,
the BA must have some knowledge of the Layer 2 topology of the subnet
e.g., link layer spanning tree information, in order to be able to
reserve resources on appropriate segments. Without this topology
information, the BM would have to reserve resources on all segments
for all flows which, in a switched network, would lead to very
inefficient utilization of resources.
+---------+ +---------+
| App |<-------------------------------------------->| App |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
| RM/BA |<------>| BA |<------>| BA |<------>| RM/BA |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
| Layer 2 |<------>| Layer 2 |<------>| Layer 2 |<------>| Layer 2 |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
RSVP Host/ Intermediate Intermediate RSVP Host/
Router Bridge/Switch Bridge/Switch Router
Figure 2: Bandwidth Manager with fully
distributed Bandwidth Allocator
Figure 2 depicts the scenario of a fully distributed bandwidth
manager. In this case, all devices in the subnet have BM
functionality. All the end hosts are still required to have a RM. In
addition, all stations actively participate in admission control.
With this approach, each BA would need only local topology
information since it is responsible for the resources on segments
that are directly connected to it. This local topology information,
such as a list of ports active on the spanning tree and which unicast
addresses are reachable from which ports, is readily available in
today's switches. Note that in the figures above, the arrows between
peer layers are used to indicate logical connectivity.
In this section we describe how the model above fits with the
existing IETF Integrated Services model of IP hosts and routers.
First, we describe Layer 3 host and router implementations. Next, we
describe how the model is applied in Layer 2 switches. Throughout we
indicate any differences between centralized and distributed
implementations. Occasional references are made to terminology from
the Subnet Bandwidth Manager specification [14].
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 18]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
We assume the same client model as IntServ and RSVP where we use the
term "client" to mean the entity handling QoS in the Layer 3 device
at each end of a Layer 2 Domain. In this model, the sending client
is responsible for local admission control and packet scheduling onto
its link in accordance with the negotiated service. As with the
IntServ model, this involves per flow scheduling with possible
traffic shaping/policing in every such originating node.
For now, we assume that the client runs an RSVP process which
presents a session establishment interface to applications, provides
signaling over the network, programs a scheduler and classifier in
the driver, and interfaces to a policy control module. In
particular, RSVP also interfaces to a local admission control module
which is the focus of this section.
The following figure, reproduced from the RSVP specification, depicts
the RSVP process in sending hosts.
+-----------------------------+
| +-------+ +-------+ | RSVP
| |Appli- | | RSVP <------------------->
| | cation<--> | |
| | | |process| +-----+|
| +-+-----+ | +->Polcy||
| | +--+--+-+ |Cntrl||
| |data | | +-----+|
|===|===========|==|==========|
| | +--------+ | +-----+|
| | | | +--->Admis||
| +-V--V-+ +---V----+ |Cntrl||
| |Class-| | Packet | +-----+|
| | ifier|==>Schedulr|===================>
| +------+ +--------+ | data
+-----------------------------+
Figure 3: RSVP in Sending Hosts
The local admission control entity within a client is responsible for
mapping Layer 3 session establishment requests into Layer 2
semantics.
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 19]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
The upper layer entity makes a request, in generalized terms to ISSLL
of the form:
"May I reserve for traffic with <traffic characteristic> with
<performance requirements> from <here> to <there> and how should I
label it?"
where
<traffic characteristic> = Sender Tspec (e.g. bandwidth, burstiness,
MTU)
<performance requirements> = FlowSpec (e.g. latency, jitter bounds)
<here> = IP address(es)
<there> = IP address(es) - may be multicast
The ISSLL functionality in the sender is illustrated in Figure 4.
The functions of the Requester Module may be summarized as follows:
- Maps the endpoints of the conversation to Layer 2 addresses in the
LAN, so that the client can determine what traffic is going where.
This function probably makes reference to the ARP protocol cache
for unicast or performs an algorithmic mapping for multicast
destinations.
- Communicates with any local Bandwidth Allocator module for local
admission control decisions.
- Formats a SBM request to the network with the mapped addresses and
flow/filter specs.
- Receives a response from the network and reports the admission
control decision to the higher layer entity, along with any
negotiated modifications to the session parameters.
- Saves any returned user_priority to be associated with this
session in a "802 header" table. This will be used when
constructing the Layer 2 headers for future data packets belonging
to this session. This table might, for example, be indexed by the
RSVP flow identifier.
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 20]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
from IP from RSVP
+----|------------|------------+
| +--V----+ +---V---+ |
| | Addr <---> | | SBM signaling
| |mapping| |Request|<----------------------->
| +---+---+ |Module | |
| | | | |
| +---+---+ | | |
| | 802 <---> | |
| | header| +-+-+-+-+ |
| +--+----+ / | | |
| | / | | +-----+ |
| | +-----+ | +->|Band-| |
| | | | |width| |
| +--V-V-+ +-----V--+ |Alloc| |
| |Class-| | Packet | +-----+ |
| | ifier|==>Schedulr|=========================>
| +------+ +--------+ | data
+------------------------------+
Figure 4: ISSLL in a Sending End Station
The Bandwidth Allocator (BA) component is only present when a
distributed BA model is implemented. When present, its function is
basically to apply local admission control for the outgoing link
bandwidth and driver's queuing resources.
The ISSLL functionality in the receiver is simpler and is illustrated
in Figure 5.
The functions of the Requester Module may be summarized as follows:
- Handles any received SBM protocol indications.
- Communicates with any local BA for local admission control
decisions.
- Passes indications up to RSVP if OK.
- Accepts confirmations from RSVP and relays them back via SBM
signaling towards the requester.
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 21]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
to RSVP to IP
^ ^
+----|------------|------+
| +--+----+ | |
SBM signaling | |Request| +---+---+ |
<-------------> |Module | | Strip | |
| +--+---++ |802 hdr| |
| | \ +---^---+ |
| +--v----+\ | |
| | Band- | \ | |
| | width| \ | |
| | Alloc | . | |
| +-------+ | | |
| +------+ +v---+----+ |
data | |Class-| | Packet | |
<==============>| ifier|==>|Scheduler| |
| +------+ +---------+ |
+------------------------+
Figure 5: ISSLL in a Receiving End Station
- May program a receive classifier and scheduler, if used, to
identify traffic classes of received packets and accord them
appropriate treatment e.g., reservation of buffers for particular
traffic classes.
- Programs the receiver to strip away link layer header information
from received packets.
The Bandwidth Allocator, present only in a distributed implementation
applies local admission control to see if a request can be supported
with appropriate local receive resources.
Where a centralized Bandwidth Allocator model is implemented,
switches do not take part in the admission control process.
Admission control is implemented by a centralized BA, e.g., a "Subnet
Bandwidth Manager" (SBM) as described in [14]. This centralized BA
may actually be co-located with a switch but its functions would not
necessarily then be closely tied with the switch's forwarding
functions as is the case with the distributed BA described below.
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 22]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
The model of Layer 2 switch behavior described here uses the
terminology of the SBM protocol as an example of an admission control
protocol. The model is equally applicable when other mechanisms,
e.g. static configuration or network management, are in use for
admission control. We define the following entities within the
switch:
- Local Admission Control Module: One of these on each port
accounts for the available bandwidth on the link attached to that
port. For half duplex links, this involves taking account of the
resources allocated to both transmit and receive flows. For full
duplex links, the input port accountant's task is trivial.
- Input SBM Module: One instance on each port performs the
"network" side of the signaling protocol for peering with clients
or other switches. It also holds knowledge about the mappings of
IntServ classes to user_priority.
- SBM Propagation Module: Relays requests that have passed
admission control at the input port to the relevant output ports'
SBM modules. This will require access to the switch's forwarding
table (Layer-2 "routing table" cf. RSVP model) and port spanning
tree state.
- Output SBM Module: Forwards requests to the next Layer 2 or Layer
3 hop.
- Classifier, Queue and Scheduler Module: The functions of this
module are basically as described by the Forwarding Process of
IEEE 802.1D (see Section 3.7 of [3]). The Classifier module
identifies the relevant QoS information from incoming packets and
uses this, together with the normal bridge forwarding database, to
decide at which output port and traffic class to enqueue the
packet. Different types of switches will use different techniques
for flow identification (see Section 8.1). In IEEE 802.1D
switches this information is the regenerated user_priority
parameter which has already been decoded by the receiving MAC
service and potentially remapped by the forwarding process (see
Section 3.7.3 of [3]). This does not preclude more sophisticated
classification rules such as the classification of individual
IntServ flows. The Queue and Scheduler implement the
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 23]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
output queues for ports and provide the algorithm for servicing
the queues for transmission onto the output link in order to
provide the promised IntServ service. Switches will implement one
or more output queues per port and all will implement at least a
basic static priority dequeuing algorithm as their default, in
accordance with IEEE 802.1D.
- Ingress Traffic Class Mapping and Policing Module: Its functions
are as described in IEEE 802.1D Section 3.7. This optional module
may police the data within traffic classes for conformance to the
negotiated parameters, and may discard packets or re-map the
user_priority. The default behavior is to pass things through
unchanged.
- Egress Traffic Class Mapping Module: Its functions are as
described in IEEE 802.1D Section 3.7. This optional module may
perform re-mapping of traffic classes on a per output port basis.
The default behavior is to pass things through unchanged.
Figure 6 shows all of the modules in an ISSLL enabled switch. The
ISSLL model is a superset of the IEEE 802.1D bridge model.
+-------------------------------+
SBM signaling | +-----+ +------+ +------+ | SBM signaling
<------------------>| IN |<->| SBM |<->| OUT |<---------------->
| | SBM | | prop.| | SBM | |
| +-++--+ +---^--+ /----+-+ |
| / | | / | |
______________| / | | | | +-------------+
| \ /+--V--+ | | +--V--+ / |
| \ ____/ |Local| | | |Local| / |
| \ / |Admis| | | |Admis| / |
| \/ |Cntrl| | | |Cntrl| / |
| +-----V+\ +-----+ | | +-----+ /+-----+ |
| |traff | \ +---+--+ +V-------+ / |egrss| |
| |class | \ |Filter| |Queue & | / |traff| |
| |map & |=====|==========>|Data- |=| Packet |=|===>|class| |
| |police| | | base| |Schedule| | |map | |
| +------+ | +------+ +--------+ | +-+---+ |
+----^---------+-------------------------------+------|------+
data in | |data out
========+ +========>
Figure 6: ISSLL in a Switch
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 24]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
On receipt of an admission control request, a switch performs the
following actions, again using SBM as an example. The behavior is
different depending on whether the "Designated SBM" for this segment
is within this switch or not. See [14] for a more detailed
specification of the DSBM/SBM actions.
- If the ingress SBM is the "Designated SBM" for this link, it
either translates any received user_priority or selects a Layer 2
traffic class which appears compatible with the request and whose
use does not violate any administrative policies in force. In
effect, it matches the requested service with the available
traffic classes and chooses the "best" one. It ensures that, if
this reservation is successful, the value of user_priority
corresponding to that traffic class is passed back to the client.
- The ingress DSBM observes the current state of allocation of
resources on the input port/link and then determines whether the
new resource allocation from the mapped traffic class can be
accommodated. The request is passed to the reservation propagator
if accepted.
- If the ingress SBM is not the "Designated SBM" for this link then
it directly passes the request on to the reservation propagator.
- The reservation propagator relays the request to the bandwidth
accountants on each of the switch's outbound links to which this
reservation would apply. This implies an interface to
routing/forwarding database.
- The egress bandwidth accountant observes the current state of
allocation of queuing resources on its outbound port and bandwidth
on the link itself and determines whether the new allocation can
be accommodated. Note that this is only a local decision at this
switch hop; further Layer 2 hops through the network may veto the
request as it passes along.
- The request, if accepted by this switch, is propagated on each
output link selected. Any user_priority described in the
forwarded request must be translated according to any egress
mapping table.
- If accepted, the switch must notify the client of the
user_priority to be used for packets belonging to that flow.
Again, this is an optimistic approach assuming that admission
control succeeds; downstream switches may refuse the request.
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 25]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
- If this switch wishes to reject the request, it can do so by
notifying the client that originated the request by means of its
Layer 2 address.
The mechanisms described in this document make use of a signaling
protocol for devices to communicate their admission control requests
across the network. The service definitions to be provided by such a
protocol e.g. [14] are described below. We illustrate the
primitives and information that need to be exchanged with such a
signaling protocol entity. In all of the examples, appropriate
delete/cleanup mechanisms will also have to be provided for tearing
down established sessions.
The following interfaces can be identified from Figures 4 and 5.
- SBM <-> Address Mapping
This is a simple lookup function which may require ARP protocol
interactions or an algorithmic mapping. The Layer 2 addresses are
needed by SBM for inclusion in its signaling messages to avoid
requiring that switches participating in the signaling have Layer
3 information to perform the mapping.
l2_addr = map_address( ip_addr )
- SBM <-> Session/Link Layer Header
This is for notifying the transmit path of how to add Layer 2
header information, e.g. user_priority values to the traffic of
each outgoing flow. The transmit path will provide the
user_priority value when it requests a MAC layer transmit
operation for each packet. The user_priority is one of the
parameters passed in the packet transmit primitive defined by the
IEEE 802 service model.
bind_l2_header( flow_id, user_priority )
- SBM <-> Classifier/Scheduler
This is for notifying transmit classifier/scheduler of any
additional Layer 2 information associated with scheduling the
transmission of a packet flow. This primitive may be unused in
some implementations or it may be used, for example, to provide
information to a transmit scheduler that is performing per traffic
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 26]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
class scheduling in addition to the per flow scheduling required
by IntServ; the Layer 2 header may be a pattern (in addition to
the FilterSpec) to be used to identify the flow's traffic.
bind_l2schedulerinfo( flow_id, , l2_header, traffic_class )
- SBM <-> Local Admission Control
This is used for applying local admission control for a session
e.g. is there enough transmit bandwidth still uncommitted for
this new session? Are there sufficient receive buffers? This
should commit the necessary resources if it succeeds. It will be
necessary to release these resources at a later stage if the
admission control fails at a subsequent node. This call would be
made, for example, by a segment's Designated SBM.
status = admit_l2session( flow_id, Tspec, FlowSpec )
- SBM <-> RSVP
This is outlined above in Section 7.1.2 and fully described in
[14].
- Management Interfaces
Some or all of the modules described by this model will also
require configuration management. It is expected that details of
the manageable objects will be specified by future work in the
ISSLL WG.
The following interfaces are identified from Figure 6.
- SBM <-> Classifier
This is for notifying the receive classifier of how to match
incoming Layer 2 information with the associated traffic class.
It may in some cases consist of a set of read only default
mappings.
bind_l2classifierinfo( flow_id, l2_header, traffic_class )
- SBM <-> Queue and Packet Scheduler
This is for notifying transmit scheduler of additional Layer 2
information associated with a given traffic class. It may be
unused in some cases (see discussion in previous section).
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 27]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
bind_l2schedulerinfo( flow_id, l2_header, traffic_class )
- SBM <-> Local Admission Control
Same as for the host discussed above.
- SBM <-> Traffic Class Map and Police
Optional configuration of any user_priority remapping that might
be implemented on ingress to and egress from the ports of a
switch. For IEEE 802.1D switches, it is likely that these
mappings will have to be consistent across all ports.
bind_l2ingressprimap( inport, in_user_pri, internal_priority )
bind_l2egressprimap( outport, internal_priority, out_user_pri )
Optional configuration of any Layer 2 policing function to be
applied on a per class basis to traffic matching the Layer 2
header. If the switch is capable of per flow policing then
existing IntServ/RSVP models will provide a service definition for
that configuration.
bind_l2policing( flow_id, l2_header, Tspec, FlowSpec )
- SBM <-> Filtering Database
SBM propagation rules need access to the Layer 2 forwarding
database to determine where to forward SBM messages. This is
analogous to RSRR interface in Layer 3 RSVP.
output_portlist = lookup_l2dest( l2_addr )
- Management Interfaces
Some or all of the modules described by this model will also
require configuration management. It is expected that details of
the manageable objects will be specified by future work in the
ISSLL working group.
As stated earlier, the Integrated Services working group has defined
various service classes offering varying degrees of QoS guarantees.
Initial effort will concentrate on enabling the Controlled Load [6]
and Guaranteed Service classes [7]. The Controlled Load service
provides a loose guarantee, informally stated as "the same as best
effort would be on an unloaded network". The Guaranteed Service
provides an upper bound on the transit delay of any packet. The
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 28]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
extent to which these services can be supported at the link layer
will depend on many factors including the topology and technology
used. Some of the mapping issues are discussed below in light of the
emerging link layer standards and the functions supported by higher
layer protocols. Considering the limitations of some of the
topologies, it may not be possible to satisfy all the requirements
for Integrated Services on a given topology. In such cases, it is
useful to consider providing support for an approximation of the
service which may suffice in most practical instances. For example,
it may not be feasible to provide policing/shaping at each network
element (bridge/switch) as required by the Controlled Load
specification. But if this task is left to the end stations, a
reasonably good approximation to the service can be obtained.
There are many LAN bridges/switches with varied capabilities for
supporting QoS. We discuss below the various kinds of devices that
that one may expect to find in a LAN environment.
The most basic bridge is one which conforms to the IEEE 802.1D
specification of 1993 [2]. This device has a single queue per output
port, and uses the spanning tree algorithm to eliminate topology
loops. Networks constructed from this kind of device cannot be
expected to provide service guarantees of any kind because of the
complete lack of traffic isolation.
The next level of bridges/switches are those which conform to the
more recently revised IEEE 802.1D specification [3]. They include
support for queuing up to eight traffic classes separately. The level
of traffic isolation provided is coarse because all flows
corresponding to a particular traffic class are aggregated. Further,
it is likely that more than one priority will map to a traffic class
depending on the number of queues implemented in the switch. It
would be difficult for such a device to offer protection against
misbehaving flows. The scope of multicast traffic may be limited by
using GMRP to only those segments which are on the path to interested
receivers.
A next step above these devices are bridges/switches which implement
optional parts of the IEEE 802.1D specification such as mapping the
received user_priority to some internal set of canonical values on a
per-input-port basis. It may also support the mapping of these
internal canonical values onto transmitted user_priority on a per-
output-port basis. With these extra capabilities, network
administrators can perform mapping of traffic classes between
specific pairs of ports, and in doing so gain more control over
admission of traffic into the protected classes.
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 29]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
Other entirely optional features that some bridges/switches may
support include classification of IntServ flows using fields in the
network layer header, per-flow policing and/or reshaping which is
essential for supporting Guaranteed Service, and more sophisticated
scheduling algorithms such as variants of weighted fair queuing to
limit the bandwidth consumed by a traffic class. Note that it is
advantageous to perform flow isolation and for all network elements
to police each flow in order to support the Controlled Load and
Guaranteed Service.
Connectionless packet networks in general, and LANs in particular,
work today because of scaling choices in network provisioning.
Typically, excess bandwidth and buffering is provisioned in the
network to absorb the traffic sourced by higher layer protocols,
often sufficient to cause their transmission windows to run out on a
statistical basis, so that network overloads are rare and transient
and the expected loading is very low.
With the advent of time-critical traffic such over-provisioning has
become far less easy to achieve. Time-critical frames may be queued
for annoyingly long periods of time behind temporary bursts of file
transfer traffic, particularly at network bottleneck points, e.g. at
the 100 Mbps to 10 Mbps transition that might occur between the riser
to the wiring closet and the final link to the user from a desktop
switch. In this case, however, if it is known a priori (either by
application design, on the basis of statistics, or by administrative
control) that time-critical traffic is a small fraction of the total
bandwidth, it suffices to give it strict priority over the non-time-
critical traffic. The worst case delay experienced by the time-
critical traffic is roughly the maximum transmission time of a
maximum length non-time-critical frame -- less than a millisecond for
10 Mbps Ethernet, and well below the end to end delay budget based on
human perception times.
When more than one priority service is to be offered by a network
element e.g. one which supports both Controlled Load as well as
Guaranteed Service, the requirements for the scheduling discipline
become more complex. In order to provide the required isolation
between the service classes, it will probably be necessary to queue
them separately. There is then an issue of how to service the queues
which requires a combination of admission control and more
intelligent queuing disciplines. As with the service specifications
themselves, the specification of queuing algorithms is beyond the
scope of this document.
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 30]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
The number of traffic classes supported and access methods of the
technology under consideration will determine how many and what
services may be supported. Native Token Ring/IEEE 802.5, for
instance, supports eight priority levels which may be mapped to one
or more traffic classes. Ethernet/IEEE 802.3 has no support for
signaling priorities within frames. However, the IEEE 802 standards
committee has recently developed a new standard for bridges/switches
related to multimedia traffic expediting and dynamic multicast
filtering [3]. A packet format for carrying a user_priority field on
all IEEE 802 LAN media types is now defined in [4]. These standards
allow for up to eight traffic classes on all media. The
user_priority bits carried in the frame are mapped to a particular
traffic class within a bridge/switch. The user_priority is signaled
on an end-to-end basis, unless overridden by bridge/switch
management. The traffic class that is used by a flow should depend
on the quality of service desired and whether the reservation is
successful or not. Therefore, a sender should use the user_priority
value which maps to the best effort traffic class until told
otherwise by the BM. The BM will, upon successful completion of
resource reservation, specify the value of user_priority to be used
by the sender for that session's data. An accompanying memo [13]
addresses the issue of mapping the various Integrated Services to
appropriate traffic classes.
One other topic under discussion in the IntServ context is how to
handle the traffic for data flows from sources that exceed their
negotiated traffic contract with the network. An approach that shows
some promise is to treat such traffic with "somewhat less than best
effort" service in order to protect traffic that is normally given
"best effort" service from having to back off. Best effort traffic
is often adaptive, using TCP or other congestion control algorithms,
and it would be unfair to penalize those flows due to badly behaved
traffic from reserved flows which are often set up by non-adaptive
applications.
A possible solution might be to assign normal best effort traffic to
one user_priority and to label excess non-conforming traffic as a
lower user_priority although the re-ordering problems that might
arise from doing this may make this solution undesirable,
particularly if the flows are using TCP. For this reason the
controlled load service recommends dropping excess traffic, rather
than re-mapping to a lower priority. This is further discussed
below.
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 31]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
In some cases, a network administrator may not trust the
user_priority values contained in packets from a source and may wish
to map these into some more suitable set of values. Alternatively,
due perhaps to equipment limitations or transition periods, the
user_priority values may need to be re-mapped as the data flows
to/from different regions of a network.
Some switches may implement such a function on input that maps
received user_priority to some internal set of values. This function
is provided by a table known in IEEE 802.1D as the User Priority
Regeneration Table (Table 3-1 in [3]). These values can then be
mapped using an output table described above onto outgoing
user_priority values. These same mappings must also be used when
applying admission control to requests that use the user_priority
values (see e.g. [14]). More sophisticated approaches are also
possible where a device polices traffic flows and adjusts their
onward user_priority based on their conformance to the admitted
traffic flow specifications.
In the figure above, SW is a bridge/switch in the link layer domain.
S1, S2, S3, R1 and R2 are end stations which are members of a group
associated with the same RSVP flow. S1, S2 and S3 are upstream end
stations. R1 and R2 are the downstream end stations which receive
traffic from all the senders. RSVP allows receivers R1 and R2 to
specify reservations which can apply to: (a) one specific sender
only (fixed filter); (b) any of two or more explicitly specified
senders (shared explicit filter); and (c) any sender in the group
(shared wildcard filter). Support for the fixed filter style is
straightforward; a separate reservation is made for the traffic from
each of the senders. However, support for the other two filter
styles has implications regarding policing; i.e. the merged flow
from the different senders must be policed so that they conform to
traffic parameters specified in the filter's RSpec. This scenario is
further complicated if the services requested by R1 and R2 are
different. Therefore, in the absence of policing within
bridges/switches, it may be possible to support only fixed filter
reservations at the link layer.
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 32]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| S1 | | S2 | | S3 |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| | |
| v |
| +-----+ |
+--------->| SW |<---------+
+-----+
| |
+----+ +----+
| |
v V
+-----+ +-----+
| R1 | | R2 |
+-----+ +-----+
Figure 7: Illustration of filter styles
At Layer 3, the IntServ model allows heterogeneous receivers for
multicast flows where different branches of a tree can have different
types of reservations for a given multicast destination. It also
supports the notion that trees may have some branches with reserved
flows and some using best effort service. If we were to treat a
Layer 2 subnet as a single network element as defined in [8], then
all of the branches of the distribution tree that lie within the
subnet could be assumed to require the same QoS treatment and be
treated as an atomic unit as regards admission control, etc. With
this assumption, the model and protocols already defined by IntServ
and RSVP already provide sufficient support for multicast
heterogeneity. Note, however, that an admission control request may
well be rejected because just one link in the subnet is
oversubscribed leading to rejection of the reservation request for
the entire subnet.
As an example, consider Figure 8, SW is a Layer 2 device
(bridge/switch) participating in resource reservation, S is the
upstream source end station and R1 and R2 are downstream end station
receivers. R1 would like to make a reservation for the flow while R2
would like to receive the flow using best effort service. S sends
RSVP PATH messages which are multicast to both R1 and R2. R1 sends
an RSVP RESV message to S requesting the reservation of resources.
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 33]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
+-----+
| S |
+-----+
|
v
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| R1 |<-----| SW |----->| R2 |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
Figure 8: Example of receiver heterogeneity
If the reservation is successful at Layer 2, the frames addressed to
the group will be categorized in the traffic class corresponding to
the service requested by R1. At SW, there must be some mechanism
which forwards the packet providing service corresponding to the
reserved traffic class at the interface to R1 while using the best
effort traffic class at the interface to R2. This may involve
changing the contents of the frame itself, or ignoring the frame
priority at the interface to R2.
Another possibility for supporting heterogeneous receivers would be
to have separate groups with distinct MAC addresses, one for each
class of service. By default, a receiver would join the "best
effort" group where the flow is classified as best effort. If the
receiver makes a reservation successfully, it can be transferred to
the group for the class of service desired. The dynamic multicast
filtering capabilities of bridges and switches implementing the IEEE
802.1D standard would be a very useful feature in such a scenario. A
given flow would be transmitted only on those segments which are on
the path between the sender and the receivers of that flow. The
obvious disadvantage of such an approach is that the sender needs to
send out multiple copies of the same packet corresponding to each
class of service desired thus potentially duplicating the traffic on
a portion of the distribution tree.
The above approaches would provide very sub-optimal utilization of
resources given the expected size and complexity of the Layer 2
subnets. Therefore, it is desirable to enable switches to apply QoS
differently on different egress branches of a tree that divide at
that switch.
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 34]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
IEEE 802.1D specifies a basic model for multicast whereby a switch
makes multicast forwarding decisions based on the destination
address. This would produce a list of output ports to which the
packet should be forwarded. In its default mode, such a switch would
use the user_priority value in received packets, or a value
regenerated on a per input port basis in the absence of an explicit
value, to enqueue the packets at each output port. Any IEEE 802.1D
switch which supports multiple traffic classes can support this
operation.
If a switch selects per port output queues based only on the incoming
user_priority, as described by IEEE 802.1D, it must treat all
branches of all multicast sessions within that user_priority class
with the same queuing mechanism. Receiver heterogeneity is then not
possible and this could well lead to the failure of an admission
control request for the whole multicast session due to a single link
being oversubscribed. Note that in the Layer 2 case as distinct from
the Layer 3 case with RSVP/IntServ, the option of having some
receivers getting the session with the requested QoS and some getting
it best effort does not exist as basic IEEE 802.1 switches are unable
to re-map the user_priority on a per link basis. This could become
an issue with heavy use of dynamic multicast sessions. If a switch
were to implement a separate user_priority mapping at each output
port, then, in some cases, reservations can use a different traffic
class on different paths that branch at such a switch in order to
provide multiple receivers with different QoS. This is possible if
all flows within a traffic class at the ingress to a switch egress in
the same traffic class on a port. For example, traffic may be
forwarded using user_priority 4 on one branch where receivers have
performed admission control and as user_priority 0 on ones where they
have not. We assume that per user_priority queuing without taking
account of input or output ports is the minimum standard
functionality for switches in a LAN environment (IEEE 802.1D) but
that more functional Layer 2 or even Layer 3 switches (i.e. routers)
can be used if even more flexible forms of heterogeneity are
considered necessary to achieve more efficient resource utilization.
The behavior of Layer 3 switches in this context is already well
standardized by the IETF.
The extent to which service guarantees can be provided by a network
depend to a large degree on the ability to provide the key functions
of flow identification and scheduling in addition to admission
control and policing. This section discusses some of the
capabilities of the LAN technologies under consideration and provides
a taxonomy of possible topologies emphasizing the capabilities of
each with regard to supporting the above functions. For the
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 35]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
technologies considered here, the basic topology of a LAN may be
shared, switched half duplex or switched full duplex. In the shared
topology, multiple senders share a single segment. Contention for
media access is resolved using protocols such as CSMA/CD in Ethernet
and token passing in Token Ring and FDDI. Switched half duplex, is
essentially a shared topology with the restriction that there are
only two transmitters contending for resources on any segment.
Finally, in a switched full duplex topology, a full bandwidth path is
available to the transmitter at each end of the link at all times.
Therefore, in this topology, there is no need for any access control
mechanism such as CSMA/CD or token passing as there is no contention
between the transmitters. Obviously, this topology provides the best
QoS capabilities. Another important element in the discussion of
topologies is the presence or absence of support for multiple traffic
classes. These were discussed earlier in Section 4.1. Depending on
the basic topology used and the ability to support traffic classes,
we identify six scenarios as follows:
1. Shared topology without traffic classes.
2. Shared topology with traffic classes.
3. Switched half duplex topology without traffic classes.
4. Switched half duplex topology with traffic classes.
5. Switched full duplex topology without traffic classes.
6. Switched full duplex topology with traffic classes.
There is also the possibility of hybrid topologies where two or more
of the above coexist. For instance, it is possible that within a
single subnet, there are some switches which support traffic classes
and some which do not. If the flow in question traverses both kinds
of switches in the network, the least common denominator will
prevail. In other words, as far as that flow is concerned, the
network is of the type corresponding to the least capable topology
that is traversed. In the following sections, we present these
scenarios in further detail for some of the different IEEE 802
network types with discussion of their abilities to support the
IntServ services.
On a full duplex switched LAN, the MAC protocol is unimportant as as
access is concerned, but must be factored into the characterization
parameters advertised by the device since the access latency is equal
to the time required to transmit the largest packet. Approximate
values for the characteristics on various media are provided in the
following tables. These delays should be also be considered in the
context of the speed of light delay which is approximately 400 ns for
typical 100 m UTP links and 7 us for typical 2 km multimode fiber
links.
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 36]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
Table 4: Full duplex switched media access latency
--------------------------------------------------
Type Speed Max Pkt Max Access
Length Latency
--------------------------------------------------
Ethernet 10 Mbps 1.2 ms 1.2 ms
100 Mbps 120 us 120 us
1 Gbps 12 us 12 us
Token Ring 4 Mbps 9 ms 9 ms
16 Mbps 9 ms 9 ms
FDDI 100 Mbps 360 us 8.4 ms
Demand Priority 100 Mbps 120 us 120 us
--------------------------------------------------
Full duplex switched network topologies offer good QoS capabilities
for both Controlled Load and Guaranteed Service when supported by
suitable queuing strategies in the switches.
Thus far, we have not discussed the difficulty of dealing with
allocation on a single shared CSMA/CD segment. As soon as any
CSMA/CD algorithm is introduced the ability to provide any form of
Guaranteed Service is seriously compromised in the absence of any
tight coupling between the multiple senders on the link. There are a
number of reasons for not offering a better solution to this problem.
Firstly, we do not believe this is a truly solvable problem as it
would require changes to the MAC protocol. IEEE 802.1 has examined
research showing disappointing simulation results for performance
guarantees on shared CSMA/CD Ethernet without MAC enhancements.
There have been proposals for enhancements to the MAC layer
protocols, e.g. BLAM and enhanced flow control in IEEE 802.3.
However, any solution involving an enhanced software MAC running
above the traditional IEEE 802.3 MAC, or other proprietary MAC
protocols, is outside the scope of the ISSLL working group and this
document. Secondly, we are not convinced that it is really an
interesting problem. While there will be end stations on shared
segments for some time to come, the number of deployed switches is
steadily increasing relative to the number of stations on shared
segments. This trend is proceeding to the point where it may be
satisfactory to have a solution which assumes that any network
communication requiring resource reservations will take place through
at least one switch or router. Put another way, the easiest upgrade
to existing Layer 2 infrastructure for QoS support is the
installation of segment switching. Only when this has been done is
it worthwhile to investigate more complex solutions involving
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 37]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
admission control. Thirdly, the core of campus networks typically
consists of solutions based on switches rather than on repeated
segments. There may be special circumstances in the future, e.g.
Gigabit buffered repeaters, but the characteristics of these devices
are different from existing CSMA/CD repeaters anyway.
Table 5: Shared Ethernet media access latency
--------------------------------------------------
Type Speed Max Pkt Max Access
Length Latency
--------------------------------------------------
Ethernet 10 Mbps 1.2 ms unbounded
100 Mbps 120 us unbounded
1 Gbps 12 us unbounded
--------------------------------------------------
Many of the same arguments for sub optimal support of Guaranteed
Service on shared media Ethernet also apply to half duplex switched
Ethernet. In essence, this topology is a medium that is shared
between at least two senders contending for packet transmission.
Unless these are tightly coupled and cooperative, there is always the
chance that the best effort traffic of one will interfere with the
reserved traffic of the other. Dealing with such a coupling would
require some form of modification to the MAC protocol.
Not withstanding the above argument, half duplex switched topologies
do seem to offer the chance to provide Controlled Load service. With
the knowledge that there are exactly two potential senders that are
both using prioritization for their Controlled Load traffic over best
effort flows, and with admission control having been done for those
flows based on that knowledge, the media access characteristics while
not deterministic are somewhat predictable. This is probably a close
enough useful approximation to the Controlled Load service.
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 38]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
Table 6: Half duplex switched Ethernet media access latency
------------------------------------------
Type Speed Max Pkt Max Access
Length Latency
------------------------------------------
Ethernet 10 Mbps 1.2 ms unbounded
100 Mbps 120 us unbounded
1 Gbps 12 us unbounded
------------------------------------------
In a shared Token Ring network, the network access time for high
priority traffic at any station is bounded and is given by
(N+1)*THTmax, where N is the number of stations sending high priority
traffic and THTmax is the maximum token holding time [14]. This
assumes that network adapters have priority queues so that
reservation of the token is done for traffic with the highest
priority currently queued in the adapter. It is easy to see that
access times can be improved by reducing N or THTmax. The
recommended default for THTmax is 10 ms [6]. N is an integer from 2
to 256 for a shared ring and 2 for a switched half duplex topology.
A similar analysis applies for FDDI.
Table 7: Half duplex switched and shared Token
Ring media access latency
----------------------------------------------------
Type Speed Max Pkt Max Access
Length Latency
----------------------------------------------------
Token Ring 4/16 Mbps shared 9 ms 2570 ms
4/16 Mbps switched 9 ms 30 ms
FDDI 100 Mbps 360 us 8 ms
----------------------------------------------------
Given that access time is bounded, it is possible to provide an upper
bound for end-to-end delays as required by Guaranteed Service
assuming that traffic of this class uses the highest priority
allowable for user traffic. The actual number of stations that send
traffic mapped into the same traffic class as Guaranteed Service may
vary over time but, from an admission control standpoint, this value
is needed a priori. The admission control entity must therefore use
a fixed value for N, which may be the total number of stations on the
ring or some lower value if it is desired to keep the offered delay
guarantees smaller. If the value of N used is lower than the total
number of stations on the ring, admission control must ensure that
the number of stations sending high priority traffic never exceeds
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 39]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
this number. This approach allows admission control to estimate
worst case access delays assuming that all of the N stations are
sending high priority data even though, in most cases, this will mean
that delays are significantly overestimated.
Assuming that Controlled Load flows use a traffic class lower than
that used by Guaranteed Service, no upper bound on access latency can
be provided for Controlled Load flows. However, Controlled Load
flows will receive better service than best effort flows.
Note that on many existing shared Token Rings, bridges transmit
frames using an Access Priority (see Section 4.3) value of 4
irrespective of the user_priority carried in the frame control field
of the frame. Therefore, existing bridges would need to be
reconfigured or modified before the above access time bounds can
actually be used.
In IEEE 802.12 networks, communication between end nodes and hubs and
between the hubs themselves is based on the exchange of link control
signals. These signals are used to control access to the shared
medium. If a hub, for example, receives a high priority request
while another hub is in the process of serving normal priority
requests, then the service of the latter hub can effectively be
preempted in order to serve the high priority request first. After
the network has processed all high priority requests, it resumes the
normal priority service at the point in the network at which it was
interrupted.
The network access time for high priority packets is basically the
time needed to preempt normal priority network service. This access
time is bounded and it depends on the physical layer and on the
topology of the shared network. The physical layer has a significant
impact when operating in half duplex mode as, e.g. when used across
unshielded twisted pair cabling (UTP) links, because link control
signals cannot be exchanged while a packet is transmitted over the
link. Therefore the network topology has to be considered since, in
larger shared networks, the link control signals must potentially
traverse several links and hubs before they can reach the hub which
has the network control function. This may delay the preemption of
the normal priority service and hence increase the upper bound that
may be guaranteed.
Upper bounds on the high priority access time are given below for a
UTP physical layer and a cable length of 100 m between all end nodes
and hubs using a maximum propagation delay of 570 ns as defined in
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 40]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
[19]. These values consider the worst case signaling overhead and
assume the transmission of maximum sized normal priority data packets
while the normal priority service is being preempted.
Table 8: Half duplex switched Demand Priority UTP access latency
------------------------------------------------------------
Type Speed Max Pkt Max Access
Length Latency
------------------------------------------------------------
Demand Priority 100 Mbps, 802.3 pkt, UTP 120 us 254 us
802.5 pkt, UTP 360 us 733 us
------------------------------------------------------------
Shared IEEE 802.12 topologies can be classified using the hub
cascading level "N". The simplest topology is the single hub network
(N = 1). For a UTP physical layer, a maximum cascading level of N =
5 is supported by the standard. Large shared networks with many
hundreds of nodes may be built with a level 2 topology. The
bandwidth manager could be informed about the actual cascading level
by network management mechanisms and can use this information in its
admission control algorithms.
In contrast to UTP, the fiber optic physical layer operates in dual
simplex mode. Upper bounds for the high priority access time are
given below for 2 km multimode fiber links with a propagation delay
of 10 us.
For shared media with distances of up to 2 km between all end nodes
and hubs, the IEEE 802.12 standard allows a maximum cascading level
of 2. Higher levels of cascaded topologies are supported but require
a reduction of the distances [15].
The bounded access delay and deterministic network access allow the
support of service commitments required for Guaranteed Service and
Controlled Load, even on shared media topologies. The support of
just two priority levels in 802.12, however, limits the number of
services that can simultaneously be implemented across the network.
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 41]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
Table 9: Shared Demand Priority UTP access latency
----------------------------------------------------------------
Type Speed Max Pkt Max Access Topology
Length Latency
----------------------------------------------------------------
Demand Priority 100 Mbps, 802.3 pkt 120 us 262 us N = 1
120 us 554 us N = 2
120 us 878 us N = 3
120 us 1.24 ms N = 4
120 us 1.63 ms N = 5
Demand Priority 100 Mbps, 802.5 pkt 360 us 722 us N = 1
360 us 1.41 ms N = 2
360 us 2.32 ms N = 3
360 us 3.16 ms N = 4
360 us 4.03 ms N = 5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Table 10: Half duplex switched Demand Priority
fiber access latency
-------------------------------------------------------------
Type Speed Max Pkt Max Access
Length Latency
-------------------------------------------------------------
Demand Priority 100 Mbps, 802.3 pkt, fiber 120 us 139 us
802.5 pkt, fiber 360 us 379 us
-------------------------------------------------------------
Table 11: Shared Demand Priority fiber access latency
---------------------------------------------------------------
Type Speed Max Pkt Max Access Topology
Length Latency
---------------------------------------------------------------
Demand Priority 100 Mbps, 802.3 pkt 120 us 160 us N = 1
120 us 202 us N = 2
Demand Priority 100 Mbps, 802.5 pkt 360 us 400 us N = 1
360 us 682 us N = 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
An obvious concern is the complexity of this model. It essentially
does what RSVP already does at Layer 3, so why do we think we can do
better by reinventing the solution to this problem at Layer 2?
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 42]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
The key is that there are a number of simple Layer 2 scenarios that
cover a considerable portion of the real QoS problems that will
occur. A solution that covers the majority of problems at
significantly lower cost is beneficial. Full RSVP/IntServ with per
flow queuing in strategically positioned high function switches or
routers may be needed to completely resolve all issues, but devices
implementing the architecture described in herein will allow for a
significantly simpler network.
This document has specified a framework for providing Integrated
Services over shared and switched LAN technologies. The ability to
provide QoS guarantees necessitates some form of admission control
and resource management. The requirements and goals of a resource
management scheme for subnets have been identified and discussed. We
refer to the entire resource management scheme as a Bandwidth
Manager. Architectural considerations were discussed and examples
were provided to illustrate possible implementations of a Bandwidth
Manager. Some of the issues involved in mapping the services from
higher layers to the link layer have also been discussed.
Accompanying memos from the ISSLL working group address service
mapping issues [13] and provide a protocol specification for the
Bandwidth Manager protocol [14] based on the requirements and goals
discussed in this document.
References
[1] IEEE Standards for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks:
Overview and Architecture, ANSI/IEEE Std 802, 1990.
[2] ISO/IEC 10038 Information technology - Telecommunications and
information exchange between systems - Local area networks -
Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges, (also ANSI/IEEE Std 802.1D-
1993), 1993.
[3] ISO/IEC 15802-3 Information technology - Telecommunications and
information exchange between systems - Local and metropolitan
area networks - Common specifications - Part 3: Media Access
Control (MAC) bridges (also ANSI/IEEE Std 802.1D-1998), 1998.
[4] IEEE Standards for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks:
Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks, IEEE Std 802.1Q-1998, 1998.
[5] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S. and S. Jamin,
"Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) - Version 1 Functional
Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 43]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
[6] Wroclawski, J., "Specification of the Controlled Load Network
Element Service", RFC 2211, September 1997.
[7] Shenker, S., Partridge, C. and R. Guerin, "Specification of
Guaranteed Quality of Service", RFC 2212, September 1997.
[8] Braden, R., Clark, D. and S. Shenker, "Integrated Services in
the Internet Architecture: An Overview", RFC 1633, June 1994.
[9] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated Services",
RFC 2210, September 1997.
[10] Shenker, S. and J. Wroclawski, "Network Element Service
Specification Template", RFC 2216, September 1997.
[11] Shenker, S. and J. Wroclawski, "General Characterization
Parameters for Integrated Service Network Elements", RFC 2215,
September 1997.
[12] Delgrossi, L. and L. Berger (Editors), "Internet Stream Protocol
Version 2 (ST2) Protocol Specification - Version ST2+", RFC
1819, August 1995.
[13] Seaman, M., Smith, A. and E. Crawley, "Integrated Service
Mappings on IEEE 802 Networks", RFC 2815, May 2000.
[14] Yavatkar, R., Hoffman, D., Bernet, Y. and F. Baker, "SBM Subnet
Bandwidth Manager): Protocol for RSVP-based Admission Control
Over IEEE 802-style Networks", RFC 2814, May 2000.
[15] ISO/IEC 8802-3 Information technology - Telecommunications and
information exchange between systems - Local and metropolitan
area networks - Common specifications - Part 3: Carrier Sense
Multiple Access with Collision Detection (CSMA/CD) Access Method
and Physical Layer Specifications, (also ANSI/IEEE Std 802.3-
1996), 1996.
[15] ISO/IEC 8802-5 Information technology - Telecommunications and
information exchange between systems - Local and metropolitan
area networks - Common specifications - Part 5: Token Ring
Access Method and Physical Layer Specifications, (also ANSI/IEEE
Std 802.5-1995), 1995.
[17] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "A Standard for the Transmission of
IP Datagrams over IEEE 802 Networks", STD 43, RFC 1042, February
1988.
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 44]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
[18] C. Bisdikian, B. V. Patel, F. Schaffa, and M Willebeek-LeMair,
The Use of Priorities on Token Ring Networks for Multimedia
Traffic, IEEE Network, Nov/Dec 1995.
[19] IEEE Standards for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Demand
Priority Access Method, Physical Layer and Repeater
Specification for 100 Mb/s Operation, IEEE Std 802.12-1995.
[20] Fiber Distributed Data Interface MAC, ANSI Std. X3.139-1987.
[21] ISO/IEC 15802-3 Information technology - Telecommunications and
information exchange between systems - Local and metropolitan
area networks - Specific requirements - Supplement to Carrier
Sense Multiple Access with Collision Detection (CSMA/CD) Access
Method and Physical Layer Specifications - Frame Extensions for
Virtual Bridged Local Area Network (VLAN) Tagging on 802.3
Networks, IEEE Std 802.3ac-1998 (Supplement to IEEE 802.3 1998
Edition), 1998.
Security Considerations
Implementation of the model described in this memo creates no known
new avenues for malicious attack on the network infrastructure.
However, readers are referred to Section 2.8 of the RSVP
specification [5] for a discussion of the impact of the use of
admission control signaling protocols on network security.
Acknowledgements
Much of the work presented in this document has benefited greatly
from discussion held at the meetings of the Integrated Services over
Specific Link Layers (ISSLL) working group. We would like to
acknowledge contributions from the many participants via discussion
at these meetings and on the mailing list. We would especially like
to thank Eric Crawley, Don Hoffman and Raj Yavatkar for contributions
via previous Internet drafts, and Peter Kim for contributing the text
about Demand Priority networks.
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 45]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
Authors' Addresses
Anoop Ghanwani
Nortel Networks
600 Technology Park Dr
Billerica, MA 01821, USA
Phone: +1-978-288-4514
EMail: aghanwan@nortelnetworks.com
Wayne Pace
IBM Corporation
P. O. Box 12195
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
Phone: +1-919-254-4930
EMail: pacew@us.ibm.com
Vijay Srinivasan
CoSine Communications
1200 Bridge Parkway
Redwood City, CA 94065, USA
Phone: +1-650-628-4892
EMail: vijay@cosinecom.com
Andrew Smith
Extreme Networks
3585 Monroe St
Santa Clara, CA 95051, USA
Phone: +1-408-579-2821
EMail: andrew@extremenetworks.com
Mick Seaman
Telseon
480 S. California Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94306
USA
Email: mick@telseon.com
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 46]
RFC 2816 Framework for Int-Serv Over IEEE 802 LAN May 2000
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). 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.
Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 47]