1 / 4

draft - geib -tsvwg- diffserv - intercon IETF 90, Toronto

draft - geib -tsvwg- diffserv - intercon IETF 90, Toronto. Presented by : David Black. Private discussions David Black, Fred Baker and Ruediger Geib (in progress):. RFC 2474 and RFC 2475 on DSCP remarking for ingress traffic:

sagira
Download Presentation

draft - geib -tsvwg- diffserv - intercon IETF 90, Toronto

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. draft-geib-tsvwg-diffserv-interconIETF 90, Toronto Presentedby: David Black Private discussions David Black, Fred Baker and Ruediger Geib (in progress): • RFC 2474 and RFC 2475 on DSCP remarking for ingress traffic: • RFC 2474: Packets received with an unrecognized codepoint SHOULD be forwarded as if they were marked for the Default behavior, and their codepoints should not be changed. Such packets MUST NOT cause the network node to malfunction. • RFC 2475: Ingress nodes must condition all other inbound traffic to ensure that the DS codepoints are acceptable; packets found to have unacceptable codepoints must either be discarded or must have their DS codepoints modified to acceptable values before being forwarded. For example, an ingress node receiving traffic from a domain with which no enhanced service agreement exists may reset the DS codepoint to the Default PHB codepoint[DSFIELD]. • Consequently, an interdomain agreementmust specify how all DSCPs are treated by the receiving domain. That includes the treatment of unrecognized codepoints. Rüdiger Geib

  2. draft-geib-tsvwg-diffserv-interconIETF 90, Toronto • DiffServ and MPLS (in scope for diffserv-intercon): • RFC5127 indicates how to transmit different DSCPs as part of an MPLS Treatment Aggregate. This has now been picked up by diffserv-intercon. • The MPLS Short Pipe Model (pen-ultimate hop popping), interacts with a DiffServ aware domain transporting non tunneled traffic (see next slide). Rüdiger Geib

  3. draft-geib-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon IETF 90, Toronto MPLS Short Pipe, non-tunneled IPv4 andDiffServcombined Without DS Interconschemesendingdomain DSCP/PHB Per sender DSCP/PHB mappingrequired (no DS-Interconscheme) Due to Label Switch Router MPLS Pen Ultimate Hop Popping, domaininternalDiffServclassificationisrequired in thissection.Thenumberofsupported DSCPs depends on thedomains QoS concept. IP IP Peering Router Peering Label Edge Router IP IP Label IP Peering Label Edge Router Peering Router IP IP IP DS Intercon PHBs / DSCPs leave a domainasreceived Red: DS Intercon proposes common set of PHBs and DSCPs at interconnection. Label Switch Router IP Label Edge Router 1 CPE 3 IP IP The figurescolourchange: DSCP re-marked, PHB staysthe same (orindicates suiting MPLS Treatment Aggregate). Broadband Access Router Terminatingtraffic: DSCPs oflocaldomain 2 Rüdiger Geib

  4. draft-geib-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon IETF 90, Toronto Next Steps • Current Target: Informational RFC • Slides are ahead of draft – will update draft to pick up rest of this material and discussion • Need to add discussions of IP tunneling aspects, IPv6 and MPLS based L3 VPNs. • Will document any open issues that remain. • Will solicit feedback from other carriers on their DiffServ deployments • Consult TSVWG how to make progress– will probably ask for draft adoption in Honolulu Rüdiger Geib

More Related