Internet DRAFT - draft-eurescom-p1006-ef-pics
draft-eurescom-p1006-ef-pics
Internet Draft R. Geib
<draft-eurescom-p1006-ef-pics-00.txt> Deutsche Telekom T-Nova
Expires: April 2001 J. Carapinha
Portugal Telecom Inovacao
P. Castelli
CSELT
H. J. Einsiedler
Deutsche Telekom T-Nova
A. J. Elizondo
Telefonica I+D
M. Krampell
EURESCOM GmbH
J. Quittek
NEC Europe Ltd.
I. Svinnset
Telenor AS
B. Varga
MATAV
Rod Webb
Corning
30 October 2000
Protocol Implementation Conformance Statement
for the Expedited Forwarding Per-Hop Behavior
<draft-eurescom-p1006-ef-pics-00.txt>
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Geib et al. draft-eurescom-p1006-ef-pics-00 [Page 1]
Internet Draft PICS for the EF PHB 30 October 2000
This document is an output of the EURESCOM project P1006:
"Differentiated Services - Network Configuration and Management"
(http://www.eurescom.de/Public/Projects/P1000-series/P1006/P1006.htm)
Abstract
This document provides the Protocol Implementation Conformance
Statement (PICS) form for the Expedited Forwarding (EF) Per Hop
Behaviour (PHB) as defined in RFC 2598. Additional requirements posed
by RFC 2475 and RFC 2474 are taken into account where applicable. The
purpose of this PICS is to provide a mechanism whereby a supplier of
an implementation of the requirements defined in RFC 2598, RFC 2475
and RFC 2474 may provide information about the implementation in a
unified manner.
Table of content
1. Introduction
2. Implementation Conformance Statements
2.1. Traffic Classification and Conditioning
2.1.1. Classification
2.1.2. Traffic Profiling
2.1.3. Conditioning
2.2. Forwarding
3. Security Considerations
4. References
5. Authors Addresses
1. Introduction
To evaluate conformance of a particular implementation, it is
necessary to have a statement of which capabilities and options have
been implemented for a given specification. Such a statement is
called Implementation Conformance Statement (ICS). An ICS for an
implementation or system claimed to conform to a given protocol
specification is called Protocol ICS (PICS).
This document provides the PICS form for the EF PHB. It describes the
requirements that SHALL be satisfied by any conformant implementation
of the EF PHB. The requirements listed in this document are defined
by RFC 2598 [RFC2598]; additional requirements defined by RFC 2474
[RFC2474] and RFC 2475 [RFC2475] are also taken into account where
applicable.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
Geib et al. draft-eurescom-p1006-ef-pics-00 [Page 2]
Internet Draft PICS for the EF PHB 30 October 2000
A version of this form in the Portable Document Format (PDF) is
available at
http://www.eurescom.de/public/projectresults/p1000-series/1006ts2.htm
2. Implementation Conformance Statements
The PICS contained in this document is comprised of information in a
tabular form. The meaning of the different columns is the following:
- Description column: it provides a short text description of the
item (requirement) to be evaluated. It implicitly means "is the
<description> supported by the implementation?"
- Reference column: it gives reference to the Section of RFC 2598,
RFC 2474 or RFC 2475 in which the item is defined.
- Status column: it provides the quality of the item according to
the referenced RFCs. The status of the item may assume one out of
the following values:
- Mandatory (RFC says MUST): the capability is REQUIRED to be
supported.
- Optional (RFC says SHOULD or MAY): the capability SHOULD/MAY
be supported or not.
- Conditional: the capability is applicable only if one or
more earlier optional or conditional capabilities are
implemented. If applicable, a conditional item can be either
mandatory or optional (see notes on conditional items below).
- Yes/No column: this column SHALL be filled with "yes" if the
capability is supported by the implementation, it SHALL be filled
with "no" if the capability is not supported by the
implementation.
Notes on Conditional items:
(1): If (2=Yes) or (3=Yes) or (4=Yes) or (5=Yes) or (6=Yes)
then Optional else N/A
(2): If (13=Yes) then Mandatory else N/A
(3): If (13=Yes) then Optional else N/A
(4): If (19=Yes) or (20=Yes) then Mandatory else N/A
Information about the implementation provider:
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Form filled in by | |
| (Company/Institution) | |
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Responsible person | |
| (First name, surname) | |
Geib et al. draft-eurescom-p1006-ef-pics-00 [Page 3]
Internet Draft PICS for the EF PHB 30 October 2000
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Company address | |
| (Name, street, | |
| town, country) | |
| | |
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Phone | |
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Fax | |
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| E-mail | |
+-----------------------+--------------------------+----------------+
| The information can be made public | |
| (including other manufactures/vendors): (yes/no) | |
+--------------------------------------------------+----------------+
2.1. Traffic Classification and Conditioning
2.1.1. Classification
+-----------------------------------+------------+---------+--------+
| Description | Reference | Status | Yes/No |
+-----------------------------------+------------+---------+--------+
| Behavior Aggregate |
+-----------------------------------+------------+---------+--------+
| 1. Does your system classify | RFC 2475 | Option. | |
| incoming IP traffic according | Sec 2.3.1, | | |
| to the DS Codepoint 101110? | RFC 2598 | | |
| | Sec 2.3. | | |
+-----------------------------------+------------+---------+--------+
| Multiple Field |
+-----------------------------------+------------+---------+--------+
| 2. Does your system classify | RFC 2475 | Option. | |
| incoming IP traffic according | Sec 2.3.1. | | |
| to the destination address? | | | |
+-----------------------------------+------------+---------+--------+
| 3. Does your system classify | RFC 2475 | Option. | |
| incoming IP traffic according | Sec 2.3.1. | | |
| to the source address? | | | |
+-----------------------------------+------------+---------+--------+
| 4. Does your system classify | RFC 2475 | Option. | |
| incoming IP traffic according | Sec 2.3.1. | | |
| to the protocol ID? | | | |
+-----------------------------------+------------+---------+--------+
| 5. Does your system classify | RFC 2475 | Option. | |
| incoming IP traffic according | Sec 2.3.1. | | |
| to the source port? | | | |
Geib et al. draft-eurescom-p1006-ef-pics-00 [Page 4]
Internet Draft PICS for the EF PHB 30 October 2000
+-----------------------------------+------------+---------+--------+
| 6. Does your system classify | RFC 2475 | Option. | |
| incoming IP traffic according | Sec 2.3.1. | | |
| to the destination port? | | | |
+-----------------------------------+------------+---------+--------+
| 7. If any features of 2.-6. are | RFC 2475 | Cond(1) | |
| implemented, does your system | Sec 2.3.1. | | |
| classify incoming IP traffic | | | |
| according to a combination of | | | |
| more than one of the | | | |
| implemented features? | | | |
+-----------------------------------+------------+---------+--------+
Product Specification
+-----------+-----------------+-------------+-----------------------+
| | Product(Type) | Release | Technology (e.g. RED, |
| | | | WFQ, IPCHAIN, QDISC) |
+-----------+-----------------+-------------+-----------------------+
| Behavior | | | |
| Aggregate | | | |
+-----------+-----------------+-------------+-----------------------+
| Multiple | | | |
| Field | | | |
+-----------+-----------------+-------------+-----------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Comments: |
| |
| |
| |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
2.1.2. Traffic Profiling
+-----------------------------------+------------+---------+--------+
| Description | Reference | Status | Yes/No |
+-----------------------------------+------------+---------+--------+
| 8. Does your system profile EF | RFC 2598 | Mandat. | |
| traffic to a rate? | Sec 2. | | |
+-----------------------------------+------------+---------+--------+
| 9. If your system operates EF by | RFC 2598 | Mandat. | |
| a pre-emptive forwarding | Sec 2. | | |
| mechanism, does your system | | | |
| profile EF traffic to a burst | | | |
| size? | | | |
+-----------------------------------+------------+---------+--------+
Geib et al. draft-eurescom-p1006-ef-pics-00 [Page 5]
Internet Draft PICS for the EF PHB 30 October 2000
Product Specification
+-----------+-----------------+-------------+-----------------------+
| | Product(Type) | Release | Technology (e.g. RED, |
| | | | WFQ, IPCHAIN, QDISC) |
+-----------+-----------------+-------------+-----------------------+
| Traffic | | | |
| Profiling | | | |
+-----------+-----------------+-------------+-----------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Comments: |
| |
| |
| |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
2.1.3. Conditioning
+-----------------------------------+------------+---------+--------+
| Description | Reference | Status | Yes/No |
+-----------------------------------+------------+---------+--------+
| Marking |
+-----------------------------------+------------+---------+--------+
| 10. Does your system mark | RFC 2474 | Option. | |
| incoming IP traffic (DS | Sec 3, | | |
| Codepoint set to default) | RFC 2475 | | |
| classified as EF with the | Sec 2.3.3.2| | |
| EF DSCP (101110)? | RFC 2598 | | |
| | Sec 2.3. | | |
+-----------------------------------+------------+---------+--------+
| 11. Does your system mark | RFC 2474 | Option. | |
| incoming IP traffic (DS | Sec 3, | | |
| Codepoint not set to default | RFC 2475 | | |
| or 101110) classified as EF | Sec 2.3.3.2| | |
| with the EF DSCP (101110)? | RFC 2598 | | |
| | Sec 2.3. | | |
+-----------------------------------+------------+---------+--------+
| Policing |
+-----------------------------------+------------+---------+--------+
| 12. Does your system police | RFC 2475 | Mandat. | |
| an incoming IP EF aggregate | Sec 2.3.3.4| | |
| conforming to a given peak | RFC 2598 | | |
| rate? | Sec 2. | | |
Geib et al. draft-eurescom-p1006-ef-pics-00 [Page 6]
Internet Draft PICS for the EF PHB 30 October 2000
+-----------------------------------+------------+---------+--------+
| 13. Does your system operate EF | RFC 2598 | Mandat. | |
| by a preemptive forwarding | Sec 2. | | |
| mechanism? | | | |
+-----------------------------------+------------+---------+--------+
| 14. If your system operates EF by | RFC 2475 | Cond(2) | |
| a preemptive forwarding | Sec 2.3.3.4| | |
| mechanism, does your system | RFC 2598 | | |
| police an incoming IP EF | Sec 2. | | |
| aggregate conforming to a | | | |
| given burst size? | | | |
+-----------------------------------+------------+---------+--------+
| 15. Is the policing peak rate of | RFC 2598 | Mandat. | |
| your system settable by a | Sec 2. | | |
| network administrator? | | | |
+-----------------------------------+------------+---------+--------+
| 16. If your system operates EF by | RFC 2598 | Cond(2) | |
| a preemptive forwarding | Sec 2. | | |
| forwarding mechanism, is the | | | |
| policing burst size of your | | | |
| system settable by a network | | | |
| administrator? | | | |
+-----------------------------------+------------+---------+--------+
| 17. Does your system discard | RFC 2598 | Mandat. | |
| ncoming IP EF packets | Sec 2. and | | |
| violating any of the given | Sec 3. | | |
| sets of policing parameters? | | | |
+-----------------------------------+------------+---------+--------+
| 18. Does your system discard all | RFC 2598 | Mandat. | |
| incoming IP EF traffic if EF | Sec 3. | | |
| is enabled and no peak rate | | | |
| is configured (i.e. use 0 as | | | |
| a rate) for any type of | | | |
| domain edge interface? | | | |
+-----------------------------------+------------+---------+--------+
| Shaping |
+-----------------------------------+------------+---------+--------+
| 19. Does your system shape an | RFC 2475 | Option. | |
| incoming IP traffic | Sec 2.3.3.3| | |
| classified and marked as EF | RFC 2598 | | |
| based on a given peak rate? | Sec 1.2. | | |
Geib et al. draft-eurescom-p1006-ef-pics-00 [Page 7]
Internet Draft PICS for the EF PHB 30 October 2000
+-----------------------------------+------------+---------+--------+
| 20. If your system operates EF by | RFC 2475 | Cond(3) | |
| a preemptive forwarding | Sec 2.3.3.3| | |
| mechanism, does your system | RFC 2598 | | |
| shape incoming IP traffic | Sec 1.2. | | |
| classified and marked as EF | | | |
| based on a given burst size? | | | |
+-----------------------------------+------------+---------+--------+
| 21. If 19. or 20. were answered | RFC 2598 | Cond(4) | |
| by yes, are the shaping | Sec 1.2. | | |
| parameters of your system | | | |
| settable by a network | | | |
| administrator? | | | |
+-----------------------------------+------------+---------+--------+
| 22. Does your system shape | RFC 2475 | Option. | |
| incoming IP EF packets | Sec 2.3.2. | | |
| violating a given set of | | | |
| policing parameters? | | | |
+-----------------------------------+------------+---------+--------+
Product Specification
+-----------+-----------------+-------------+-----------------------+
| | Product(Type) | Release | Technology (e.g. RED, |
| | | | WFQ, IPCHAIN, QDISC) |
+-----------+-----------------+-------------+-----------------------+
| Marking | | | |
| | | | |
+-----------+-----------------+-------------+-----------------------+
| Policing | | | |
| | | | |
+-----------+-----------------+-------------+-----------------------+
| Shaping | | | |
| | | | |
+-----------+-----------------+-------------+-----------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Comments: |
| |
| |
| |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Geib et al. draft-eurescom-p1006-ef-pics-00 [Page 8]
Internet Draft PICS for the EF PHB 30 October 2000
2.2. Forwarding
+-----------------------------------+------------+---------+--------+
| Description | Reference | Status | Yes/No |
+-----------------------------------+------------+---------+--------+
| 23. Is a minimum departure rate | RFC 2598 | Mandat. | |
| for an EF aggregate | Sec 2. | | |
| configurable on your system? | | | |
+-----------------------------------+------------+---------+--------+
| 24. Does your system ensure | RFC 2598 | Option. | |
| independence of the departure | Sec 1.1. | | |
| rate of the EF aggregate from | | | |
| the intensity of other | | | |
| traffic in the system? | | | |
+-----------------------------------+------------+---------+--------+
| 25. Is the policing of an EF | RFC 2598 | Mandat. | |
| aggregate configurable by a | Sec 2. | | |
| network administrator so that | | | |
| the EF arrival rate is always | | | |
| equal or less then the | | | |
| systems minimum EF departure | | | |
| rate? | | | |
+-----------------------------------+------------+---------+--------+
| 24. Does your system forward an | RFC 2598 | Option. | |
| EF aggregate on a rate | Sec 2. | | |
| averaging at least the | | | |
| configured rate, when | | | |
| measured over any time | | | |
| interval starting from an | | | |
| output service MTU sized | | | |
| packet at the configured | | | |
| rate? | | | |
+-----------------------------------+------------+---------+--------+
Product Specification
+-----------+-----------------+-------------+-----------------------+
| | Product(Type) | Release | Technology (e.g. RED, |
| | | | WFQ, IPCHAIN, QDISC) |
+-----------+-----------------+-------------+-----------------------+
| Forwarding| | | |
| | | | |
+-----------+-----------------+-------------+-----------------------+
Geib et al. draft-eurescom-p1006-ef-pics-00 [Page 9]
Internet Draft PICS for the EF PHB 30 October 2000
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Comments: |
| |
| |
| |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
3. Security Considerations
This PICS form does not raise new network security issues because it
is just a form for specifying implementation conformance of network
equipment. Merely, a filled form might have to be treated as a
confidential document.
4. References
[RFC2474] K. Nichols, S. Blake, F. Baker and D. Black, "Definition
of the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4
and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, December 1998.
[RFC2475] D. Black, S. Blake, M. Carlson, E. Davies, Z. Wang and
W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated Services",
RFC 2475, December 1998.
[RFC2598] V. Jacobson, K. Nichols, and K. Poduri, "An Expedited
Forwarding PHB", RFC 2598, June 1999.
5. Authors' Addresses
Ruediger Geib
T-Nova Deutsche Telekom
Innovationsgesellschaft GmbH
Am Kavalleriesand 3
64285 Darmstadt
Germany
Phone: +49 6151 832138
Email: Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de
Geib et al. draft-eurescom-p1006-ef-pics-00 [Page 10]
Internet Draft PICS for the EF PHB 30 October 2000
Jorge Carapinha
Portugal Telecom Inovacao
Rua Eng. Jose Ferreira Pinto Basto
3810 Aveiro
Portugal
Phone: +35 1 234 403 486
Email: jorgec@ptinovacao.pt
Paolo Castelli
CSELT
Via G. Reiss Romoli 274
10148 Torino
Italy
Phone: +39 011 228 8855
Email: paolo.castelli@cselt.it
Hans Joachim Einsiedler
T-Nova Deutsche Telekom
Innovationsgesellschaft GmbH
Goslarer Ufer 35
10589 Berlin
Germany
Phone: +49 30 3497-3518
Email: hans.einsiedler@telekom.de
Antonio Jose Elizondo
Telefonica, Investigacion y Desarrollo
Emilio Vargas 6
28043 Madrid
Spain
Phone: +34 91 337 4782
Email: ajea@tid.es
Geib et al. draft-eurescom-p1006-ef-pics-00 [Page 11]
Internet Draft PICS for the EF PHB 30 October 2000
Magnus Krampell
EURESCOM GmbH
Schloss-Wolfsbrunnenweg 35
69118 Heidelberg
Germany
Phone: +49 6221 989 381
Email: krampell@eurescom.de
Juergen Quittek
NEC Europe Ltd.
C&C Research Laboratories
Adenauerplatz 6
69115 Heidelberg
Germany
Phone: +49 6221 90511-15
EMail: quittek@ccrle.nec.de
Inge Svinnset
Telenor AS
Postboks 83
2007 Kjeller
Norway
Phone: +47 63 84 8742
Email: inge-einar.svinnset@telenor.com
Balazs Varga
MATAV
Neumann Janos krt.1/G
1117 Budapest
Hungary
Phone: +36 1 347 2185
Email: varga.balazs@ln.matav.hu
Geib et al. draft-eurescom-p1006-ef-pics-00 [Page 12]
Internet Draft PICS for the EF PHB 30 October 2000
Rod Webb
Corning Research Centre
Adastral Park
Martlesham Heath
Ipswich
Suffolk, IP5 3RE
Great Britain
Phone: +44 1473 663247
Email: webbrp@corning.com
Geib et al. draft-eurescom-p1006-ef-pics-00 [Page 13]
