Internet Draft R. Geib 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 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 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]