Francois Le Faucheur, Editor 
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc. 
    
                                                   Waisum Lai, Co-editor 
                                                                    AT&T 
 
                                                                         
IETF Internet Draft 
Expires: March, 2003                                                
Document: draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-reqts-06.txt         September 2002 
 
 
                      Requirements for support of  
                Diff-Serv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering 
 
 
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. 
    
    
Abstract 
    
   This document presents the Service Provider requirements for support 
   of Diff-Serv aware MPLS Traffic Engineering (DS-TE).  
    
   Its objective is to provide guidance for the definition, selection 
   and specification of a technical solution addressing these  
   requirements. Specification for this solution itself is outside the 
   scope of this document. 
    
   A problem statement is first provided. Then, the document describes 
   example applications scenarios identified by Service Providers where 
   existing MPLS Traffic Engineering mechanisms fall short and Diff-
   Serv-aware Traffic Engineering is required. The detailed 
   requirements that need to be addressed by the technical solution are 
   also reviewed. Finally, the document identifies the evaluation 
   criteria that should be considered for selection and definition of 
   the technical solution. 
  
Le Faucheur, et. al                                                  1 
 








 
         Requirements for Diff-Serv-aware Traffic Engineering Sep 2002 
 
    
    
1.      Introduction 
    
1.1.    Problem Statement 
 
   Diff-Serv is becoming prominent in providing scalable network 
   designs supporting multiple classes of services.  
    
   In some Diff-Serv networks where optimization of transmission 
   resources on a network-wide basis is not sought, MPLS Traffic 
   Engineering (TE) mechanisms may simply not be used.  
    
   In other networks, where optimization of transmission resources is 
   sought, Diff-Serv mechanisms [DIFF-MPLS] need to be complemented by 
   existing MPLS Traffic Engineering mechanisms [TE-REQ] [ISIS-TE] 
   [OSPF-TE] [RSVP-TE] [CR-LDP] which operate on an aggregate basis 
   across all Diff-Serv classes of service. In this case, Diff-Serv and 
   MPLS TE both provide their respective benefits.  
    
   Where fine-grained optimization of transmission resources is sought, 
   it is necessary to perform traffic engineering at a per-class level 
   instead of an aggregate level, in order to further enhance networks 
   in performance and efficiency as discussed in [TEWG-FW]. By mapping 
   the traffic from a given Diff-Serv class of service on a separate 
   LSP, it allows this traffic to utilize resources available to the 
   given class on both shortest path and non-shortest paths and follow 
   paths that meet engineering constraints which are specific to the 
   given class. This is what we refer to as "Diff-Serv-aware Traffic 
   Engineering (DS-TE)". 
    
   This document focuses exclusively on the specific environments which 
   would benefit from DS-TE. Some examples include: 
    
     -    networks where bandwidth is scarce (e.g. transcontinental 
          networks) 
     -    networks with significant amounts of delay-sensitive traffic 
     -    networks where the relative proportion of traffic across 
          classes of service is not uniform  
    
   This document focuses on intra-domain operation. Inter-domain 
   operation is not considered. 
    
1.2.    Definitions 
    
   For the convenience of the reader, relevant Diffserv ([DIFF-ARCH], 
   [DIFF-NEW] and [DIFF-PDB]) definitions are repeated herein. 
    
       Behavior Aggregate (BA): a collection of packets with the same 
       (Diff-Serv) codepoint crossing a link in a particular direction. 
        

 
 Le Faucheur et. al                                                  2 
 








 
         Requirements for Diff-Serv-aware Traffic Engineering Sep 2002 
 
       Per-Hop-Behavior (PHB): the externally observable forwarding                  
       behavior applied at a DS-compliant node to a Diff-Serv behavior 
       aggregate. 
        
       PHB Scheduling Class (PSC): A PHB group for which a common 
       constraint is that ordering of at least those packets belonging 
       to the same microflow must be preserved. 
    
       Ordered Aggregate (OA): a set of BAs that share an ordering 
       constraint. The set of PHBs that are applied to this set of 
       Behavior Aggregates constitutes a PHB scheduling class. 
        
       Traffic Aggregate (TA): a collection of packets with a codepoint 
       that maps to the same PHB, usually in a DS domain or some subset 
       of a DS domain.  A traffic aggregate marked for the foo PHB is 
       referred to as the "foo traffic aggregate" or "foo aggregate" 
       interchangeably. This generalizes the concept of Behavior 
       Aggregate from a link to a network. 
    
   We also repeat the following definition from [TE-REQ]: 
    
       Traffic Trunk: an aggregation of traffic flows of the same class 
       which are placed inside a Label Switched Path. 
        
  In the context of the present document, "flows of the same class" is 
  to be interpreted as "flows from the same Forwarding Equivalence 
  Class which are to be treated equivalently from the DS-TE 
  perspective". 
    
   We refer to the set of TAs corresponding to the set of PHBs of a 
   given PSC, as a {TA}PSC. We also loosely refer to a {TA}PSC as a 
   Diff-Serv class of service, or class-of service. 
    
   We refer to the collection of packets which belong to a given Traffic 
   Aggregate and are associated with a given MPLS Forwarding Equivalence 
   Class (FEC) as a <FEC/TA>. 
    
   We refer to the set of <FEC/TA> whose TAs belong to a given {TA}PSC 
   as a <FEC/{TA}PSC>. 
 
1.3.    Mapping of traffic to LSPs 
    
   A network may have multiple Traffic Aggregates (TAs) it wishes to 
   service. Recalling from [DIFF-MPLS], there are several options on 
   how the set of <FEC/{TA}PSC> of a given FEC can be split into 
   Traffic Trunks for mapping onto LSPs when running MPLS Traffic 
   Engineering.  
    
   One option is to not split this set of <FEC/{TA}PSC> so that each 
   Traffic Trunk comprises traffic from all the {TA}/PSC . This option 
   is typically used when aggregate traffic engineering is deployed 
   using current MPLS TE mechanisms. In that case, all the 
 
 Le Faucheur et. al                                                  3 
 








 
         Requirements for Diff-Serv-aware Traffic Engineering Sep 2002 
 
   <FEC/{TA}PSC> of a given FEC are routed collectively according to a 
   single shared set of constraints and will follow the same path. Note 
   that the LSP transporting such a Traffic Trunk is, by definition, an 
   E-LSP as defined in [DIFF-MPLS]. 
    
   Another option is to split the different <FEC/{TA}PSC> of a given 
   FEC into multiple Traffic Trunks on the basis of the {TA}PSC. In 
   other words, traffic from a given node to another given node, is 
   split based on the classes of service, into multiple Traffic Trunks 
   which are transported over separate LSPs, which can potentially 
   follow a different path through the network. DS-TE precisely takes 
   advantage of this fact and indeed computes a separate path for each 
   LSP. In so doing, DS-TE can take into account the specific 
   requirements of the Traffic Trunk transported on each LSP (e.g. 
   bandwidth requirement, preemption priority). Moreover DS-TE can take 
   into account specific engineering constraints to be enforced for 
   these sets of Traffic Trunks (e.g. limit all Traffic Trunks 
   transporting a particular {TA}PSC to x% of link capacity). In brief, 
   DS-TE achieves per LSP constraint based routing with paths that 
   tightly match the specific objectives of the traffic forming the 
   corresponding Traffic Trunk. 
    
   For simplicity, and because this is the specific topic of this 
   document, the above paragraphs in this section only considered 
   splitting traffic of a given FEC into multiple Traffic Aggregates on 
   the basis of {TA}PSC. However, it must be noted that, in addition to 
   this, traffic from every {TA}PSC may also be split into multiple 
   Traffic Trunks for load balancing purposes. 
    
    
2.      Contributing Authors 
    
   This document was the collective work of several. The text and 
   content of this document was contributed by the editors and the co-
   authors listed below. (The contact information for the editors 
   appears in Section 9, and is not repeated below.) 
    
   Martin Tatham                        Thomas Telkamp 
   BT                                   Global Crossing 
   Adastral Park, Martlesham Heath,     Oudkerkhof 51,  3512 GJ Utrecht 
   Ipswich IP5 3RE, UK                  The Netherlands 
   Phone: +44-1473-606349               Phone: +31 30 238 1250 
   Email: martin.tatham@bt.com          Email: telkamp@gblx.net 
                                         
   David Cooper                         Jim Boyle 
   Global Crossing                      Protocol Driven Networks, Inc. 
   960 Hamlin Court                     1381 Kildaire Farm Road #288 
   Sunnyvale, CA 94089, USA             Cary, NC 27511, USA 
   Phone: (916) 415-0437                Phone: (919) 852-5160 
   Email: dcooper@gblx.net              Email: jboyle@pdnets.com 
                                         
                                         
 
 Le Faucheur et. al                                                  4 
 








 
         Requirements for Diff-Serv-aware Traffic Engineering Sep 2002 
 
   Luyuan Fang                          Gerald R. Ash 
   AT&T Labs                            AT&T Labs 
   200 Laurel Avenue                    200 Laurel Avenue 
   Middletown, New Jersey 07748, USA    Middletown, New Jersey 07748,USA 
   Phone: (732) 420-1921                Phone: (732) 420-4578 
   Email: luyuanfang@att.com            Email: gash@att.com 
                                         
   Pete Hicks                           Angela Chiu 
   CoreExpress, Inc                     Celion Networks 
   12655 Olive Blvd, Suite 500          1 Sheila Drive, Suite 2 
   St. Louis, MO 63141, USA             Tinton Falls, NJ 07724, USA 
   Phone: (314) 317-7504                Phone: (732) 747-9987 
   Email: pete.hicks@coreexpress.net    Email: angela.chiu@celion.com 
                                         
   William Townsend                     Thomas D. Nadeau 
   Tenor Networks                       Cisco Systems, Inc. 
   100 Nagog Park                       250 Apollo Drive 
   Acton, MA 01720, USA                 Chelmsford, MA 01824, USA 
   Phone: +1 978-264-4900               Phone: (978) 244-3051 
   Email:btownsend@tenornetworks.com    Email: tnadeau@cisco.com 
                                         
   Darek Skalecki                        
   Nortel Networks                       
   3500 Carling Ave,                     
   Nepean K2H 8E9,                       
   Phone: (613) 765-2252                 
   Email: dareks@nortelnetworks.com      
    
    
    
3.      Application Scenarios 
 
3.1.    Scenario 1: Limiting Proportion of Classes on a Link 
    
   An IP/MPLS network may need to carry a significant amount of VoIP 
   traffic compared to its link capacity. For example, 10,000 
   uncompressed calls at 20ms packetization result in about 1Gbps of IP 
   traffic, which is significant on an OC-48c based network. In case of 
   topology changes such as link/node failure, VoIP traffic levels can 
   even approach the full bandwidth on certain links. 
     
   For delay/jitter reasons it is undesirable to carry more than a 
   certain percentage of VoIP traffic on any link. The rest of the 
   available link bandwidth can be used to route other classes 
   corresponding to delay/jitter insensitive traffic (e.g. Best Effort 
   Internet traffic). The exact determination of this "certain" 
   percentage is outside the scope of this requirements document. 
     
   During normal operations, the VoIP traffic should be able to preempt 
   other classes of traffic (if these other classes are designated as 
   preemptable and they have lower preemption priority),  

 
 Le Faucheur et. al                                                  5 
 








 
         Requirements for Diff-Serv-aware Traffic Engineering Sep 2002 
 
   so that it will be able to use the shortest available path, only 
   constrained by the maximum defined link utilization ratio/percentage 
   of the VoIP class. 
    
   Existing TE mechanisms only allow constraint based routing of 
   traffic based on a single bandwidth constraint common to all 
   classes, which does not satisfy the needs described here. This leads 
   to the requirement for DS-TE to be able to enforce a different 
   bandwidth constraint for different classes of traffic. In the above 
   example, the bandwidth constraint to be enforced for VoIP traffic 
   may be the "certain" percentage of each link capacity, while the 
   bandwidth constraint to be enforced for the rest of the classes 
   might have their own constraints or have access to the rest of the 
   link capacity.  
    
3.2.    Scenario 2: Maintain relative proportion of traffic classes 
    
   Suppose an IP/MPLS network supports 3 classes of traffic. The 
   network administrator wants to perform Traffic Engineering to 
   distribute the traffic load. Assume also that proportion across 
   traffic classes varies significantly depending on the 
   source/destination POPs. 
    
   With existing TE mechanisms, the proportion of traffic from each 
   class on a given link will vary depending on multiple factors 
   including: 
   - in which order the different TE-LSPs are routed 
   - the preemption priority associated with the different TE-LSPs 
   - link/node failure situations  
    
   This may make it difficult or impossible for the network 
   administrator to configure the Diff-Serv PHBs (e.g. queue bandwidth) 
   to ensure that each traffic class gets the appropriate treatment. 
   This leads again to the requirement for DS-TE to be able to enforce 
   a different bandwidth constraint for different classes of traffic. 
   This could be used to ensure that, regardless of the order in which 
   tunnels are routed, regardless of their preemption priority and 
   regardless of the failure situation, the amount of traffic of each 
   class routed over a link matches the Diff-Serv scheduler 
   configuration on that link for the corresponding class (e.g. queue 
   bandwidth). 
    
   As an illustration of how DS-TE would address this scenario, the 
   network administrator may configure the service rate of Diff-Serv 
   queues to (45%,35%,20%) for classes (1,2,3) respectively. The 
   administrator would then split the traffic into separate Traffic 
   Trunks for each class and associate a bandwidth to each LSP 
   transporting those Traffic Trunks. The network administrator may 
   also want to configure preemption priorities of each LSP in order to 
   give highest restoration priority to the highest priority class and 
   medium priority to the medium class. Then DS-TE could ensure that 
   after a failure, class 1 traffic would be rerouted with first access 
 
 Le Faucheur et. al                                                  6 
 








 
         Requirements for Diff-Serv-aware Traffic Engineering Sep 2002 
 
   at link capacity but without exceeding its service rate of 45% of 
   the link bandwidth. Class 2 traffic would be rerouted with second 
   access at the link capacity but without exceeding its allotment. 
   Note that where class 3 is the Best-Effort service, the requirement 
   on DS-TE may be to ensure that the total amount of traffic routed 
   across all classes does not exceed the total link capacity of 100% 
   (as opposed to separately limiting the amount of Best Effort traffic 
   to 20 even if there was little class 1 and class 2 traffic). 
    
   In this scenario, DS-TE allowed for the maintenance of a more steady 
   distribution of classes, even during rerouting. This relied on the 
   required capability of DS-TE to adjust the amount of traffic of each 
   class routed on a link based on the configuration of the scheduler 
   and the amount of bandwidth available for each class. 
    
   Alternatively, some network administrators may want to solve the 
   problem by having the scheduler dynamically adjusted based on the 
   amount of bandwidth of the LSPs admitted for each class. This is an 
   additional requirement on DS-TE. 
    
3.3.    Scenario 3: Guaranteed Bandwidth Services 
    
   In addition to the Best effort service, an IP/MPLS network operator 
   may desire to offer a point-to-point "guaranteed bandwidth" service 
   whereby the provider pledges to provide a given level of performance 
   (bandwidth/delay/loss...) end-to-end through its network from an 
   ingress port to and egress port.  The goal is to ensure all 
   "guaranteed" traffic within a subscribed traffic contract, will be 
   delivered within stated tolerances.   
    
   One approach for deploying such "guaranteed" service involves: 
   - dedicating a Diff-Serv PHB (or a Diff-Serv PSC as defined in 
     [DIFF-NEW]) to the "guaranteed" traffic 
   - policing guaranteed traffic on ingress against the traffic 
     contract and marking the "guaranteed" packets with the 
     corresponding DSCP/EXP value 
    
   Where very high level of performance is targeted for the 
   "guaranteed" service, it may be necessary to ensure that the amount 
   of "guaranteed" traffic remains below a given percentage of link 
   capacity on every link. Where the proportion of "guaranteed" traffic 
   is high, constraint based routing can be used to enforce such a 
   constraint.  
    
   However, the network operator may also want to simultaneously 
   perform Traffic Engineering of the rest of the traffic (i.e. non-
   guaranteed traffic) which would require that constraint based 
   routing is also capable of enforcing a different bandwidth 
   constraint, which would be less stringent than the one for 
   guaranteed traffic. 
    

 
 Le Faucheur et. al                                                  7 
 








 
         Requirements for Diff-Serv-aware Traffic Engineering Sep 2002 
 
   Again, this combination of requirements can not be addressed with 
   existing TE mechanisms. DS-TE mechanisms allowing enforcement of a 
   different bandwidth constraint for guaranteed traffic and for non-
   guaranteed traffic are required. 
    
    
4.      Detailed Requirements for DS-TE 
    
   This section specifies the functionality that the above scenarios 
   require out of DS-TE implementations. Actual technical protocol 
   mechanisms and procedures to achieve such functionality are outside 
   the scope of this document. 
 
4.1.    DS-TE Compatibility 
 
   While DS-TE is required in a number of situations such as the ones 
   described above, it is important to keep in mind that using DS-TE 
   may impact scalability (as discussed later in this document) and 
   operational practices. DS-TE should only be used when existing TE 
   mechanisms combined with Diff-Serv cannot address the network design 
   requirements. Many network operators may choose to not use DS-TE, or 
   to only use it in a limited scope within their network.  
    
   Thus, the DS-TE solution must be developed in such a way that: 
     
    (i)    it raises no interoperability issues with existing deployed 
           TE mechanisms.  
    (ii)   it allows DS-TE deployment to the required level of 
           granularity and scope (e.g. only in a subset of the 
           topology, or only for the number of classes required in the 
           considered network) 
    
4.2.    Class-Types 
    
   The fundamental requirement for DS-TE is to be able to enforce 
   different bandwidth constraints for different sets of Traffic 
   Trunks. 
    
   [TEWG-FW] introduces the concept of Class-Types when discussing 
   operations of MPLS Traffic Engineering in a Diff-Serv environment.  
    
   We refine this definition into the following: 
    
           Class-Type (CT): the set of Traffic Trunks crossing a link, 
           that is governed by  a specific set of Bandwidth 
           constraints. CT is used for the purposes of link bandwidth 
           allocation, constraint based routing and admission control. 
           A given Traffic Trunk belongs to the same CT on all links. 
 
   Note that different LSPs transporting Traffic Trunks from the same 
   CT may be using the same or different preemption priorities as 
   explained in more details in section 3.4 below. 
 
 Le Faucheur et. al                                                  8 
 








 
         Requirements for Diff-Serv-aware Traffic Engineering Sep 2002 
 
    
   Mapping of {TA}PSC to Class-Types is flexible. Different {TA}PSC can 
   be mapped to different CTs, multiple {TA}PSC can be mapped to the 
   same CT and one {TA}PSC can be mapped to multiple CTs. 
    
   For illustration purposes, let's consider the case of a network 
   running 4 Diff-Serv classes of services respectively based on the EF 
   PHB [EF], the AF1x PSC [AF], the AF2x PSC and the Default (i.e. 
   Best-Effort) PHB [DIFF-FIELD]. The network administrator may decide 
   to deploy DS-TE in the following way: 
        o from every DS-TE Head-end to every DS-TE Tail-end, split 
          traffic into 4 Traffic Trunks: one for traffic of each Diff-
          Serv class 
        o because the QoS objectives for the AF1x Traffic Trunks and 
          for the AF2x Traffic Trunks may be of similar nature (e.g. 
          both targeting low loss albeit at different levels perhaps), 
          the same (set of) Bandwidth Constraint(s) may be applied 
          collectively over the AF1x Traffic Trunks and the AF2x 
          Traffic Trunks. Thus, the network administrator may only 
          define three CTs: one for the EF Traffic Trunks, one for the 
          AF1x and AF2x Traffic Trunks and one for the Best Effort 
          Traffic Trunks. 
    
   As another example of mapping of {TA}PSC to CTs, a network operator 
   may split the EF traffic into two different sets of traffic trunks, 
   so that each set of traffic trunks is subject to different 
   constraints on the bandwidth it can access. In this case, two 
   distinct CTs are defined for EF: one for the EF traffic subject to 
   the first (set of) bandwidth constraint(s), the other for the EF 
   traffic subject to the second (set of) bandwidth constraint(s). 
    
   DS-TE must support at least 2 CTs and up to 8 CTs. Those are 
   referred to as CTc, 0 <= c <= MaxCT-1 = 7. 
    
   In a given network, DS-TE must not require the network administrator 
   to always deploy the maximum number of CTs. The network 
   administrator must be able to deploy only the number of CTs actually 
   utilized. 
    
4.3.    Bandwidth Constraints 
    
   We refer to a Bandwidth Constraint Model as the set of rules 
   defining: 
   - the maximum number of Bandwidth Constraints; and 
   - which CTs each Bandwidth Constraint applies to and how. 
    
   By definition of CT, each CT is assigned either a Bandwidth 
   Constraint, or a set of Bandwidth Constraints. 
    
   We refer to the Bandwidth Constraints as BCb, 0 <= b <= MaxBC-1   
    

 
 Le Faucheur et. al                                                  9 
 








 
         Requirements for Diff-Serv-aware Traffic Engineering Sep 2002 
 
   Different models of Bandwidth Constraints are conceivable for 
   control of the CTs. 
    
   For example, a model with one separate Bandwidth Constraint per CT 
   could be defined. This model is defined by: 
   - MaxBC= MaxCT 
   - All LSPs supporting Traffic Trunks from CTc use no more than BCc 
    
   For illustration purposes, on a link of 100 unit of bandwidth where 
   three CTs are used, the network administrator might then configure 
   BC0=30, BC1= 50, BC2=20 such that: 
   - All LSPs supporting Traffic Trunks from CT0 use no more than 30 
     (e.g. Voice <= 30) 
   - All LSPs supporting Traffic Trunks from CT1 use no more than 50 
     (e.g. Premium Data <= 50) 
   - All LSPs supporting Traffic Trunks from CT2 use no more than 20 
     (e.g. Best Effort <= 20) 
    
   As another example, a "Russian Doll" model of Bandwidth Constraints 
   may be defined whereby: 
   - MaxBC= MaxCT 
   - All LSPs supporting Traffic Trunks from CTc (with b<=c<=7) use no 
     more than BCb 
    
   For illustration purposes, on a link of 100 units of bandwidth where 
   three CTs are used, the network administrator might then configure 
   BC0=100, BC1= 80, BC2=60 such that: 
   - All LSPs supporting Traffic Trunks from CT2 use no more than 60 
     (e.g. Voice <= 60) 
   - All LSPs supporting Traffic Trunks from CT1 or CT2 use no more 
     than 80 (e.g. Voice + Premium Data <= 80) 
   - All LSPs supporting Traffic Trunks from CT0 or CT1 or CT2 use no 
     more than 100 (e.g. Voice + Premium Data + Best Effort <= 100). 
    
   Other Bandwidth Constraints model can also be conceived. Those could 
   involve arbitrary relationships between BCb and CTc. Those could 
   also involve additional concepts such as associating minimum 
   reservable bandwidth to a CT. 
    
   At the time of writing this document, it is not clear whether a 
   single model of Bandwidth Constraints is sufficient, which one it 
   should be and how flexible this model really needs to be and what 
   are the implications on the DS-TE technical solution and its 
   implementations.  Work is currently in progress to investigate the 
   performance and trade-offs of different operational aspects of 
   Bandwidth Constraints models.  The DS-TE technical solution must 
   specify one default bandwidth constraint model which must be 
   supported by any DS-TE implementation. However, additional bandwidth 
   constraint models may also be specified. The purpose of such a 
   default model is to ensure that there is at least one common 
   Bandwidth Constraints model implementation across various vendors 
   equipment and allows for easier deployment of DS-TE. However, this 
 
 Le Faucheur et. al                                                 10 
 








 
         Requirements for Diff-Serv-aware Traffic Engineering Sep 2002 
 
   does not preclude a network operator to activate different Bandwidth 
   Constraints models on different links in a network, if he/she wishes 
   to do so. 
    
   In the selection of a default model, at least the following criteria 
   are expected to be considered: 
   (1) addresses the scenarios in Section 2 
   (2) works well under both normal and overload conditions 
   (3) applies equally when preemption is either enabled or disabled 
   (4) minimizes signaling load processing requirements 
   (5) maximizes efficient use of the network 
    
   In selection criteria (2), "normal condition" means that the network 
   is attempting to establish a volume of DS-TE LSPs for which it is 
   designed; "overload condition" means that the network is attempting 
   to establish a volume of DS-TE LSPs beyond the one it is designed 
   for; "works well" means that under these conditions, the network 
   should be able to sustain the expected performance, e.g., under 
   overload it is x times worse than its normal performance [BC-MODEL]. 
    
   These selection criteria will be further discussed and refined as 
   part of the ongoing work on BC model selection. In particular, the 
   applicability of criterion (5) needs to be qualified. 
    
   Regardless of the Bandwidth Constraint Model, the DS-TE solution 
   must allow support for up to 8 BCs. 
    
4.4.    Preemption and TE-Classes 
    
   [TEWG-FW] defines the notion of preemption and preemption priority. 
   DS-TE must retain full support of such preemption. However, a 
   network administrator preferring not to use preemption for user 
   traffic should be able to disable the preemption mechanisms 
   described below. 
    
   The preemption attributes defined in [TE-REQ] must be retained and  
   applicable across all Class Types. The preemption attributes of 
   setup priority and holding priority must retain existing semantics, 
   and in particular these semantics must not be affected by the 
   Ordered Aggregate transported by the LSP or by the LSP's Class Type. 
   This means that if LSP1 contends with LSP2 for resources, LSP1 may 
   preempt LSP2 if LSP1 has a higher set-up preemption priority (i.e. 
   lower numerical priority value) than LSP2's holding preemption 
   priority regardless of LSP1's OA/CT and LSP2's OA/CT. 
    
   We introduce the following definition: 
    
       TE-Class: A pair of: 
               (i)    a Class-Type 
               (ii)   a preemption priority allowed for that Class-
                      Type. This means that an LSP transporting a 
                      Traffic Trunk from that Class-Type can use that 
 
 Le Faucheur et. al                                                 11 
 








 
         Requirements for Diff-Serv-aware Traffic Engineering Sep 2002 
 
                      preemption priority as the set-up priority, as 
                      the holding priority or both. 
    
   Note that by definition: 
   - for a given Class-Type, there may be one or multiple TE-classes 
     using that Class-Type, each using a different preemption priority 
   - for a given preemption priority, there may be one or multiple TE-
     Class(es) using that preemption priority, each using a different 
     Class-Type. 
    
   DS-TE must allow all LSPs transporting Traffic Trunks of a given 
   Class-Type to use the same preemption priority. In other words, DS-
   TE must allow a Class-Type to be used by single TE-Class. This 
   effectively allows the network administrator to ensure that no 
   preemption happens within that Class-Type, when so desired. 
    
   As an example, the DS-TE solution must allow the network 
   administrator to define a Class-Type comprising a single TE-class 
   using preemption 0. 
    
   DS-TE must allow two LSPs transporting Traffic Trunks of the same 
   Class-Type to use different preemption priorities, and allow the LSP 
   with higher (numerically lower) set-up priority to preempt the LSP 
   with lower (numerically higher) holding priority when they contend 
   for resources. In other words, DS-TE must allow multiple TE-Classes 
   to be defined for a given Class-Type. This effectively allows the 
   network administrator to enable preemption within a Class-Type, when 
   so desired. 
    
   As an example, the DS-TE solution must allow the network 
   administrator to define a Class-Type comprising three TE-Classes; 
   one using preemption 0, one using preemption 1 and one using 
   preemption 4. 
    
   DS-TE must allow two LSPs transporting Traffic Trunks from different 
   Class-Types to use different preemption priorities, and allow the 
   LSP with higher setup priority to preempt the one with lower holding 
   priority when they contend for resources.  
    
   As an example, the DS-TE solution must allow the network 
   administrator to define two Class-Types (CT0 and CT1) each 
   comprising two TE-Classes where say: 
      -one TE-Class groups CT0 and preemption 0 
      -one TE-Class groups CT0 and preemption 2 
      -one TE-Class groups CT1 and preemption 1 
      -one TE-Class groups CT1 and preemption 3 
    
   The network administrator would then, in particular, be able to : 
   - transport a CT0 Traffic Trunk over an LSP with setup priority=0 
     and holding priority=0 
   - transport a CT0 Traffic Trunk over an LSP with setup priority=2 
     and holding priority=0 
 
 Le Faucheur et. al                                                 12 
 








 
         Requirements for Diff-Serv-aware Traffic Engineering Sep 2002 
 
   - transport a CT1 Traffic Trunk over an LSP with setup priority=1 
     and holding priority=1 
   - transport a CT1 Traffic Trunk over an LSP with setup priority=3 
     and holding priority=1. 
    
   The network administrator would then, in particular, NOT be able  
   to : 
   - transport a CT0 Traffic Trunk over an LSP with setup priority=1 
     and holding priority=1 
   - transport a CT1 Traffic Trunk over an LSP with setup priority=0 
     and holding priority=0 
    
   DS-TE must allow two LSPs transporting Traffic Trunks from different 
   Class-Types to use the same preemption priority. In other words, the 
   DS-TE solution must allow TE-classes using different CTs to use the 
   same preemption priority. This effectively allows the network 
   administrator to ensure that no preemption happens across Class-
   Types, if so desired. 
    
   As an example, the DS-TE solution must allow the network 
   administrator to define three Class-Types (CT0, CT1 and CT2) each 
   comprising one TE-Class which uses preemption 0. In that case, no 
   preemption will ever occur. 
    
   Since there are 8 preemption priorities and up to 8 Class-Types, 
   there could theoretically be up to 64 TE-Classes in a network. This 
   is felt to be beyond current practical requirements. The current 
   practical requirement is that the DS-TE solution must allow support 
   for up to 8 TE-classes. The DS-TE solution must allow these TE-
   classes to comprise any arbitrary subset of 8 (or less) from the 
   (64) possible combinations of (8) Class-Types and (8) preemption 
   priorities. 
    
   As with existing TE, an LSP which gets preempted is torn down at 
   preemption time. The Head-end of the preempted LSP may then attempt 
   to reestablish that LSP, which involves recomputing a path by 
   Constraint Based Routing based on updated available bandwidth 
   information and then signaling for LSP establishment along the new 
   path. It must be noted that there may be cases where the preempted 
   LSP cannot be reestablished (e.g. no possible path satisfying LSP 
   bandwidth constraints as well as other constraints). In such cases, 
   the Head-end behavior is left to implementation. It may involve 
   periodic attempts at reestablishing the LSP, relaxing of the LSP 
   constraints, or other behaviors.  
    
4.5.    Mapping of Traffic to LSPs 
    
   The DS-TE solution must allow operation over E-LSPs onto which a 
   single <FEC/{TA}PSC> is transported. 
    
   The DS-TE solution must allow operation over L-LSPs. 
    
 
 Le Faucheur et. al                                                 13 
 








 
         Requirements for Diff-Serv-aware Traffic Engineering Sep 2002 
 
   The DS-TE solution may allow operation over E-LSPs onto which 
   multiple <FEC/{TA}PSC> of a given FEC are transported, under the 
   condition that those multiple <FEC/{TA}PSC> can effectively be 
   treated by DS-TE as a single atomic traffic trunk (in particular 
   this means that those multiple <FEC/{TA}PSC> are routed as a whole 
   based on a single collective bandwidth requirement, a single 
   affinity attribute, a single preemption level, a single Class-Type, 
   ...). In that case, it is also assumed that the multiple {TA}PSCs 
   are grouped together in a consistent manner throughout the DS-TE 
   domain (e.g. if <FECx/{TA}PSC1> and <FECx/{TA}PSC2> are transported 
   together on an E-LSP, then there will not be any L-LSP transporting 
   <FECy/{TA}PSC1> or <FECy/{TA}PSC2> on its own, and there will not be 
   any E-LSP transporting <FECz/{TA}PSC1> and/or <FECz/{TA}PSC2> with 
   <FECz/{TA}PSC3>). 
    
4.6.    Dynamic Adjustment of Diff-Serv PHBs 
    
   As discussed in section 2.2, DS-TE may support adjustment of Diff-
   Serv PHBs parameters (e.g. queue bandwidth) based on the amount of 
   TE-LSPs established for each OA/Class-Type. Such dynamic adjustment 
   is optional. It is a local matter to the LSR and as such is outside 
   the scope of this specification. 
    
   Where this dynamic adjustment is supported, it must allow for 
   disabling via configuration (thus reverting to PHB treatment with 
   static scheduler configuration independent of DS-TE operations). It 
   may involve a number of configurable parameters which are outside 
   the scope of this specification. Those may include configurable 
   parameters controlling how scheduling resources (e.g. service rates) 
   need to be apportioned across multiple OAs when those belong to the 
   same Class-Type and are transported together on the same E-LSP. 
    
   The dynamic adjustment must take account of the performance 
   requirements of each class when computing required adjustments. 
 
4.7.    Overbooking 
    
   Existing TE mechanisms allow overbooking to be applied on LSPs for 
   Constraint Based Routing and admission control. Historically this 
   has been achieved in TE deployment through factoring overbooking 
   ratios at the time of sizing the LSP bandwidth and/or at the time of 
   configuring the Maximum Reservable Bandwidth on links. 
    
   DS-TE must also allow overbooking and must effectively allow 
   different overbooking ratios to be enforced for different CTs. 
    
   DS-TE should optionally allow the effective overbooking ratio of a 
   given CT to be tweaked differently in different parts of the 
   network. 
    
4.8.    Restoration 
    
 
 Le Faucheur et. al                                                 14 
 








 
         Requirements for Diff-Serv-aware Traffic Engineering Sep 2002 
 
   With existing TE, restoration policies use standard priority 
   mechanisms such as, for example, the preemption priority to 
   effectively control the order/importance of LSPs for restoration 
   purposes. 
    
   DS-TE must ensure that similar application of the  use of standard 
   priority mechanisms for implementation of restoration policy are not 
   prevented since those are expected to be required for achieving the 
   survivability requirements of DS-TE networks. 
    
   Further discussion of restoration requirements are presented in the 
   output document of the TEWG Requirements Design Team [SURVIV-REQ]. 
    
    
5.      Solution Evaluation Criteria 
    
   A range of solutions is possible for the support of the DS-TE 
   requirements discussed above. For example, some solutions may 
   require that all current TE protocols syntax (IGP, RSVP-TE, CR-LDP) 
   be extended in various ways.  For instance, current TE protocols 
   could be modified to support multiple bandwidth constraints rather 
   than the existing single aggregate bandwidth constraint. 
   Alternatively, other solutions may keep the existing TE protocols 
   syntax unchanged but modify their semantic to allow for the multiple 
   bandwidth constraints.  
    
   This section identifies the evaluation criteria that should be used 
   to assess potential DS-TE solutions for selection. 
    
5.1.    Satisfying detailed requirements 
    
   The solution must address all the scenarios described in section 2 
   and satisfy all the requirements listed in section 3. 
    
5.2.    Flexibility 
 
        -      number of Class Types that can be supported, compared to 
               number identified in Requirements section 
        -      number of Classes within a Class-Type 
    
    
5.3.    Extendibility 
 
        -      how far can the solution be extended in the future if 
               requirements for more Class-Types are  identified in the 
               future.  
    
5.4.    Scalability 
 
        -      impact on network scalability in what is propagated, 
               processed, stored and computed (IGP signaling, IGP 
               processing, IGP database, TE-Tunnel signaling ,...). 
 
 Le Faucheur et. al                                                 15 
 








 
         Requirements for Diff-Serv-aware Traffic Engineering Sep 2002 
 
        -      how does scalability impact evolve with number of Class-
               Types/Classes actually deployed in a network. In 
               particular, is it possible to keep overhead small for a 
               large networks which only use a small number of Class-
               Types/Classes, while allowing higher number of Class-
               Types/Classes in smaller networks which can bear higher 
               overhead) 
    
5.5.    Backward compatibility/Migration 
 
        -      backward compatibility/migration with/from existing TE 
               mechanisms 
        -      backward compatibility/migration when 
               increasing/decreasing the number of Class-Types actually 
               deployed in a given network. 
    
    
6.      Security Considerations 
    
   The solution developed to address the requirements defined in this 
   document must address security aspects. DS-TE is not expected to add 
   specific security requirements beyond those of Diff-Serv and 
   existing TE.  Networks which employ Diff-Serv techniques might offer 
   some protection between classes for denial of service attacks.  
   Though depending on how the technology is employed, it is possible 
   for some (lower scheduled) traffic to be more susceptible to traffic 
   anomalies (which include denial of service attacks) occurring within 
   other (higher scheduled) classes. 
    
    
7.      Acknowledgemnt 
    
   We thank David Allen for his help in aligning with up-to-date  
   Diff-Serv terminology. 
    
    
8.      Normative References 
    
    
   [AF] Heinanen, J et al., "Assured Forwarding PHB Group", RFC2597 
     
   [DIFF-ARCH] Blake et al., "An Architecture for Differentiated 
   Services", RFC2475. 
    
   [DIFF-MPLS] Le Faucheur et al, "Multi-Protocol Label Switching 
   (MPLS) Support of Differentiated Services", RFC3270, May 2002. 
    
   [DIFF-NEW] Grossman, " New Terminology and Clarifications for 
   Diffserv ", RFC3260, April 2002. 
    
   [EF] Davie et al., "An Expedited Forwarding PHB (Per-Hop Behavior)", 
   RFC3246, March 2002. 
 
 Le Faucheur et. al                                                 16 
 








 
         Requirements for Diff-Serv-aware Traffic Engineering Sep 2002 
 
    
   [TEWG-FW] Awduche et al, Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic 
   Engineering, RFC3272, May 2002.  
    
   [TE-REQ] Awduche et al, Requirements for Traffic Engineering over 
   MPLS, RFC2702, September 1999. 
    
    
9.      Informative References 
    
   [CR-LDP] Jamoussi et al., "Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP", 
   RFC3212, January 2002 
    
    
   [DIFF-FIELD] Nichols et al., "Definition of the Differentiated 
   Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC2474. 
    
   [DIFF-PDB] Nichols et al., "Definition of Differentiated Services 
   Per Domain Behaviors and Rules for their Specification", RFC3086. 
     
   [ISIS-TE] Smit, Li, IS-IS extensions for Traffic Engineering, draft-
   ietf-isis-traffic-04.txt, August 2001. 
    
   [OSPF-TE] Katz, Yeung, Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF, 
   draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic-06.txt, October 2001.  
    
   [RSVP-TE] Awduche et al, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP 
   Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. 
    
   [SURVIV-REQ] W.S. Lai, D. McDysan, J. Boyle, M. Carlzon, R. Coltun, 
   T, Griffin, E. Kern, and T. Reddington, "Network Hierarchy and 
   Multilayer Survivability," work in progress, October 2001. 
    
    
10.     Editors' Address: 
    
   Francois Le Faucheur 
   Cisco Systems, Inc. 
   Village d'Entreprise Green Side - Batiment T3 
   400, Avenue de Roumanille 
   06410 Biot-Sophia Antipolis, France 
   Phone: +33 4 97 23 26 19 
   Email: flefauch@cisco.com 
    
   Wai Sum Lai 
   AT&T Labs 
   200 Laurel Avenue 
   Middletown, New Jersey 07748, USA 
   Phone: (732) 420-3712 
   Email: wlai@att.com 
    
    
 
 Le Faucheur et. al                                                 17 
 








 
         Requirements for Diff-Serv-aware Traffic Engineering Sep 2002 
 
    
    
    

















































 
 Le Faucheur et. al                                                 18