Re: [Idr] Treatment of Network Control traffic marked CS6 at DiffServ Interconnections

["Black, David" <[e-mail]>]

More explanation of Sue's comment ...

This draft is intended to be informational, not standards track, and
is applicable to network interconnection only, not to network cores.

So, the specific request is to anyone involved with network control
(e.g., routing) traffic being exchanged between networks, particularly
if it's marked CS6 (Diffserv successor to IP Precedence Level 6) - please
comment on the text in this draft, and cc: the [e-mail] list.

This would not be a global revision to all use of CS6 for network control
traffic.

The current status of the draft is that it's an individual submission,
started based on some related predecessor work in ITU-T SG12. The draft
is a candidate for adoption by the tsvwg WG in the near future.

Thanks,
--David (tsvwg co-chair)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Susan Hares [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 1:34 PM
> To: idr wg
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Black, David
> Subject: FW: Treatment of Network Control traffic marked CS6 at DiffServ
> Interconnections
> 
> Idr:
> 
> tswg is providing a revision assignment TCP's treatment of CS 6marked
> control challenge. If you are a operator using this feature, please be sure
> to send comments.  The page within the draft is below.
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-geib-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon-05#page-9
> 
> You can get to the authors by responding to email.
> 
> Susan Hares
> 
> =============
> 
> Request-----
> 
> Hi Sue, hi Rüdiger,
> 
> You may find the draft text on treatment of CS 6 marked Network Control
> traffic at DiffServ Interconnection points at the following page of the
> DiffSeerv Intercon draft:
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-geib-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon-05#page-9
> 
> 
> or below.
> 
> Please share as required and provide feedback from the IDR WG to allow
> progressing the draft in agreement.
> 
> Please keep me in CC if you ask for public comments, I didn't subscribe to
> the IDR list.
> 
> Thanks and regards,
> 
> Ruediger Geib
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treatment of Network Control traffic at carrier interconnection interfaces
> 
> 
>    As specified by RFC4594, section 3.2, Network Control (NC) traffic
>    marked by CS6 is to be expected at interconnection interfaces.  This
>    document does not change NC specifications of RFC4594.  The latter
>    specification is detailed on domain internal NC traffic and on
>    traffic exchanged between peering points.  Further, it recommends not
>    to forward CS6 marked traffic originating from user-controlled end
>    points by the NC class of a provider domain.
> 
>    As a minor clarification to RFC4594, "peering" shouldn't be
>    interpreted in a commercial sense.  The NC PHB is applicable also in
>    the case of a purchased network service based on a transit agreement
>    with an upstream provider.  RFC4594 recommendations on NC traffic are
>    applicable for IP carrier interconnections in general.
> 
>    Some CS6 traffic exchanged accross carrier interconnections will
>    terminate at the domain ingress node (e.g., if BGP is running between
>    the two routers on opposite ends of the interconnection link).
> 
>    An IP carrier may limit access to the NC PHB for traffic which is
>    recognised as network control traffic relevant to the own domain.
>    Interconnecting carriers should specify treatment of CS6 marked
>    traffic received at a carrier interconnection which is to be
>    forwarded beyond the ingress node.  An SLA covering the following
>    cases is recommended, if a carrier wishes to send CS6 marked traffic
>    accross an interconnection link which isn't terminating at the
>    interconnected ingress node:
> 
>    o  classification of traffic which is network control traffic for
>       both domains.  This traffic should be classified and marked for
>       the NC PHB.
> 
>    o  classification of traffic which is network control traffic for the
>       sending domain only.  This traffic should be classified for a PHB
>       offering similar properties as the NC class (e.g.  AF31 as
>       specified by this document).  As an example GSMA IR.34 proposes an
>       Interactive class / AF31 to carry SIP and DIAMETER traffic.  While
>       this is service control traffic of high importance to the
>       interconnected Mobile Network Operators, it is certainly no
>       Network Control traffic for a fixed network providing transit.
>       The example may not be perfect.  It was picked nevertheless
>       because it refers to an existing standard.
> 
>    o  any other CS6 marked traffic should be remarked or dropped.
> 
> 
> A new version (-05) has been submitted for
> draft-geib-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-geib-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon-05.tx
> t
> 
> The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-geib-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon/
> 
> Diff from previous version:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-geib-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon-05
> 
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> 
> IETF Secretariat.
>