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

["Susan Hares" <[e-mail]>]

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.