[PCN] PCN admission marking algorithm - consensus?

<philip.eardley@bt.com> Wed, 27 February 2008 11:03 UTC

Return-Path: <pcn-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-pcn-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-pcn-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 261C828C1BB; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 03:03:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.239
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.239 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HTML_MESSAGE=1, J_CHICKENPOX_24=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_29=0.6, MIME_ASCII0=1.5, MIME_HTML_MOSTLY=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6Yp7yS5ZwWSM; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 03:03:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8A5A3A6CBC; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 03:03:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4D0D3A682C for <pcn@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 03:03:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uj+-pgzVzBev for <pcn@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 03:03:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp4.smtp.bt.com (smtp4.smtp.bt.com [217.32.164.151]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C15DA3A6A42 for <pcn@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 03:02:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from E03MVZ1-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net ([193.113.30.62]) by smtp4.smtp.bt.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:02:08 +0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:02:07 -0000
Message-ID: <75A199C5D243C741BF3D3F1EBCEF9BA503B345EC@E03MVZ1-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: PCN admission marking algorithm - consensus?
Thread-Index: Ach3oGcLq+pZ9d/iRpmXKw/VF5utxgA+v1bgACTdRVA=
From: philip.eardley@bt.com
To: pcn@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Feb 2008 11:02:08.0058 (UTC) FILETIME=[31C711A0:01C87930]
Subject: [PCN] PCN admission marking algorithm - consensus?
X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCN WG list <pcn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn>, <mailto:pcn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/pcn>
List-Post: <mailto:pcn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pcn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn>, <mailto:pcn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2079384352=="
Sender: pcn-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: pcn-bounces@ietf.org

I think we have consensus on the admission marking behaviour. This is a
first attempt to capture that in Stds language, is it any use?

 

 

If an interface of the PCN-domain performs PCN Admission Marking then it
performs three functions, which are outlined in
draft-ietf-pcn-architecture as follows:
 
   o  Packet classify - decide whether an incoming packet is a PCN-
      packet or not.  Another PCN WG document will specify encoding,
      using the DSCP and/or ECN fields.
 
   o  PCN-meter - measure the 'amount of PCN-traffic'.  The measurement
      is made as an aggregate of all PCN-packets, and not per flow.
 
   o  PCN-mark - algorithms determine whether to PCN-mark PCN-packets
      and what packet encoding is used (as specified in another PCN WG
      document).

 

These functions are now described in more detail.

Note: The PCN-node MAY implement these three functions on either its
ingoing or outgoing interfaces. The same choice MUST be made for every
PCN-node in one PCN-domain. 

 

Classify function:

If a packet's ECN/DSCP fields have the value PCN, as defined in
[RFC-encoding], then it MUST be classified as a PCN-packet.

If a packet's ECN/DSCP fields do not have the value PCN, as defined in
[RFC-encoding], then it MUST NOT be classified as a PCN-packet.

 

Meter function:

Note: The meter is described as a 'token bucket with threshold', however
the implementation is not standardised. For example, it could equally
well be implemented as a virtual queue (which operates with negative
tokens).

 

A packet classified as a PCN-packet MUST be metered as follows. 

The interface MUST have:

[1] a configured bit rate, termed PCN-lower-rate

[2] a meter for PCN-packets, which MUST have the following behaviour:

 

a token bucket, which 

1A tokens are added at the PCN-lower-rate, to a maximum TB.size

1B tokens are removed equal to the size of the PCN-packet, to a minimum
TB.size=0

2 if TB.fill < TB.threshold, then the meter indicates "admission mark"
to the Mark function

 

Note: Step 1A can be triggered by a packet and so can be done at the
same time as Step 1B.

Note: Step 2 can be performed before or after step 1

 

If TB.fill < size of the PCN-packet, then the meter MAY:

a. leave TB.fill unaltered and indicate "admission mark" to the Mark
function

b. set TB.fill = 0 and indicate "admission mark" to the Mark function


c. set TB.fill = 0 and check if TB.fill < TB.threshold and if it is,
then indicate "admission mark" to the Mark function        

Note: Option a is expected to be the simplest to implement. 

 

 

Mark function:

If the meter indicates to "admission mark" a PCN-packet, then:

[1] this step is REQUIRED, unless [RFC-encoding] standardises an
encoding that allows a PCN-packet to be simultaneously "admission
marked" and "termination marked":

If the PCN-packet's codepoint is already "termination mark" then it MUST
NOT be altered, ie the following step is not performed.

[2] the PCN-packet's ECN/DSCP fields MUST be set to the codepoint
"admission marked", as defined in [RFC-encoding]

 

 

we could also add an example algorithm, such as that in
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-charny-pcn-comparison-00.txt
Fig 10.1
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-charny-pcn-comparison-00.txt%
20Fig%2010.1>  on page 21.

 

Comments?

phil

_______________________________________________
PCN mailing list
PCN@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn