💾 Archived View for gemini.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc3754.txt captured on 2021-12-04 at 18:04:22.
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Network Working Group R. Bless
Request for Comments: 3754 Univ. of Karlsruhe
Category: Informational K. Wehrle
Univ. of Tuebingen
April 2004
IP Multicast in Differentiated Services (DS) Networks
Status of this Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document discusses the problems of IP Multicast use in
Differentiated Services (DS) networks, expanding on the discussion in
RFC 2475 ("An Architecture of Differentiated Services"). It also
suggests possible solutions to these problems, describes a potential
implementation model, and presents simulation results.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Management of Differentiated Services. . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Problems of IP Multicast in DS Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Neglected Reservation Subtree Problem (NRS Problem). . . 4
2.2. Heterogeneous Multicast Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.3. Dynamics of Any-Source Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3. Solutions for Enabling IP-Multicast in Differentiated
Services Networks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.1. Solution for the NRS Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2. Solution for Supporting Heterogeneous Multicast Groups . 15
3.3. Solution for Any-Source Multicast. . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4. Scalability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5. Deployment Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7. Implementation Model Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. Proof of the Neglected Reservation Subtree Problem . . . . . . 19
8.1. Implementation of the Proposed Solution. . . . . . . . . 20
8.2. Test Environment and Execution . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9. Simulative Study of the NRS Problem and Limited Effort PHB . . 23
Bless & Wehrle Informational [Page 1]
RFC 3754 IP Multicast in DS Networks April 2004
9.1. Simulation Scenario. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9.2. Simulation Results for Different Router Types. . . . . . 26
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
12. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
13. Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
1. Introduction
This document discusses the problems of IP Multicast use in
Differentiated Services (DS) networks, expanding on the discussion in
RFC 2475 ("An Architecture of Differentiated Services"). It also
suggests possible solutions to these problems, describes a potential
implementation model, and presents simulation results.
The "Differentiated Services" (DiffServ or DS) approach [1, 2, 3]
defines certain building blocks and mechanisms to offer qualitatively
better services than the traditional best-effort delivery service in
an IP network. In the DiffServ Architecture [2], scalability is
achieved by avoiding complexity and maintenance of per-flow state
information in core nodes, and by pushing unavoidable complexity to
the network edges. Therefore, individual flows belonging to the same
service are aggregated, thereby eliminating the need for complex
classification or managing state information per flow in interior
nodes.
On the other hand, the reduced complexity in DS nodes makes it more
complex to use those "better" services together with IP Multicast
(i.e., point-to-multipoint or multipoint-to-multipoint
communication). Problems emerging from this fact are described in
section 2. Although the basic DS forwarding mechanisms also work
with IP Multicast, some facts have to be considered which are related
to the provisioning of multicast resources. It is important to
integrate IP Multicast functionality into the architecture from the
beginning, and to provide simple solutions for those problems that
will not defeat the already gained advantages.
1.1. Management of Differentiated Services
At least for Per-Domain Behaviors and services based on the EF PHB,
admission control and resource reservation are required [14, 15].
Installation and updating of traffic profiles in boundary nodes is
necessary. Most network administrators cannot accomplish this task
manually, even for long term service level agreements (SLAs).
Furthermore, offering services on demand requires some kind of
signaling and automatic admission control procedures.
Bless & Wehrle Informational [Page 2]
RFC 3754 IP Multicast in DS Networks April 2004
However, no standardized resource management architecture for
DiffServ domains exists. The remainder of this document assumes that
at least some logical resource management entity is available to
perform resource-based admission control and allotment functions.
This entity may also be realized in a distributed fashion, e.g.,
within the routers themselves. Detailed aspects of the resource
management realization within a DiffServ domain, as well as the
interactions between resource management and routers or end-systems
(e.g., signaling for resources), are out of scope of this document.
Protocols for signaling a reservation request to a Differentiated
Services Domain are required. For accomplishing end-system signaling
to DS domains, RSVP [4] may be used with new DS specific reservation
objects [5]. RSVP provides support for multicast scenarios and is
already supported by many systems. However, application of RSVP in a
DiffServ multicast context may lead to problems that are also
described in the next section. The NSIS Working Group is currently
defining new signaling protocols that may show a different behavior,
but the WG has its current focus more on unicast flows than on
multicast flows.
2. Problems of IP Multicast in DS Domains
Although potential problems and the complexity of providing multicast
with Differentiated Services are considered in a separate section of
[2], both aspects have to be discussed in greater detail. The
simplicity of the DiffServ Architecture and its DS node types is
necessary to reach high scalability, but it also causes fundamental
problems in conjunction with the use of IP Multicast in DS domains.
The following subsections describe these problems for which a generic
solution is proposed in section 3. This solution is as scalable as
IP Multicast and needs no resource separation by using different
codepoint values for unicast and multicast traffic.
Because Differentiated Services are unidirectional by definition, the
point-to-multipoint communication is also considered as
unidirectional. In traditional IP Multicast, any node can send
packets spontaneously and asynchronously to a multicast group
specified by their multicast group address, i.e., traditional IP
Multicast offers a multipoint-to-multipoint service, also referred to
as Any-Source Multicast. Implications of this feature are discussed
in section 2.3.
For subsequent considerations we assume, unless stated otherwise, at
least a unidirectional point-to-multipoint communication scenario in
which the sender generates packets which experience a "better" Per-
Hop-Behavior than the traditional default PHB, resulting in a service
of better quality than the default best-effort service. In order to
Bless & Wehrle Informational [Page 3]
RFC 3754 IP Multicast in DS Networks April 2004
accomplish this, a traffic profile corresponding to the traffic
conditioning specification has to be installed in the sender's first
DS-capable boundary node. Furthermore, it must be assured that the
corresponding resources are available on the path from the sender to
all the receivers, possibly requiring adaptation of traffic profiles
at involved domain boundaries. Moreover, on demand resource
reservations may be receiver-initiated.
2.1. Neglected Reservation Subtree Problem (NRS Problem)
Typically, resources for Differentiated Services must be reserved
before they are used. But in a multicast scenario, group membership
is often highly dynamic, thereby limiting the use of a sender-
initiated resource reservation in advance. Unfortunately, dynamic
addition of new members of the multicast group using Differentiated
Services can adversely affect other existing traffic if resources
were not explicitly reserved before use. A practical proof of this
problem is given in section 8.
IP Multicast packet replication usually takes place when the packet
is handled by the forwarding core (cf. Fig. 1), i.e., when it is
forwarded and replicated according to the multicast forwarding table.
Thus, a DiffServ capable node would also copy the content of the DS
field [1] into the IP packet header of every replicate.
Consequently, replicated packets get exactly the same DS codepoint
(DSCP) as the original packet, and therefore experience the same
forwarding treatment as the incoming packets of this multicast group.
This is also illustrated in Fig. 1, where each egress interface
comprises functions for (BA-) classification, traffic conditioning
(TC), and queueing.
Interface A IP Forwarding Interface B
+-----------+ +--------------+ +-----------+
MC-flow | | | replication | | egress |
---->| ingress |---->|------+-------|----->|(class.,TC,|---->
| | | | | | queueing) |
+-----------+ | | | +-----------+
| | |
| | | Interface C
| | | +-----------+
| | | | egress |
| +-------|----->|(class.,TC,|---->
| | | queueing) |
+--------------+ +-----------+
Figure 1: Multicast packet replication in a DS node
Bless & Wehrle Informational [Page 4]
RFC 3754 IP Multicast in DS Networks April 2004
Normally, the replicating node cannot test whether a corresponding
resource reservation exists for a particular flow of replicated
packets on an output link (i.e., its corresponding interface). This
is because flow-specific information (e.g., traffic profiles) is
usually not available in every boundary and interior node.
When a new receiver joins an IP Multicast group, a multicast routing
protocol (e.g., DVMRP [6], PIM-DM [7] or PIM-SM [8]) grafts a new
branch to an existing multicast tree in order to connect the new
receiver to the tree. As a result of tree expansion, missing per-
flow classification, and policing mechanisms, the new receiver will
implicitly use the service of better quality, because of the "better"
copied DSCP.
If the additional amount of resources which are consumed by the new
part of the multicast tree are not taken into account by the domain
resource management (cf. section 1.1), the currently provided quality
of service of other receivers (with correct reservations) will be
affected adversely or even violated. This negative effect on
existing traffic contracts by a neglected resource reservation -- in
the following designated as the Neglected Reservation Subtree Problem
(NRS Problem) -- must be avoided under all circumstances. Strong
admission control policies at the domain boundary will not help to
prevent this problem either, because the new flow that inadmissibly
consumes resources has its origin inside the domain.
One can distinguish two major cases of the NRS Problem. They show a
different behavior depending on the location of the branching point.
In order to compare their different effects, a simplistic example of
a share of bandwidth is illustrated in Fig. 2 and is used in the
following explanations. Neither the specific PHB types nor their
assigned bandwidth share are important; however, their relative
priority with respect to each other is of importance.
40% 40% 20%
+--------------------+---------------------+------------+
|Expedited Forwarding| Assured Forwarding | Best-Effort|
+--------------------+---------------------+------------+
---------------------------------------------------------->
output link bandwidth
Figure 2: An example bandwidth share of different
behavior aggregates
Bless & Wehrle Informational [Page 5]
RFC 3754 IP Multicast in DS Networks April 2004
The bandwidth of the considered output link is shared by three types
of services (i.e., by three behavior aggregates): Expedited
Forwarding, Assured Forwarding, and the traditional Best-Effort
service. In this example, we assume that routers perform strict
priority queueing, where EF has the highest, AF the middle, and
Best-Effort the lowest assigned scheduling priority. Though not
mandatory for an EF implementation, a strict non-preemptive priority
scheduler is one implementation option as described in section 5.1.1
of RFC 3247 [15]. Were Weighted Fair Queueing (WFQ) to be used, the
described effects would essentially also occur, but with minor
differences. In the following scenarios, it is illustrated that PHBs
of equal or lower priority (in comparison to the multicast flow's
PHB) are affected by the NRS problem.
The Neglected Reservation Subtree problem appears in two different
cases:
o Case 1: If the branching point of the new subtree (at first only a
branch) and the previous multicast tree is a (egress) boundary
node, as shown in Fig. 3, the additional multicast flow now
increases the total amount of used resources for the corresponding
behavior aggregate on the affected output link. The total amount
will be greater than the originally reserved amount.
Consequently, the policing component in the egress boundary node
drops packets until the traffic aggregate is in accordance with
the traffic contract. But while dropping packets, the router can
not identify the responsible flow (because of missing flow
classification functionality), and thus randomly discards packets,
whether they belong to a correctly behaving flow or not. As a
result, there will no longer be any service guarantee for the
flows with properly reserved resources.
Bless & Wehrle Informational [Page 6]
RFC 3754 IP Multicast in DS Networks April 2004
Sender
+---+
| S | DS domains
+---+ / \
.||............... / \ ................
. || .<- ->. .
. || . . .
. +---+ +--+ +--+ *) +--+ +--+ +--+ +------+
. |FHN|===|IN|=====|BN|###########|BN|####|IN|######|BN|####|Recv.B|
. +---+ +--+ +--+\\ +--+ +--+ +--+ +------+
. \\ \ . \\ . \ .
. +--+ +--+ . \\ . \ .
. |IN|-----|IN| . \\ . +--+ .
. +--+ +--+ . \\ ..........|BN|..
. || \ . +------+ +--+
. || \ . |Recv.A|
.+--+ +--+. +------+
|BN|........|BN|
+--+ +--+
||
S: Sender
Recv.x: Receiver x
FHN: First-Hop Node
BN: Boundary Node
IN: Interior Node
===: Multicast branch with reserved bandwidth
###: Multicast branch without reservation
*) Bandwidth of EF aggregated on the output link is higher than
actual reservation, EF aggregate will be limited in bandwidth
without considering the responsible flow.
Figure 3: The NRS Problem (case 1) occurs when Receiver
B joins
In figure 3, it is assumed that receiver A is already attached to
the egress boundary node (BN) of the first domain. Furthermore,
resources are properly reserved along the path to receiver A and
used by correspondingly marked packets. When receiver B joins the
same group as receiver A, packets are replicated and forwarded
along the new branch towards the second domain with the same PHB
as for receiver A. If this PHB is EF, the new branch possibly
exhausts allotted resources for the EF PHB, adversely affecting
other EF users that receive their packets over the link that is
marked with the *). The BN usually ensures that outgoing traffic
aggregates to the next domain are conforming to the agreed traffic
conditioning specification. The egress BN will, therefore, drop
packets of the PHB type that are used for the multicast flow.
Bless & Wehrle Informational [Page 7]
RFC 3754 IP Multicast in DS Networks April 2004
Other PHBs of lower or higher priority are not affected adversely
in this case. The following example in Fig. 4. illustrates this
for two PHBs.
+------------------+---------------------+--------------+------+
| Expedited Forw. | Expedited Forw. | Assured Forw.| BE |
| | | | |
| with reservation | excess flow | with reserv. | |
| | without reservation | | |
+------------------+---------------------+--------------+------+
| EF with and without reservation share | 40 % | 20% |
| 40% of reserved EF aggregate. | | |
| -> EF packets with reservation and | | |
| without reservation will be | | |
| discarded! | | |
+------------------+---------------------+--------------+------+
(a) Excess flow has EF codepoint
+------------------+---------------------+--------------+------+
| Expedited Forw. | Assured Forwarding | Assured Forw.| BE |
| | | | |
| with reservation | excess flow | with reserv. | |
| | without reservation | | |
+------------------+---------------------+--------------+------+
| | AF with & without reservation share| 20 % |
| | 40% of reserved EF aggregate. | |
| 40% | -> EF packets with reservation and | |
| | without reservation will be | |
| | discarded! | |
+------------------+---------------------+--------------+------+
(b) Excess flow has AF codepoint
Figure 4: Resulting share of bandwidth in a egress
boundary node with a neglected reservation of
(a) an Expedited Forwarding flow or (b) an
Assured Forwarding flow.
Fig. 4 shows the resulting share of bandwidth in cases when (a)
Expedited Forwarding and (b) Assured Forwarding is used by the
additional multicast branch causing the NRS Problem. Assuming
that the additional traffic would use another 30% of the link
bandwidth, Fig. 4 (a) illustrates that the resulting aggregate of
Expedited Forwarding (70% of the outgoing link bandwidth) is
throttled down to its originally reserved 40%. In this case, the
amount of dropped EF bandwidth is equal to the amount of excess
bandwidth. Consequently, the original Expedited Forwarding
Bless & Wehrle Informational [Page 8]
RFC 3754 IP Multicast in DS Networks April 2004
aggregate (which had 40% of the link bandwidth reserved) is also
affected by packet losses. The other services, e.g., Assured
Forwarding or Best-Effort, are not disadvantaged.
Fig. 4 (b) shows the same situation for Assured Forwarding. The
only difference is that now Assured Forwarding is solely affected
by discards, as the other services will still get their
guarantees. In either case, packet losses are restricted to the
misbehaving service class by the traffic meter and policing
mechanisms in boundary nodes. Moreover, the latter problem (case
1) occurs only in egress boundary nodes because they are
responsible for ensuring that the traffic leaving the
Differentiated Services domain is not more than the following
ingress boundary node will accept. Therefore, those violations of
SLAs will already be detected and processed in egress boundary
nodes.
o Case 2: The Neglected Reservation Subtree problem can also occur
if the branching point between the previous multicast tree and the
new subtree is located in an interior node (as shown in Fig. 5).
In Fig. 5, it is assumed that receivers A and B have already
joined the multicast group and have reserved resources
accordingly. The interior node in the second domain starts
replication of multicast packets as soon as receiver C joins.
Because the router is not equipped with metering or policing
functions, it will not recognize any amount of excess traffic and
will forward the new multicast flow. If the latter belongs to a
higher priority service, such as Expedited Forwarding, bandwidth
of the aggregate is higher than the aggregate's reservation at the
new branch and will use bandwidth from lower priority services.
Bless & Wehrle Informational [Page 9]
RFC 3754 IP Multicast in DS Networks April 2004
Sender
+---+
| S | DS domains
+---+ / \
.||............... / \ ................
. || .<- ->. .
. || . . .
. +---+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +------+
. |FHN|===|IN|=====|BN|===========|BN|====|IN|======|BN|===|Recv.B|
. +---+ +--+ +--+\\ +--+ +--+ +--+ +------+
. \\ \ . \\ . # .
. +--+ +--+ . \\ . # *) .
. |IN|-----|IN| . \\ . +--+ .
. +--+ +--+ . \\ ..........|BN|..
. || \ . +------+ +--+
. || \ . |Recv.A| #
.+--+ +--+. +------+ #
|BN|........|BN| +------+
+--+ +--+ |Recv.C|
|| +------+
FHN: First-Hop Node, BN: Boundary Node, Recv.x: Receiver x
S: Sender, IN: Interior Node
===: Multicast branch with reserved bandwidth
###: Multicast branch without reservation
*) Bandwidth of EF aggregated on the output link is higher than
actual reservation, EF aggregate will be limited in bandwidth
without considering the responsible flow
Figure 5: Neglected Reservation Subtree problem case 2
after join of receiver C
Bless & Wehrle Informational [Page 10]
RFC 3754 IP Multicast in DS Networks April 2004
The additional amount of EF without a corresponding reservation is
forwarded together with the aggregate which has a reservation.
This results in no packet losses for Expedited Forwarding as long
as the resulting aggregate is not higher than the output link
bandwidth. Because of its higher priority, Expedited Forwarding
gets as much bandwidth as needed and as is available. The effects
on other PHBs are illustrated by the following example in Fig. 6.
+------------------+---------------------+--------------+------+
| Expedited Forw. | Expedited Forw. | Assured Forw.| BE |
| | | | |
| with reservation | excess flow | with reserv. | |
| | without reservation | | |
+------------------+---------------------+--------------+------+
| 40% | 30% | 30% | 0% |
+------------------+---------------------+--------------+------+
EF with reservation and the excess flow use together 70%
of the link bandwidth because EF, with or without reservation,
has the highest priority.
(a) Excess flow has EF codepoint
+------------------+---------------------+--------------+------+
| Expedited Forw. | Assured Forw. | Assured Forw.| BE |
| | | | |
| with reservation | excess flow | with reserv. | |
| | without reservation | | |
+------------------+---------------------+--------------+------+
| 40% | 60% | 0% |
| | (10% loss) | |
+------------------+---------------------+--------------+------+
AF with reservation and the excess flow use together 60%
of the link bandwidth because EF has the highest priority
(-> 40%). 10% of AF packets will be lost.
(b) Excess flow has AF codepoint
Figure 6: Resulting share of bandwidth in an interior
node with a neglected reservation of (a) an
Expedited Forwarding flow or (b) an Assured
Forwarding flow
The result of case 2 is that there is no restriction for Expedited
Forwarding, but as Fig. 6 (a) shows, other services will be
extremely disadvantaged by this use of non-reserved resources.
Their bandwidth is used by the new additional flow. In this case,
the additional 30% Expedited Forwarding traffic preempts resources
from the Assured Forwarding traffic, which in turn preempts
Bless & Wehrle Informational [Page 11]
RFC 3754 IP Multicast in DS Networks April 2004
resources from the best-effort traffic, resulting in 10% packet
losses for the Assured Forwarding aggregate, and a complete loss
of best-effort traffic. The example in Fig. 6 (b) shows that this
can also happen with lower priority services like Assured
Forwarding. When a reservation for a service flow with lower
priority is neglected, other services (with even lower priority)
can be reduced in their quality (in this case the best-effort
service). As shown in the example, the service's aggregate
causing the NRS problem can itself be affected by packet losses
(10% of the Assured Forwarding aggregate is discarded). Besides
the described problems of case 2, case 1 will occur in the DS
boundary node of the next DS domain that performs traffic metering
and policing for the service aggregate.
Directly applying RSVP to Differentiated Services would also result
in temporary occurrence of the NRS Problem. A receiver has to join
the IP multicast group to receive the sender's PATH messages, before
being able to send a resource reservation request (RESV message).
Thus, the join message on the link for receiving PATH messages can
cause the NRS Problem, if this situation is not handled in a special
way (e.g., by marking all PATH messages with codepoint 0 and dropping
or re-marking all other data packets of the multicast flow).
2.2. Heterogeneous Multicast Groups
Heterogeneous multicast groups contain one or more receivers, which
would like to get another service or quality of service as the sender
provides or other receiver subsets currently use. A very important
characteristic which should be supported by Differentiated Services
is that participants requesting a best-effort quality only should
also be able to participate in a group communication which otherwise
utilizes a better service class. The next better support for
heterogeneity provides concurrent use of more than two different
service classes within a group. Things tend to get even more complex
when not only different service classes are required, but also
different values for quality parameters within a certain service
class.
A further problem is to support heterogeneous groups with different
service classes in a consistent way. It is possible that some
services will not be comparable to each other so that one service
cannot be replaced by the other, and both services have to be
provided over the same link within this group.
Because an arbitrary new receiver that wants to get the different
service can be grafted to any point of the current multicast delivery
tree, even interior nodes may have to replicate packets using the
different service. At a first glance, this seems to be a
Bless & Wehrle Informational [Page 12]
RFC 3754 IP Multicast in DS Networks April 2004
contradiction with respect to simplicity of the interior nodes,
because they do not even have a profile available and should now
convert the service of quality of individual receivers.
Consequently, in order to accomplish this, interior nodes have to
change the codepoint value during packet replication.
2.3. Dynamics of Any-Source Multicast
Basically, within an IP multicast group, any participant (actually,
it can be any host not even receiving packets of this multicast
group) can act as a sender. This is an important feature which
should also be available in case a specific service other than best-
effort is used within the group. Differentiated Services possess,
conceptually, a unidirectional character. Therefore, for every
multicast tree implied by a sender, resources must be reserved
separately if simultaneous sending should be possible with a better
service. This is even true if shared multicast delivery trees are
used (e.g., with PIM-SM or Core Based Trees). If not enough
resources are reserved for a service within a multicast tree allowing
simultaneous sending of more than one participant, the NRS problem
will occur again. The same argument applies to half-duplex
reservations which would share the reserved resources by several
senders, because it cannot be ensured by the network that exactly one
sender sends packets to the group. Accordingly, the corresponding
RSVP reservation styles "Wildcard Filter" and "Shared-Explicit
Filter" [4] cannot be supported within Differentiated Services. The
Integrated Services approach is able to ensure the half-duplex nature
of the traffic, because every router can check each packet for its
conformance with the installed reservation state.
3. Solutions for Enabling IP-Multicast in Differentiated Services
Networks
The problems described in the previous section are mainly caused by
the simplicity of the Differentiated Services architecture.
Solutions that do not introduce additional complexity need to be
introduced so as to not diminish the scalability of the DiffServ
approach. This document suggests a straightforward solution for most
of the problems.
3.1. Solution for the NRS Problem
The proposed solution consists conceptually of the following three
steps that are described in more detail later.
Bless & Wehrle Informational [Page 13]
RFC 3754 IP Multicast in DS Networks April 2004
1. A new receiver joins a multicast group that is using a DiffServ
service. Multicast routing protocols accomplish the connection
of the new branch to the (possibly already existing) multicast
delivery tree as usual.
2. The unauthorized use of resources is avoided by re-marking at
branching nodes all additional packets departing down the new
branch. At first, the new receiver will get all packets of the
multicast group without quality of service. The management
entity of the correspondent DiffServ domain may get informed
about the extension of the multicast tree.
3. If a pre-issued reservation is available for the new branch or
somebody (receiver, sender or a third party) issues one, the
management entity instructs the branching router to set the
corresponding codepoint for the demanded service.
Usage of resources which were not previously reserved must be
prevented. In the following example, we consider a case where the
join of a new receiver to a DS multicast group requires grafting of a
new branch to an already existing multicast delivering tree. The
connecting node that joins both trees converts the codepoint (and
therefore the Per-Hop Behavior) to a codepoint of a PHB which is
similar to the default PHB in order to provide a best-effort-like
service for the new branch. More specifically, this particular PHB
can provide a service that is even worse than the best-effort service
of the default PHB. See RFC 3662 [16] for a corresponding Lower
Effort Per-Domain Behavior.
The conversion to this specific PHB could be necessary in order to
avoid unfairness being introduced within the best-effort service
aggregate, and, which results from the higher amount of resource
usage of the incoming traffic belonging to the multicast group. If
the rate at which re-marked packets are injected into the outgoing
aggregate is not reduced, those re-marked packets will probably cause
discarding of other flow's packets in the outgoing aggregate if
resources are scarce.
Therefore, the re-marked packets from this multicast group should be
discarded more aggressively than other packets in this outgoing
aggregate. This could be accomplished by using an appropriately
configured PHB (and a related DSCP) for those packets. In order to
distinguish this kind of PHB from the default PHB, it is referred to
as the Limited Effort (LE) PHB (which can be realized by an
appropriately configured AF PHB [9] or Class Selector Compliant PHB
[1]) throughout this document. Merely dropping packets more
aggressively at the re-marking node is not sufficient, because there
may be enough resources in the outgoing behavior aggregate (BA) to
Bless & Wehrle Informational [Page 14]
RFC 3754 IP Multicast in DS Networks April 2004
transmit every re-marked packet without having to discard any other
packets within the same BA. However, resources in the next node may
be short for this particular BA. Those "excess" packets, therefore,
must be identifiable at this node.
Re-marking packets is only required at branching nodes, whereas all
other nodes of the multicast tree (such with outdegree 1) replicate
packets as usual. Because a branching node may also be an interior
node of a domain, re-marking of packets requires conceptually per-
flow classification. Though this seems to be in contradiction to the
DiffServ philosophy of a core that avoids per-flow states, IP
multicast flows are different from unicast flows: traditional IP
multicast forwarding and multicast routing are required to install
states per multicast group for every outgoing link anyway.
Therefore, re-marking in interior nodes is scalable to the same
extent as IP multicast (cf. section 4).
Re-marking with standard DiffServ mechanisms [10] for every new
branch requires activation of a default traffic profile. The latter
accomplishes re-marking by using a combination of an MF-classifier
and a marker at an outgoing link that constitutes a new branch. The
classifier will direct all replicated packets to a marker that sets
the new codepoint. An alternative implementation is described in
section 7.
The better service will only be provided if a reservation request was
processed and approved by the resource management function. That
means an admission control test must be performed before resources
are actually used by the new branch. In case the admission test is
successful, the re-marking node will be instructed by the resource
management to stop re-marking and to use the original codepoint again
(conceptually by removing the profile).
In summary, only those receivers will obtain a better service within
a DiffServ multicast group, which previously reserved the
corresponding resources in the new branch with assistance of the
resource management. Otherwise, they get a quality which might be
even lower than best-effort.
3.2. Solution for Supporting Heterogeneous Multicast Groups
In this document, considerations are limited to provisioning
different service classes, but not different quality parameters
within a certain service class.
The proposed concept from section 3.1 provides a limited solution of
the heterogeneity problem. Receivers are allowed to obtain a Limited
Effort service without a reservation, so that at least two different
Bless & Wehrle Informational [Page 15]
RFC 3754 IP Multicast in DS Networks April 2004
service classes within a multicast group are possible. Therefore, it
is possible for any receiver to participate in the multicast session
without getting any quality of service. This is useful if a receiver
just wants to see whether the content of the multicast group is
interesting enough, before requesting a better service which must be
paid for (like snooping into a group without prior reservation).
Alternatively, a receiver might not be able to receive this better
quality of service (e.g., because it is mobile and uses a wireless
link of limited capacity), but it may be satisfied with the reduced
quality, instead of getting no content at all.
Additionally, applying the RSVP concept of listening for PATH
messages before sending any RESV message is feasible again. Without
using the proposed solution, this would have caused the NRS Problem.
Theoretically, the proposed approach in section 7 also supports more
than two different services within one multicast group, because the
additional field in the multicast routing table can store any DSCP
value. However, this would work only if PHBs can be ordered, so that
the "best" PHB among different required PHBs downstream is chosen to
be forwarded on a specific link. This is mainly a management issue
and is out of the scope of this document.
More advanced concepts may also support conditional re-marking in
dependence on the group address and DSCP value. This is useful if
the group uses different PHBs (e.g., for flows to different transport
protocol ports) and the re-marking should thus additionally depend on
the DSCP value of an incoming packet.
3.3. Solution for Any-Source Multicast
Every participant would have to initiate an explicit reservation to
ensure the possibility of sending to the group with a better service
quality, regardless of whether other senders within the group already
use the same service class simultaneously. This would require a
separate reservation for each sender-rooted multicast tree.
However, in the specific case of best-effort service (the default
PHB), it is nevertheless possible for participants to send packets to
the group anytime without requiring any additional mechanisms. The
reason for this is that the first DS-capable boundary node will mark
those packets with the DSCP of the default PHB because of a missing
traffic profile for this particular sender. The first DS capable
boundary nodes should therefore always classify multicast packets
based on both the sender's address and the multicast group address.
4. Scalability Considerations
Bless & Wehrle Informational [Page 16]
RFC 3754 IP Multicast in DS Networks April 2004
The proposed solution does not add complexity to the DS architecture
or to a DS node, nor does it change the scalability properties of
DiffServ. With current IP multicast routing protocols, a multicast
router has to manage and hold state information per traversing
multicast flow. The suggested solution scales to the same extent as
IP multicast itself, because the proposed re-marking may occur per
branch of a multicast flow. This re-marking is logically associated
with an addition to the multicast routing state that is required
anyway. In this respect, re-marking of packets for multicast flows
in interior nodes is not considered as a scalability problem or to be
in contradiction to the DiffServ approach itself. It is important to
distinguish the multicast case from existing justifiable scalability
concerns relating to re-marking packets of unicast flows within
interior routers. Moreover, the decision of when to change a re-
marking policy is not performed by the router, but by some management
entity at a time scale which is different from the time scale at the
packet forwarding level.
5. Deployment Considerations
The solution proposed in section 3.1 can be deployed on most router
platforms available today. Architectures that perform routing and
forwarding functions in software could be updated by a new software
release.
However, there may be some specialized hardware platforms that are
currently not able to deploy the proposed solution from section 7.
This may be the case when a multicast packet is directly duplicated
on the backplane of the router, so that all outgoing interfaces read
the packet in parallel. Consequently, the codepoint cannot be
changed for a subset of these outgoing interfaces and the NRS problem
can not be solved directly in the branching point.
In this case, there exist several alternative solutions:
1. As mentioned in section 3.1, if traffic conditioning mechanisms
can be applied on the outgoing packets at the individual output
interfaces, a combination of classifier and marker may be used
for each branch.
2. The change of the codepoint for subtrees without properly
allocated resources could take place in the following
downstream router. There, for every incoming packet of the
considered multicast group, the codepoint would be changed to
the value that the previous router should have set. If a LAN
(e.g., a high-speed switching LAN) is attached to the
considered outgoing interface, then on every router connected
to the LAN, packets of the considered group should be changed
Bless & Wehrle Informational [Page 17]
RFC 3754 IP Multicast in DS Networks April 2004
on the incoming interface by standard DiffServ mechanisms.
Future releases of router architectures may support the change of the
codepoint directly in the replication process as proposed in section
7.
6. Security Considerations
Basically, the security considerations in [1] apply. The proposed
solution does not imply new security aspects. If a join of arbitrary
end-systems to a multicast group is not desired (thereby receiving a
lower than best-effort quality) the application usually has to
exclude these participants. This can be accomplished by using
authentication, authorization, or ciphering techniques at the
application level -- like in traditional IP multicast scenarios.
Moreover, it is important to consider the security of corresponding
management mechanisms, because they are used to activate re-marking
of multicast flows. On the one hand, functions for instructing the
router to mark or re-mark packets of multicast flows are attractive
targets to perform theft of service attacks. On the other hand,
their security depends on the router management mechanisms which are
used to realize this functionality. Router management should
generally be protected against unauthorized use, therefore preventing
those attacks as well.
7. Implementation Model Example
One possibility of implementing the proposed solution from section
3.1 is described in the following. It has to be emphasized that
other realizations are also possible, and this description should not
be understood as a restriction on potential implementations. The
benefit of the following described implementation is that it does not
require any additional classification of multicast groups within an
aggregate. It serves as a proof of concept that no additional
complexity is necessary to implement the proposed general solution
described in section 3.
Because every multicast flow has to be considered by the multicast
routing process (in this context, this notion signifies the multicast
forwarding part and not the multicast route calculation and
maintenance part, cf. Fig. 1), the addition of an extra byte in each
multicast routing table entry containing the DS field, and thus its
DS codepoint value per output link (resp. virtual interface, see Fig.
8), results in nearly no additional cost. Packets will be replicated
by the multicast forwarding process, so this is also the right place
for setting the correct DSCP values of the replicated packets. Their
DSCP values are not copied from the incoming original packet, but
Bless & Wehrle Informational [Page 18]
RFC 3754 IP Multicast in DS Networks April 2004
from the additional DS field in the multicasting routing table entry
for the corresponding output link (only the DSCP value must be
copied, while the two remaining bits are ignored and are present for
simplification reasons only). This field initially contains the
codepoint of the LE PHB if incoming packets for this specific group
do not carry the codepoint of the default PHB.
When a packet arrives with the default PHB, the outgoing replicates
should also get the same codepoint in order to retain the behavior of
current common multicast groups using the default PHB. A router
configuration message changes the DSCP values in the multicast
routing table and may also carry the new DSCP value which should be
set in the replicated packets. It should be noted that although re-
marking may also be performed by interior nodes, the forwarding
performance will not be decreased, because the decision of when and
what to re-mark is made by the management (control plane).
Multicast Other List
Destination Fields of
Address virtual Inter- DS
interfaces face ID Field
+--------------------------------+ +-------------------+
| X | .... | *-------------------->| C | (DSCP,CU) |
|--------------------------------| +-------------------+
| Y | .... | *-----------+ | D | (DSCP,CU) |
|--------------------------------| | +-------------------+
| ... | .... | ... | |
. . . . | +-------------------+
. ... . .... . ... . +-------->| B | (DSCP,CU) |
+--------------------------------+ +-------------------+
| ... | .... | ... | | D | (DSCP,CU) |
+--------------------------------+ +-------------------+
| ... | ... |
. . .
. . .
Figure 8: Multicast routing table with additional
fields for DSCP values
8. Proof of the Neglected Reservation Subtree Problem
In the following, it is shown that the NRS problem actually exists
and occurs in reality. Hence, the problem and its solution was
investigated using a standard Linux Kernel (v2.4.18) and the Linux-
based implementation KIDS [11].
Furthermore, the proposed solution for the NRS problem has been
implemented by enhancing the multicast routing table, as well as the
Bless & Wehrle Informational [Page 19]
RFC 3754 IP Multicast in DS Networks April 2004
multicast routing behavior in the Linux kernel. In the following
section, the modifications are briefly described.
Additional measurements with the simulation model simulatedKIDS [12]
will be presented in section 9. They show the effects of the NRS
problem in more detail and also the behavior of the BAs using or not
using the Limited Effort PHB for re-marking.
8.1. Implementation of the Proposed Solution
As described in section 3.1, the proposed solution for avoiding the
NRS Problem is an extension of each routing table entry in every
Multicast router by one byte. In the Linux OS, the multicast routing
table is implemented by the "Multicast Forwarding Cache (MFC)". The
MFC is a hash table consisting of an "mfc-cache"-entry for each
combination of the following three parameters: sender's IP address,
multicast group address, and incoming interface.
The routing information in a "mfc-cache"-entry is kept in an array of
TTLs for each virtual interface. When the TTL is zero, a packet
matching to this "mfc-cache"-entry will not be forwarded on this
virtual interface. Otherwise, if the TTL is less than the packet's
TTL, the latter will be forwarded on the interface with a decreased
TTL.
In order to set an appropriate codepoint if bandwidth is allocated on
an outgoing link, we added a second array of bytes -- similar to the
TTL array -- for specifying the codepoint that should be used on a
particular virtual interface. The first six bits of the byte contain
the DSCP that should be used, and the seventh bit indicates whether
the original codepoint in the packet has to be changed to the
specified one (=0) or has to be left unchanged (=1). The default
entry of the codepoint byte is zero; so initially, all packets will
be re-marked to the default DSCP.
Furthermore, we modified the multicast forwarding code for
considering this information while replicating multicast packets. To
change an "mfc-cache"-entry we implemented a daemon for exchanging
the control information with a management entity (e.g., a bandwidth
broker). Currently, the daemon uses a proprietary protocol, but
migration to the COPS protocol (RFC 2748) is planned.
Bless & Wehrle Informational [Page 20]
RFC 3754 IP Multicast in DS Networks April 2004
8.2. Test Environment and Execution
Sender
+---+ FHN: First Hop Node
| S | BN: Boundary Node
+---+
+#
+#
+#
+---+ +--+ +------+
|FHN|++++++++++++|BN|+++++++++++| host |
| |############| |***********| B |
+---+ +--+## +------+
+# #
+# #
+# #
+------+ +------+
|host A| |host C|
+------+ +------+
+++ EF flow (group1) with reservation
### EF flow (group2) with reservation
*** EF flow (group2) without reservation
Figure 8.1: Evaluation of NRS-Problem described in
Figure 3
In order to prove case 1 of the NRS problem, as described in section
2.1, the testbed shown in Figure 8.1 was built. It is a reduced
version of the network shown in Figure 5 and consists of two DS-
capable nodes, an ingress boundary node and an egress boundary node.
The absence of interior nodes does not have any effect on to the
proof of the described problem.
The testbed is comprised of two Personal Computers (Pentium III at
450 Mhz, 128 MB Ram, 3 network cards Intel eepro100) used as DiffServ
nodes, as well as one sender and three receiver systems (also PCs).
On the routers, KIDS has been installed and an mrouted (Multicast
Routing Daemon) was used to perform multicast routing. The network
was completely built of separate 10BaseT Ethernet segments in full-
duplex mode. In [11], we evaluated the performance of the software
routers and found out that even a PC at 200Mhz had no problem
handling up to 10Mbps DS traffic on each link. Therefore, the
presented measurements are not a result of performance bottlenecks
caused by these software routers.
Bless & Wehrle Informational [Page 21]
RFC 3754 IP Multicast in DS Networks April 2004
The sender generated two shaped UDP traffic flows of 500kbps (packets
of 1.000 byte constant size) each and sent them to multicast group 1
(233.1.1.1) and 2 (233.2.2.2). In both measurements, receiver A had
a reservation along the path to the sender for each flow, receiver B
had reserved for flow 1, and C for flow 2. Therefore, two static
profiles are installed in the ingress boundary node with 500kbps EF
bandwidth and a token bucket size of 10.000 bytes for each flow.
In the egress boundary node, one profile has been installed for the
output link to host B and one related for the output link to host C.
Each of them permits up to 500kbps Expedited Forwarding, but only the
aggregate of Expedited Forwarding traffic carried on the outgoing
link is considered.
In measurement 1, the hosts A and B joined to group 1, while A, B,
and C joined to group 2. Those joins are using a reservation for the
group towards the sender. Only the join of host B to group 2 has no
admitted reservation. As described in section 2.1, this will cause
the NRS problem (case 1). Metering and policing mechanisms in the
egress boundary node throttle down the EF aggregate to the reserved
500kbps, and do not depend on whether or not individual flows have
been reserved.
+--------+--------+--------+
| Host A | Host B | Host C |
+---------+--------+--------+--------+
| Group 1 | 500kbps| 250kbps| 500kbps|
+---------+--------+--------+--------+
| Group 2 | 500kbps| 250kbps| |
+---------+--------+--------+--------+
Figure 8.2: Results of measurement 1 (without the
proposed solution): Average bandwidth of
each flow.
--> Flows of group 1 and 2 on the link to
host B share the reserved aggregate of
group 1.
Figure 8.2 shows the obtained results. Host A and C received their
flows without any interference. But host B received data from group
1 with only half of the reserved bandwidth, so one half of the
packets have been discarded. Figure 8.2 also shows that receiver B
got the total amount of bandwidth for group 1 and 2, that is exactly
the reserved 500kbps. Flow 2 got Expedited Forwarding without
actually having reserved any bandwidth and additionally violated the
guarantee of group 1 on that link.
Bless & Wehrle Informational [Page 22]
RFC 3754 IP Multicast in DS Networks April 2004
For measurement 2, the previously presented solution (cf. section
3.1) has been installed in the boundary node. Now, while duplicating
the packets, whether the codepoint has to be changed to Best-Effort
(or Limited Effort) or whether it can be just duplicated is checked.
In this measurement, it changed the codepoint for group 2 on the link
to Host B to Best-Effort.
+--------+--------+--------+
| Host A | Host B | Host C |
+---------+--------+--------+--------+
| Group 1 | 500kbps| 500kbps| 500kbps|
+---------+--------+--------+--------+
| Group 2 | 500kbps| 500kbps| |
+---------+--------+--------+--------+
Figure 8.3: Results of measurement 1 (with the
proposed solution): Average bandwidth of
each flow.
--> Flow of group 1 on the link to host B
gets the reserved bandwidth of group 1.
The flow of group 2 has been re-marked to
Best-Effort.
Results of this measurement are presented in Figure 8.3. Each host
received its flows with the reserved bandwidth and without any packet
loss. Packets from group 2 are re-marked in the boundary node so
that they have been treated as best-effort traffic. In this case,
they got the same bandwidth as the Expedited Forwarding flow, and
because there was not enough other traffic on the link present, there
was no need to discard packets.
The above measurements confirm that the Neglected Reservation Subtree
problem is to be taken seriously and that the presented solution will
solve it.
9. Simulative Study of the NRS Problem and Limited Effort PHB
This section shows some results from a simulative study which shows
the correctness of the proposed solution and the effect of re-marking
the responsible flow to Limited Effort. A proof of the NRS problem
has also been given in section 8 and in [13]. This section shows the
benefit for the default Best Effort traffic when Limited Effort is
used for re-marking instead of Best Effort. The results strongly
motivate the use of Limited Effort.
Bless & Wehrle Informational [Page 23]
RFC 3754 IP Multicast in DS Networks April 2004
9.1. Simulation Scenario
In the following scenario, the boundary nodes had a link speed of 10
Mpbs and Interior Routers had a link speed of 12 Mbps. In boundary
nodes, a 5 Mbps aggregate for EF has been reserved.
When Limited Effort was used, LE got 10% capacity (0.5Mpbs) from the
original BE aggregate and BE 90% (4.5Mbps) of the original BE
aggregate capacity. The bandwidth between LE and BE is shared by
using WFQ scheduling.
The following topology was used, where Sx is a sender, BRx a boundary
node, IRx an interior node, and Dx a destination/receiver.
+--+ +--+ +---+ +--+
|S1| |S0| /=|BR5|=====|D0|
+--+ +--+ // +---+ +--+
\\ || //
\\ || //
+--+ \+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +--+
|S2|===|BR1|=====|IR1|=====|IR2|======|BR3|=====|D1|
+--+ +---+ /+---+ +---+ +---+ +--+
// \\ +--+
// \\ /=|D2|
+--+ +---+ // \\ // +--+
|S3|===|BR2|=/ +---+/
+--+ +---+ /=|BR4|=\
|| +--+ // +---+ \\ +--+
+--+ |D4|=/ \=|D3|
|S4| +--+ +--+
+--+
Figure 9.1: Simulation Topology
The following table shows the flows in the simulation runs, e.g., EF0
is sent from Sender S0 to Destination D0 with a rate of 4 Mbps using
an EF reservation.
In the presented cases (I to IV), different amounts of BE traffic
were used to show the effects of Limited Effort in different cases.
The intention of these four cases is described after the table.
In all simulation models, EF sources generated constant rate traffic
with constant packet sizes using UDP.
The BE sources also generated constant rate traffic, where BE0 used
UDP, and BE1 used TCP as a transport protocol.
Bless & Wehrle Informational [Page 24]
RFC 3754 IP Multicast in DS Networks April 2004
+----+--------+-------+----------+-----------+-----------+---------+
|Flow| Source | Dest. | Case I | Case II | Case III | Case IV |
+----+--------+-------+----------+-----------+-----------+---------+
| EF0| S0 | D0 | 4 Mbps | 4 Mbps | 4 Mbps | 4 Mbps |
+----+--------+-------+----------+-----------+-----------+---------+
| EF1| S1 | D1 | 2 Mbps | 2 Mbps | 2 Mbps | 2 Mbps |
+----+--------+-------+----------+-----------+-----------+---------+
| EF2| S2 | D2 | 5 Mbps | 5 Mbps | 5 Mbps | 5 Mbps |
+----+--------+-------+----------+-----------+-----------+---------+
| BE0| S3 | D3 | 1 Mbps | 2.25 Mbps | 0.75 Mbps |3.75 Mbps|
+----+--------+-------+----------+-----------+-----------+---------+
| BE1| S4 | D4 | 4 Mbps | 2.25 Mbps | 0.75 Mbps |3.75 Mbps|
+----+--------+-------+----------+-----------+-----------+---------+
Table 9.1: Direction, amount and Codepoint of flows in the four
simulation cases (case I to IV)
The four cases (I to IV) used in the simulation runs had the
following characteristics:
Case I: In this scenario, the BE sources sent together exactly 5
Mbps, so there is no congestion in the BE queue.
Case II: BE is sending less than 5 Mbps, so there is space available
in the BE queue for re-marked traffic. BE0 and BE1 are
sending together 4.5 Mbps, which is exactly the share of BE
when LE is used. So, when multicast packets are re-marked
to LE because of the NRS problem, the LE should get 0.5
Mbps and BE 4.5 Mbps, which is still enough for BE0 and
BE1. LE should not show a greedy behavior and should not
use resources from BE.
Case III: In this case, BE is very low. BE0 and BE1 use together
only 1.5 Mbps. So when LE is used, it should be able to
use the unused bandwidth resources from BE.
Case IV: BE0 and BE1 send together 7.5 Mbps so there is congestion
in the BE queue. In this case, LE should get 0.5 Mbps (not
more and not less).
In each scenario, loss rate and throughput of the considered flows
and aggregates have been metered.
Bless & Wehrle Informational [Page 25]
RFC 3754 IP Multicast in DS Networks April 2004
9.2. Simulation Results for Different Router Types
9.2.1. Interior Node
When the branching point of a newly added multicast subtree is
located in an interior node, the NRS problem can occur as described
in section 2.1 (Case 2).
In the simulation runs presented in the following four subsections,
D3 joins to the multicast group of sender S0 without making any
reservation or resource allocation. Consequently, a new branch is
added to the existing multicast tree. The branching point issued by
the join of D3 is located in IR2. On the link to BR3, no bandwidth
was allocated for the new flow (EF0).
The metered throughput of flows on the link between IR2 and BR3 in
the four different cases is shown in the following four subsections.
The situation before the new receiver joins is shown in the second
column. The situation after the join without the proposed solution
is shown in column three. The fourth column presents the results
when the proposed solution of section 3.1 is used and the responsible
flow is re-marked to LE.
9.2.1.1. Case I:
+--------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+
| | before join | after join |after join, |
| | | (no re-marking) |(re-marking to LE)|
+--------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+
| | EF0: --- | EF0: 4.007 Mbps | LE0: 0.504 Mbps |
|achieved| EF1: 2.001 Mbps | EF1: 2.003 Mbps | EF1: 2.000 Mbps |
|through-| EF2: 5.002 Mbps | EF2: 5.009 Mbps | EF2: 5.000 Mbps |
|put | BE0: 1.000 Mbps | BE0: 0.601 Mbps | BE0: 1.000 Mbps |
| | BE1: 4.000 Mbps | BE1: 0.399 Mbps | BE1: 3.499 Mbps |
+--------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+
|BA | EF: 7.003 Mbps | EF: 11.019 Mbps | EF: 7.000 Mbps |
|through-| BE: 5.000 Mbps | BE: 1.000 Mbps | BE: 4.499 Mbps |
|put | LE: --- | LE: --- | LE: 0.504 Mbps |
+--------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+
| | EF0: --- | EF0: 0 % | LE0: 87.4 % |
|packet | EF1: 0 % | EF1: 0 % | EF1: 0 % |
|loss | EF2: 0 % | EF2: 0 % | EF2: 0 % |
|rate | BE0: 0 % | BE0: 34.8 % | BE0: 0 % |
| | BE1: 0 % | BE1: 59.1 % | BE1: 0 % |
+--------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+
(*) EF0 is re-marked to LE and signed as LE0
Bless & Wehrle Informational [Page 26]
RFC 3754 IP Multicast in DS Networks April 2004
9.2.1.2. Case II:
+--------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+
| | before join | after join |after join, |
| | | (no re-marking) |(re-marking to LE)|
+--------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+
| | EF0: --- | EF0: 4.003 Mbps | LE0: 0.500 Mbps |
|achieved| EF1: 2.000 Mbps | EF1: 2.001 Mbps | EF1: 2.001 Mbps |
|through-| EF2: 5.002 Mbps | EF2: 5.005 Mbps | EF2: 5.002 Mbps |
|put | BE0: 2.248 Mbps | BE0: 0.941 Mbps | BE0: 2.253 Mbps |
| | BE1: 2.252 Mbps | BE1: 0.069 Mbps | BE1: 2.247 Mbps |
+--------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+
|BA | EF: 7.002 Mbps | EF: 11.009 Mbps | EF: 7.003 Mbps. |
|through-| BE: 4.500 Mbps | BE: 1.010 Mbps | BE: 4.500 Mbps |
|put | LE: --- | LE: --- | LE: 0.500 Mbps |
+--------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+
| | EF0: --- | EF0: 0 % | LE0: 87.4 % |
|packet | EF1: 0 % | EF1: 0 % | EF1: 0 % |
|loss | EF2: 0 % | EF2: 0 % | EF2: 0 % |
|rate | BE0: 0 % | BE0: 58.0 % | BE0: 0 % |
| | BE1: 0 % | BE1: 57.1 % | BE1: 0 % |
+--------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+
(*) EF0 is re-marked to LE and signed as LE0
9.2.1.3. Case III:
+--------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+
| | before join | after join |after join, |
| | | (no re-marking) |(re-marking to LE)|
+--------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+
| | EF0: --- | EF0: 3.998 Mbps | LE0: 3.502 Mbps |
|achieved| EF1: 2.000 Mbps | EF1: 2.001 Mbps | EF1: 2.001 Mbps |
|through-| EF2: 5.000 Mbps | EF2: 5.002 Mbps | EF2: 5.003 Mbps |
|put | BE0: 0.749 Mbps | BE0: 0.572 Mbps | BE0: 0.748 Mbps |
| | BE1: 0.749 Mbps | BE1: 0.429 Mbps | BE1: 0.748 Mbps |
+--------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+
|BA | EF: 7.000 Mbps | EF: 11.001 Mbps | EF: 7.004 Mbps |
|through-| BE: 1.498 Mbps | BE: 1.001 Mbps | BE: 1.496 Mbps |
|put | LE: --- | LE: --- | LE: 3.502 Mbps |
+--------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+
| | EF0: --- | EF0: 0 % | LE0: 12.5 % |
|packet | EF1: 0 % | EF1: 0 % | EF1: 0 % |
|loss | EF2: 0 % | EF2: 0 % | EF2: 0 % |
|rate | BE0: 0 % | BE0: 19.7 % | BE0: 0 % |
| | BE1: 0 % | BE1: 32.6 % | BE1: 0 % |
+--------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+
(*) EF0 is re-marked to LE and signed as LE0
Bless & Wehrle Informational [Page 27]
RFC 3754 IP Multicast in DS Networks April 2004
9.2.1.4. Case IV:
+--------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+
| | before join | after join |after join, |
| | | (no re-marking) |(re-marking to LE)|
+--------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+
| | EF0: --- | EF0: 4.001 Mbps | LE0: 0.500 Mbps |
|achieved| EF1: 2.018 Mbps | EF1: 2.000 Mbps | EF1: 2.003 Mbps |
|through-| EF2: 5.005 Mbps | EF2: 5.001 Mbps | EF2: 5.007 Mbps |
|put | BE0: 2.825 Mbps | BE0: 1.000 Mbps | BE0: 3.425 Mbps |
| | BE1: 2.232 Mbps | BE1: --- | BE1: 1.074 Mbps |
+--------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+
|BA | EF: 7.023 Mbps | EF: 11.002 Mbps | EF: 7.010 Mbps |
|through-| BE: 5.057 Mbps | BE: 1.000 Mbps | BE: 4.499 Mbps |
|put | LE: --- | LE: --- | LE: 0.500 Mbps |
+--------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+
| | EF0: --- | EF0: 0 % | LE0: 75.0 % |
|packet | EF1: 0 % | EF1: 0 % | EF1: 0 % |
|loss | EF2: 0 % | EF2: 0 % | EF2: 0 % |
|rate | BE0: 23.9 % | BE0: 73.3 % | BE0: 0 % |
| | BE1: 41.5 % | BE1: --- | BE1: 0 % |
+--------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+
(*) EF0 is re-marked to LE and signed as LE0
NOTE: BE1 has undefined throughput and loss in situation "after join
(no re-marking)", because TCP is going into retransmission back-off
timer phase and closes the connection after 512 seconds.
9.2.2. Boundary Node
When the branching point of a newly added multicast subtree is
located in a boundary node, the NRS problem can occur as described in
section 2.1 (Case 1).
In the simulation runs presented in the following four subsections,
D3 joins to the multicast group of sender S1 without making any
reservation or resource allocation. Consequently, a new branch is
added to the existing multicast tree. The branching point issued by
the join of D3 is located in BR3. On the link to BR4, no bandwidth
was allocated for the new flow (EF1).
The metered throughput of the flows on the link between BR3 and BR4
in the four different cases is shown in the following four
subsections. The situation before the new receiver joins is shown in
the second column. The situation after the join but without the
proposed solution is shown in column three. The fourth column
presents results when the proposed solution of section 3.1 is used
and the responsible flow is re-marked to LE.
Bless & Wehrle Informational [Page 28]
RFC 3754 IP Multicast in DS Networks April 2004
9.2.2.1. Case I:
+--------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+
| | before join | after join |after join, |
| | | (no re-marking) |(re-marking to LE)|
+--------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+
| | EF0: --- | EF0: --- | EF0: --- |
|achieved| EF1: --- | EF1: 1.489 Mbps | LE1: 0.504 Mbps |
|through-| EF2: 5.002 Mbps | EF2: 3.512 Mbps | EF2: 5.002 Mbps |
|put | BE0: 1.000 Mbps | BE0: 1.000 Mbps | BE0: 1.004 Mbps |
| | BE1: 4.000 Mbps | BE1: 4.002 Mbps | BE1: 3.493 Mbps |
+--------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+
|BA | EF: 5.002 Mbps | EF: 5.001 Mbps | EF: 5.002 Mbps |
|through-| BE: 5.000 Mbps | BE: 5.002 Mbps | BE: 4.497 Mbps |
|put | LE: --- | LE: --- | LE: 0.504 Mbps |
+--------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+
| | EF0: --- | EF0: --- | EF0: --- |
|packet | EF1: --- | EF1: 25.6 % | LE1: 73.4 % |
|loss | EF2: 0 % | EF2: 29.7 % | EF2: 0 % |
|rate | BE0: 0 % | BE0: 0 % | BE0: 0 % |
| | BE1: 0 % | BE1: 0 % | BE1: 0 % |
+--------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+
(*) EF1 is re-marked to LE and signed as LE1
9.2.2.2. Case II:
+--------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+
| | before join | after join |after join, |
| | | (no re-marking) |(re-marking to LE)|
+--------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+
| | EF0: --- | EF0: --- | EF0: --- |
|achieved| EF1: --- | EF1: 1.520 Mbps | LE1: 0.504 Mbps |
|through-| EF2: 5.003 Mbps | EF2: 3.482 Mbps | EF2: 5.002 Mbps |
|put | BE0: 2.249 Mbps | BE0: 2.249 Mbps | BE0: 2.245 Mbps |
| | BE1: 2.252 Mbps | BE1: 2.252 Mbps | BE1: 2.252 Mbps |
+--------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+
|BA | EF: 5.003 Mbps | EF: 5.002 Mbps | EF: 5.002 Mbps |
|through-| BE: 4.501 Mbps | BE: 4.501 Mbps | BE: 4.497 Mbps |
|put | LE: --- | LE: --- | LE: 0.504 Mbps |
+--------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+
| | EF0: --- | EF0: --- | EF0: --- |
|packet | EF1: --- | EF1: 24.0 % | LE1: 74.8 % |
|loss | EF2: 0 % | EF2: 30.4 % | EF2: 0 % |
|rate | BE0: 0 % | BE0: 0 % | BE0: 0 % |
| | BE1: 0 % | BE1: 0 % | BE1: 0 % |
+--------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+
(*) EF1 is re-marked to LE and signed as LE1
Bless & Wehrle Informational [Page 29]
RFC 3754 IP Multicast in DS Networks April 2004
9.2.2.3. Case III:
+--------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+
| | before join | after join |after join, |
| | | (no re-marking) |(re-marking to LE)|
+--------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+
| | EF0: --- | EF0: --- | EF0: --- |
|achieved| EF1: --- | EF1: 1.084 Mbps | LE1: 2.000 Mbps |
|through-| EF2: 5.001 Mbps | EF2: 3.919 Mbps | EF2: 5.000 Mbps |
|put | BE0: 0.749 Mbps | BE0: 0.752 Mbps | BE0: 0.750 Mbps |
| | BE1: 0.749 Mbps | BE1: 0.748 Mbps | BE1: 0.750 Mbps |
+--------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+
|BA | EF: 5.001 Mbps | EF: 5.003 Mbps | EF: 5.000 Mbps |
|through-| BE: 1.498 Mbps | BE: 1.500 Mbps | BE: 1.500 Mbps |
|put | LE: --- | LE: --- | LE: 2.000 Mbps |
+--------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+
| | EF0: --- | EF0: --- | EF0: --- |
|packet | EF1: --- | EF1: 45.7 % | LE1: 0 % |
|loss | EF2: 0 % | EF2: 21.7 % | EF2: 0 % |
|rate | BE0: 0 % | BE0: 0 % | BE0: 0 % |
| | BE1: 0 % | BE1: 0 % | BE1: 0 % |
+--------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+
(*) EF1 is re-marked to LE and signed as LE1
9.2.2.4. Case IV:
+--------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+
| | before join | after join |after join, |
| | | (no re-marking) |(re-marking to LE)|
+--------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+
| | EF0: --- | EF0: --- | EF0: --- |
|achieved| EF1: --- | EF1: 1.201 Mbps | LE1: 0.500 Mbps |
|through-| EF2: 5.048 Mbps | EF2: 3.803 Mbps | EF2: 5.004 Mbps |
|put | BE0: 2.638 Mbps | BE0: 2.535 Mbps | BE0: 3.473 Mbps |
| | BE1: 2.379 Mbps | BE1: 2.536 Mbps | BE1: 1.031 Mbps |
+--------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+
|BA | EF: 5.048 Mbps | EF: 5.004 Mbps | EF: 5.004 Mbps |
|through-| BE: 5.017 Mbps | BE: 5.071 Mbps | BE: 4.504 Mbps |
|put | LE: --- | LE: --- | LE: 0.500 Mbps |
+--------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+
| | EF0: --- | EF0: --- | EF0: --- |
|packet | EF1: --- | EF1: 40.0 % | LE1: 68.6 % |
|loss | EF2: 0 % | EF2: 23.0 % | EF2: 0 % |
|rate | BE0: 30.3 % | BE0: 32.1 % | BE0: 0 % |
| | BE1: 33.3 % | BE1: 32.7 % | BE1: 0 % |
+--------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+
(*) EF1 is re-marked to LE and signed as LE1
Bless & Wehrle Informational [Page 30]
RFC 3754 IP Multicast in DS Networks April 2004
10. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Mark Handley and Bill Fenner for their
valuable comments on this document. Special thanks go to Milena
Neumann for her extensive efforts in performing the simulations. We
would also like to thank the KIDS simulation team [12].
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[1] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F. and D. Black, "Definition of
the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and
IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, December 1998.
[2] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z. and W.
Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated Services", RFC 2475,
December 1998.
11.2. Informative References
[3] Nichols, K. and B. Carpenter, "Definition of Differentiated
Services Per Domain Behaviors and Rules for their
Specification", RFC 3086, April 2001.
[4] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S. and S. Jamin,
"Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1", RFC 2205,
September 1997.
[5] Bernet, Y., "Format of the RSVP DCLASS Object", RFC 2996,
November 2000.
[6] Waitzman, D., Partridge, C. and S. Deering, "Distance Vector
Multicast Routing Protocol", RFC 1075, November 1988.
[7] Estrin, D., Farinacci, D., Helmy, A., Thaler, D., Deering, S.,
Handley, M., Jacobson, V., Liu, L., Sharma, P. and L. Wei,
"Protocol Independent Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol
Specification", RFC 2362, June 1998.
[8] Adams, A., Nicholas, J. and W. Siadak, "Protocol Independent
Multicast - Dense Mode (PIM-DM) Protocol Specification
(Revised)", Work in Progress.
[9] Heinanen, J., Baker, F., Weiss, W. and J. Wroclawski, "Assured
Forwarding PHB Group" RFC 2597, June 1999.
Bless & Wehrle Informational [Page 31]
RFC 3754 IP Multicast in DS Networks April 2004
[10] Bernet, Y., Blake, S., Grossman, D. and A. Smith, "An Informal
Management Model for DiffServ Routers", RFC 3290, May 2002.
[11] R. Bless, K. Wehrle. Evaluation of Differentiated Services using
an Implementation under Linux, Proceedings of the Intern.
Workshop on Quality of Service (IWQOS'99), London, 1999.
[12] K. Wehrle, J. Reber, V. Kahmann. A simulation suite for Internet
nodes with the ability to integrate arbitrary Quality of Service
behavior, Proceedings of Communication Networks And Distributed
Systems Modeling And Simulation Conference (CNDS 2001), Phoenix
(AZ), January 2001.
[13] R. Bless, K. Wehrle. Group Communication in Differentiated
Services Networks, Internet QoS for the Global Computing 2001
(IQ 2001), IEEE International Symposium on Cluster Computing and
the Grid, May 2001, Brisbane, Australia, IEEE Press.
[14] Davie, B., Charny, A., Bennett, J.C.R., Benson, K., Le Boudec,
J.Y., Courtney, W., Davari, S., Firoiu, V. and D. Stiliadis, "An
Expedited Forwarding PHB (Per-Hop Behavior)", RFC 3246, March
2002.
[15] Charny, A., Bennett, J.C.R., Benson, K., Le Boudec, J.Y., Chiu,
A., Courtney, W., Davari, S., Firoiu, V., Kalmanek, C. and K.K.
Ramakrishnan, "Supplemental Information for the New Definition
of the EF PHB (Expedited Forwarding Per-Hop Behavior)", RFC
3247, March 2002.
[16] Bless, R., Nichols, K. and K. Wehrle, "A Lower Effort Per-Domain
Behavior (PDB) for Differentiated Services", RFC 3662, December
2003.
Bless & Wehrle Informational [Page 32]
RFC 3754 IP Multicast in DS Networks April 2004
12. Authors' Addresses
Comments and questions related to this document can be addressed to
one of the authors listed below.
Roland Bless
Institute of Telematics
Universitaet Karlsruhe (TH)
Zirkel 2
76128 Karlsruhe, Germany
Phone: +49 721 608 6413
EMail: bless@tm.uka.de
URI: http://www.tm.uka.de/~bless
Klaus Wehrle
University of Tuebingen
WSI - Computer Networks and Internet /
Protocol Engineering & Distributed Systems
Morgenstelle 10c
72076 Tuebingen, Germany
EMail: Klaus.Wehrle@uni-tuebingen.de
URI: http://net.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/~wehrle/
Bless & Wehrle Informational [Page 33]
RFC 3754 IP Multicast in DS Networks April 2004
13. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78 and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Bless & Wehrle Informational [Page 34]