💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › rfc › rfc2205.gmi captured on 2024-03-21 at 20:24:17. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-01-29)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Updated by:
Keywords: RSVP, integrated, services, multicast, unicast, QoS, signaling
Network Working Group R. Braden, Ed.
Request for Comments: 2205 ISI
Category: Standards Track L. Zhang
UCLA
S. Berson
ISI
S. Herzog
IBM Research
S. Jamin
Univ. of Michigan
September 1997
Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) --
Version 1 Functional Specification
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Abstract
This memo describes version 1 of RSVP, a resource reservation setup
protocol designed for an integrated services Internet. RSVP provides
receiver-initiated setup of resource reservations for multicast or
unicast data flows, with good scaling and robustness properties.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................... 4
1.1 Data Flows ................................................. 7
1.2 Reservation Model .......................................... 8
1.3 Reservation Styles .........................................11
1.4 Examples of Styles .........................................14
2. RSVP Protocol Mechanisms .......................................19
2.1 RSVP Messages ..............................................19
2.2 Merging Flowspecs ..........................................21
2.3 Soft State .................................................22
2.4 Teardown ...................................................24
2.5 Errors .....................................................25
2.6 Confirmation ...............................................27
2.7 Policy Control .............................................27
2.8 Security ...................................................28
2.9 Non-RSVP Clouds ............................................29
2.10 Host Model ................................................30
3. RSVP Functional Specification ..................................32
3.1 RSVP Message Formats .......................................32
3.2 Port Usage .................................................47
3.3 Sending RSVP Messages ......................................48
3.4 Avoiding RSVP Message Loops ................................50
3.5 Blockade State .............................................54
3.6 Local Repair ...............................................56
3.7 Time Parameters ............................................57
3.8 Traffic Policing and Non-Integrated Service Hops ...........58
3.9 Multihomed Hosts ...........................................59
3.10 Future Compatibility ......................................61
3.11 RSVP Interfaces ...........................................63
4. Acknowledgments ................................................76
APPENDIX A. Object Definitions ....................................77
APPENDIX B. Error Codes and Values ................................92
APPENDIX C. UDP Encapsulation .....................................98
APPENDIX D. Glossary .............................................102
REFERENCES .......................................................111
SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS ..........................................111
AUTHORS' ADDRESSES ...............................................112
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
What's Changed
This revision contains the following very minor changes from the ID14
version.
o For clarity, each message type is now defined separately in
Section 3.1.
o We added more precise and complete rules for accepting Path
messages for unicast and multicast destinations (Section
3.1.3).
o We added more precise and complete rules for processing and
forwarding PathTear messages (Section 3.1.5).
o A note was added that a SCOPE object will be ignored if it
appears in a ResvTear message (Section 3.1.6).
o A note was added that a SENDER_TSPEC or ADSPEC object will be
ignored if it appears in a PathTear message (Section 3.1.5).
o The obsolete error code Ambiguous Filter Spec (09) was
removed, and a new (and more consistent) name was given to
error code 08 (Appendix B).
o In the generic interface to traffic control, the Adspec was
added as a parameter to the AddFlow and ModFlow calls
(3.11.2). This is needed to accommodate a node that updates
the slack term (S) of Guaranteed service.
o An error subtype was added for an Adspec error (Appendix B).
o Additional explanation was added for handling a CONFIRM
object (Section 3.1.4).
o The rules for forwarding objects with unknown class type were
clarified.
o Additional discussion was added to the Introduction and to
Section 3.11.2 about the relationship of RSVP to the link
layer. (Section 3.10).
o Section 2.7 on Policy and Security was split into two
sections, and some additional discussion of security was
included.
o There were some minor editorial improvements.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
1. Introduction
This document defines RSVP, a resource reservation setup protocol
designed for an integrated services Internet [RSVP93, RFC 1633]. The
RSVP protocol is used by a host to request specific qualities of
service from the network for particular application data streams or
flows. RSVP is also used by routers to deliver quality-of-service
(QoS) requests to all nodes along the path(s) of the flows and to
establish and maintain state to provide the requested service. RSVP
requests will generally result in resources being reserved in each
node along the data path.
RSVP requests resources for simplex flows, i.e., it requests
resources in only one direction. Therefore, RSVP treats a sender as
logically distinct from a receiver, although the same application
process may act as both a sender and a receiver at the same time.
RSVP operates on top of IPv4 or IPv6, occupying the place of a
transport protocol in the protocol stack. However, RSVP does not
transport application data but is rather an Internet control
protocol, like ICMP, IGMP, or routing protocols. Like the
implementations of routing and management protocols, an
implementation of RSVP will typically execute in the background, not
in the data forwarding path, as shown in Figure 1.
RSVP is not itself a routing protocol; RSVP is designed to operate
with current and future unicast and multicast routing protocols. An
RSVP process consults the local routing database(s) to obtain routes.
In the multicast case, for example, a host sends IGMP messages to
join a multicast group and then sends RSVP messages to reserve
resources along the delivery path(s) of that group. Routing
protocols determine where packets get forwarded; RSVP is only
concerned with the QoS of those packets that are forwarded in
accordance with routing.
In order to efficiently accommodate large groups, dynamic group
membership, and heterogeneous receiver requirements, RSVP makes
receivers responsible for requesting a specific QoS [RSVP93]. A QoS
request from a receiver host application is passed to the local RSVP
process. The RSVP protocol then carries the request to all the nodes
(routers and hosts) along the reverse data path(s) to the data
source(s), but only as far as the router where the receiver's data
path joins the multicast distribution tree. As a result, RSVP's
reservation overhead is in general logarithmic rather than linear in
the number of receivers.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
HOST ROUTER
_____________________________ ____________________________
| _______ | | |
| | | _______ | | _______ |
| |Appli- | | | |RSVP | | | |
| | cation| | RSVP <---------------------------> RSVP <---------->
| | <--> | | | _______ | | |
| | | |process| _____ | ||Routing| |process| _____ |
| |_._____| | -->Polcy|| || <--> -->Polcy||
| | |__.__._| |Cntrl|| ||process| |__.__._| |Cntrl||
| |data | | |_____|| ||__.____| | | |_____||
|===|===========|==|==========| |===|==========|==|==========|
| | --------| | _____ | | | --------| | _____ |
| | | | ---->Admis|| | | | | ---->Admis||
| _V__V_ ___V____ |Cntrl|| | _V__V_ __V_____ |Cntrl||
| | | | | |_____|| | | | | ||_____||
| |Class-| | Packet | | | |Class-| | Packet | |
| | ifier|==>Schedulr|================> ifier|==>Schedulr|===========>
| |______| |________| |data | |______| |________| |data
| | | |
|_____________________________| |____________________________|
Figure 1: RSVP in Hosts and Routers
Quality of service is implemented for a particular data flow by
mechanisms collectively called "traffic control". These mechanisms
include (1) a packet classifier, (2) admission control, and (3) a
"packet scheduler" or some other link-layer-dependent mechanism to
determine when particular packets are forwarded. The "packet
classifier" determines the QoS class (and perhaps the route) for each
packet. For each outgoing interface, the "packet scheduler" or other
link-layer-dependent mechanism achieves the promised QoS. Traffic
control implements QoS service models defined by the Integrated
Services Working Group.
During reservation setup, an RSVP QoS request is passed to two local
decision modules, "admission control" and "policy control".
Admission control determines whether the node has sufficient
available resources to supply the requested QoS. Policy control
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
determines whether the user has administrative permission to make the
reservation. If both checks succeed, parameters are set in the
packet classifier and in the link layer interface (e.g., in the
packet scheduler) to obtain the desired QoS. If either check fails,
the RSVP program returns an error notification to the application
process that originated the request.
RSVP protocol mechanisms provide a general facility for creating and
maintaining distributed reservation state across a mesh of multicast
or unicast delivery paths. RSVP itself transfers and manipulates QoS
and policy control parameters as opaque data, passing them to the
appropriate traffic control and policy control modules for
interpretation. The structure and contents of the QoS parameters are
documented in specifications developed by the Integrated Services
Working Group; see [RFC 2210]. The structure and contents of the
policy parameters are under development.
Since the membership of a large multicast group and the resulting
multicast tree topology are likely to change with time, the RSVP
design assumes that state for RSVP and traffic control state is to be
built and destroyed incrementally in routers and hosts. For this
purpose, RSVP establishes "soft" state; that is, RSVP sends periodic
refresh messages to maintain the state along the reserved path(s).
In the absence of refresh messages, the state automatically times out
and is deleted.
In summary, RSVP has the following attributes:
o RSVP makes resource reservations for both unicast and many-to-
many multicast applications, adapting dynamically to changing
group membership as well as to changing routes.
o RSVP is simplex, i.e., it makes reservations for unidirectional
data flows.
o RSVP is receiver-oriented, i.e., the receiver of a data flow
initiates and maintains the resource reservation used for that
flow.
o RSVP maintains "soft" state in routers and hosts, providing
graceful support for dynamic membership changes and automatic
adaptation to routing changes.
o RSVP is not a routing protocol but depends upon present and
future routing protocols.
o RSVP transports and maintains traffic control and policy control
parameters that are opaque to RSVP.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
o RSVP provides several reservation models or "styles" (defined
below) to fit a variety of applications.
o RSVP provides transparent operation through routers that do not
support it.
o RSVP supports both IPv4 and IPv6.
Further discussion on the objectives and general justification for
RSVP design are presented in [RSVP93] and [RFC 1633].
The remainder of this section describes the RSVP reservation
services. Section 2 presents an overview of the RSVP protocol
mechanisms. Section 3 contains the functional specification of RSVP,
while Section 4 presents explicit message processing rules. Appendix
A defines the variable-length typed data objects used in the RSVP
protocol. Appendix B defines error codes and values. Appendix C
defines a UDP encapsulation of RSVP messages, for hosts whose
operating systems provide inadequate raw network I/O support.
1.1 Data Flows
RSVP defines a "session" to be a data flow with a particular
destination and transport-layer protocol. RSVP treats each
session independently, and this document often omits the implied
qualification "for the same session".
An RSVP session is defined by the triple: (DestAddress, ProtocolId
[, DstPort]). Here DestAddress, the IP destination address of the
data packets, may be a unicast or multicast address. ProtocolId
is the IP protocol ID. The optional DstPort parameter is a
"generalized destination port", i.e., some further demultiplexing
point in the transport or application protocol layer. DstPort
could be defined by a UDP/TCP destination port field, by an
equivalent field in another transport protocol, or by some
application-specific information.
Although the RSVP protocol is designed to be easily extensible for
greater generality, the basic protocol documented here supports
only UDP/TCP ports as generalized ports. Note that it is not
strictly necessary to include DstPort in the session definition
when DestAddress is multicast, since different sessions can always
have different multicast addresses. However, DstPort is necessary
to allow more than one unicast session addressed to the same
receiver host.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
Figure 2 illustrates the flow of data packets in a single RSVP
session, assuming multicast data distribution. The arrows
indicate data flowing from senders S1 and S2 to receivers R1, R2,
and R3, and the cloud represents the distribution mesh created by
multicast routing. Multicast distribution forwards a copy of each
data packet from a sender Si to every receiver Rj; a unicast
distribution session has a single receiver R. Each sender Si may
be running in a unique Internet host, or a single host may contain
multiple senders distinguished by "generalized source ports".
Senders Receivers
_____________________
( ) ===> R1
S1 ===> ( Multicast )
( ) ===> R2
( distribution )
S2 ===> ( )
( by Internet ) ===> R3
(_____________________)
Figure 2: Multicast Distribution Session
For unicast transmission, there will be a single destination host
but there may be multiple senders; RSVP can set up reservations
for multipoint-to-single-point transmission.
1.2 Reservation Model
An elementary RSVP reservation request consists of a "flowspec"
together with a "filter spec"; this pair is called a "flow
descriptor". The flowspec specifies a desired QoS. The filter
spec, together with a session specification, defines the set of
data packets -- the "flow" -- to receive the QoS defined by the
flowspec. The flowspec is used to set parameters in the node's
packet scheduler or other link layer mechanism, while the filter
spec is used to set parameters in the packet classifier. Data
packets that are addressed to a particular session but do not
match any of the filter specs for that session are handled as
best-effort traffic.
The flowspec in a reservation request will generally include a
service class and two sets of numeric parameters: (1) an "Rspec"
(R for `reserve') that defines the desired QoS, and (2) a "Tspec"
(T for `traffic') that describes the data flow. The formats and
contents of Tspecs and Rspecs are determined by the integrated
service models [RFC 2210] and are generally opaque to RSVP.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
The exact format of a filter spec depends upon whether IPv4 or
IPv6 is in use; see Appendix A. In the most general approach
[RSVP93], filter specs may select arbitrary subsets of the packets
in a given session. Such subsets might be defined in terms of
senders (i.e., sender IP address and generalized source port), in
terms of a higher-level protocol, or generally in terms of any
fields in any protocol headers in the packet. For example, filter
specs might be used to select different subflows of a
hierarchically-encoded video stream by selecting on fields in an
application-layer header. In the interest of simplicity (and to
minimize layer violation), the basic filter spec format defined in
the present RSVP specification has a very restricted form: sender
IP address and optionally the UDP/TCP port number SrcPort.
Because the UDP/TCP port numbers are used for packet
classification, each router must be able to examine these fields.
This raises three potential problems.
1. It is necessary to avoid IP fragmentation of a data flow for
which a resource reservation is desired.
Document [RFC 2210] specifies a procedure for applications
using RSVP facilities to compute the minimum MTU over a
multicast tree and return the result to the senders.
2. IPv6 inserts a variable number of variable-length Internet-
layer headers before the transport header, increasing the
difficulty and cost of packet classification for QoS.
Efficient classification of IPv6 data packets could be
obtained using the Flow Label field of the IPv6 header. The
details will be provided in the future.
3. IP-level Security, under either IPv4 or IPv6, may encrypt the
entire transport header, hiding the port numbers of data
packets from intermediate routers.
A small extension to RSVP for IP Security under IPv4 and IPv6
is described separately in [RFC 2207].
RSVP messages carrying reservation requests originate at receivers
and are passed upstream towards the sender(s). Note: in this
document, we define the directional terms "upstream" vs.
"downstream", "previous hop" vs. "next hop", and "incoming
interface" vs "outgoing interface" with respect to the direction
of data flow.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
At each intermediate node, a reservation request triggers two
general actions, as follows:
1. Make a reservation on a link
The RSVP process passes the request to admission control and
policy control. If either test fails, the reservation is
rejected and the RSVP process returns an error message to the
appropriate receiver(s). If both succeed, the node sets the
packet classifier to select the data packets defined by the
filter spec, and it interacts with the appropriate link layer
to obtain the desired QoS defined by the flowspec.
The detailed rules for satisfying an RSVP QoS request depend
upon the particular link layer technology in use on each
interface. Specifications are under development in the ISSLL
Working Group for mapping reservation requests into popular
link layer technologies. For a simple leased line, the
desired QoS will be obtained from the packet scheduler in the
link layer driver, for example. If the link-layer technology
implements its own QoS management capability, then RSVP must
negotiate with the link layer to obtain the requested QoS.
Note that the action to control QoS occurs at the place where
the data enters the link-layer medium, i.e., at the upstream
end of the logical or physical link, although an RSVP
reservation request originates from receiver(s) downstream.
2. Forward the request upstream
A reservation request is propagated upstream towards the
appropriate senders. The set of sender hosts to which a
given reservation request is propagated is called the "scope"
of that request.
The reservation request that a node forwards upstream may
differ from the request that it received from downstream, for
two reasons. The traffic control mechanism may modify the
flowspec hop-by-hop. More importantly, reservations from
different downstream branches of the multicast tree(s) from
the same sender (or set of senders) must be " merged" as
reservations travel upstream.
When a receiver originates a reservation request, it can also
request a confirmation message to indicate that its request was
(probably) installed in the network. A successful reservation
request propagates upstream along the multicast tree until it
reaches a point where an existing reservation is equal or greater
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
than that being requested. At that point, the arriving request is
merged with the reservation in place and need not be forwarded
further; the node may then send a reservation confirmation message
back to the receiver. Note that the receipt of a confirmation is
only a high-probability indication, not a guarantee, that the
requested service is in place all the way to the sender(s), as
explained in Section 2.6.
The basic RSVP reservation model is "one pass": a receiver sends a
reservation request upstream, and each node in the path either
accepts or rejects the request. This scheme provides no easy way
for a receiver to find out the resulting end-to-end service.
Therefore, RSVP supports an enhancement to one-pass service known
as "One Pass With Advertising" (OPWA) [OPWA95]. With OPWA, RSVP
control packets are sent downstream, following the data paths, to
gather information that may be used to predict the end-to-end QoS.
The results ("advertisements") are delivered by RSVP to the
receiver hosts and perhaps to the receiver applications. The
advertisements may then be used by the receiver to construct, or
to dynamically adjust, an appropriate reservation request.
1.3 Reservation Styles
A reservation request includes a set of options that are
collectively called the reservation "style".
One reservation option concerns the treatment of reservations for
different senders within the same session: establish a "distinct"
reservation for each upstream sender, or else make a single
reservation that is "shared" among all packets of selected
senders.
Another reservation option controls the selection of senders; it
may be an "explicit" list of all selected senders, or a "wildcard"
that implicitly selects all the senders to the session. In an
explicit sender-selection reservation, each filter spec must match
exactly one sender, while in a wildcard sender-selection no filter
spec is needed.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
Sender || Reservations:
Selection || Distinct | Shared
_________||__________________|____________________
|| | |
Explicit || Fixed-Filter | Shared-Explicit |
|| (FF) style | (SE) Style |
__________||__________________|____________________|
|| | |
Wildcard || (None defined) | Wildcard-Filter |
|| | (WF) Style |
__________||__________________|____________________|
Figure 3: Reservation Attributes and Styles
The following styles are currently defined (see Figure 3):
o Wildcard-Filter (WF) Style
The WF style implies the options: "shared" reservation and
"wildcard" sender selection. Thus, a WF-style reservation
creates a single reservation shared by flows from all
upstream senders. This reservation may be thought of as a
shared "pipe", whose "size" is the largest of the resource
requests from all receivers, independent of the number of
senders using it. A WF-style reservation is propagated
upstream towards all sender hosts, and it automatically
extends to new senders as they appear.
Symbolically, we can represent a WF-style reservation request
by:
WF( * {Q})
where the asterisk represents wildcard sender selection and Q
represents the flowspec.
o Fixed-Filter (FF) Style
The FF style implies the options: "distinct" reservations and
"explicit" sender selection. Thus, an elementary FF-style
reservation request creates a distinct reservation for data
packets from a particular sender, not sharing them with other
senders' packets for the same session.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
Symbolically, we can represent an elementary FF reservation
request by:
FF( S{Q})
where S is the selected sender and Q is the corresponding
flowspec; the pair forms a flow descriptor. RSVP allows
multiple elementary FF-style reservations to be requested at
the same time, using a list of flow descriptors:
FF( S1{Q1}, S2{Q2}, ...)
The total reservation on a link for a given session is the
`sum' of Q1, Q2, ... for all requested senders.
o Shared Explicit (SE) Style
The SE style implies the options: "shared" reservation and
"explicit" sender selection. Thus, an SE-style reservation
creates a single reservation shared by selected upstream
senders. Unlike the WF style, the SE style allows a receiver
to explicitly specify the set of senders to be included.
We can represent an SE reservation request containing a
flowspec Q and a list of senders S1, S2, ... by:
SE( (S1,S2,...){Q} )
Shared reservations, created by WF and SE styles, are appropriate
for those multicast applications in which multiple data sources
are unlikely to transmit simultaneously. Packetized audio is an
example of an application suitable for shared reservations; since
a limited number of people talk at once, each receiver might issue
a WF or SE reservation request for twice the bandwidth required
for one sender (to allow some over-speaking). On the other hand,
the FF style, which creates distinct reservations for the flows
from different senders, is appropriate for video signals.
The RSVP rules disallow merging of shared reservations with
distinct reservations, since these modes are fundamentally
incompatible. They also disallow merging explicit sender
selection with wildcard sender selection, since this might produce
an unexpected service for a receiver that specified explicit
selection. As a result of these prohibitions, WF, SE, and FF
styles are all mutually incompatible.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
It would seem possible to simulate the effect of a WF reservation
using the SE style. When an application asked for WF, the RSVP
process on the receiver host could use local state to create an
equivalent SE reservation that explicitly listed all senders.
However, an SE reservation forces the packet classifier in each
node to explicitly select each sender in the list, while a WF
allows the packet classifier to simply "wild card" the sender
address and port. When there is a large list of senders, a WF
style reservation can therefore result in considerably less
overhead than an equivalent SE style reservation. For this
reason, both SE and WF are included in the protocol.
Other reservation options and styles may be defined in the future.
1.4 Examples of Styles
This section presents examples of each of the reservation styles
and shows the effects of merging.
Figure 4 illustrates a router with two incoming interfaces,
labeled (a) and (b), through which flows will arrive, and two
outgoing interfaces, labeled (c) and (d), through which data will
be forwarded. This topology will be assumed in the examples that
follow. There are three upstream senders; packets from sender S1
(S2 and S3) arrive through previous hop (a) ((b), respectively).
There are also three downstream receivers; packets bound for R1
(R2 and R3) are routed via outgoing interface (c) ((d),
respectively). We furthermore assume that outgoing interface (d)
is connected to a broadcast LAN, i.e., that replication occurs in
the network; R2 and R3 are reached via different next hop routers
(not shown).
We must also specify the multicast routes within the node of
Figure 4. Assume first that data packets from each Si shown in
Figure 4 are routed to both outgoing interfaces. Under this
assumption, Figures 5, 6, and 7 illustrate Wildcard-Filter,
Fixed-Filter, and Shared-Explicit reservations, respectively.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
________________
(a)| | (c)
( S1 ) ---------->| |----------> ( R1 )
| Router | |
(b)| | (d) |---> ( R2 )
( S2,S3 ) ------->| |------|
|________________| |---> ( R3 )
|
Figure 4: Router Configuration
For simplicity, these examples show flowspecs as one-dimensional
multiples of some base resource quantity B. The "Receives" column
shows the RSVP reservation requests received over outgoing
interfaces (c) and (d), and the "Reserves" column shows the
resulting reservation state for each interface. The "Sends"
column shows the reservation requests that are sent upstream to
previous hops (a) and (b). In the "Reserves" column, each box
represents one reserved "pipe" on the outgoing link, with the
corresponding flow descriptor.
Figure 5, showing the WF style, illustrates two distinct
situations in which merging is required. (1) Each of the two next
hops on interface (d) results in a separate RSVP reservation
request, as shown; these two requests must be merged into the
effective flowspec, 3B, that is used to make the reservation on
interface (d). (2) The reservations on the interfaces (c) and (d)
must be merged in order to forward the reservation requests
upstream; as a result, the larger flowspec 4B is forwarded
upstream to each previous hop.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
|
Sends | Reserves Receives
|
| _______
WF( *{4B} ) <- (a) | (c) | * {4B}| (c) <- WF( *{4B} )
| |_______|
|
-----------------------|----------------------------------------
| _______
WF( *{4B} ) <- (b) | (d) | * {3B}| (d) <- WF( *{3B} )
| |_______| <- WF( *{2B} )
Figure 5: Wildcard-Filter (WF) Reservation Example
Figure 6 shows Fixed-Filter (FF) style reservations. For each
outgoing interface, there is a separate reservation for each
source that has been requested, but this reservation will be
shared among all the receivers that made the request. The flow
descriptors for senders S2 and S3, received through outgoing
interfaces (c) and (d), are packed (not merged) into the request
forwarded to previous hop (b). On the other hand, the three
different flow descriptors specifying sender S1 are merged into
the single request FF( S1{4B} ) that is sent to previous hop (a).
|
Sends | Reserves Receives
|
| ________
FF( S1{4B} ) <- (a) | (c) | S1{4B} | (c) <- FF( S1{4B}, S2{5B} )
| |________|
| | S2{5B} |
| |________|
---------------------|---------------------------------------------
| ________
<- (b) | (d) | S1{3B} | (d) <- FF( S1{3B}, S3{B} )
FF( S2{5B}, S3{B} ) | |________| <- FF( S1{B} )
| | S3{B} |
| |________|
Figure 6: Fixed-Filter (FF) Reservation Example
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
Figure 7 shows an example of Shared-Explicit (SE) style
reservations. When SE-style reservations are merged, the
resulting filter spec is the union of the original filter specs,
and the resulting flowspec is the largest flowspec.
|
Sends | Reserves Receives
|
| ________
SE( S1{3B} ) <- (a) | (c) |(S1,S2) | (c) <- SE( (S1,S2){B} )
| | {B} |
| |________|
---------------------|---------------------------------------------
| __________
<- (b) | (d) |(S1,S2,S3)| (d) <- SE( (S1,S3){3B} )
SE( (S2,S3){3B} ) | | {3B} | <- SE( S2{2B} )
| |__________|
Figure 7: Shared-Explicit (SE) Reservation Example
The three examples just shown assume that data packets from S1,
S2, and S3 are routed to both outgoing interfaces. The top part
of Figure 8 shows another routing assumption: data packets from S2
and S3 are not forwarded to interface (c), e.g., because the
network topology provides a shorter path for these senders towards
R1, not traversing this node. The bottom part of Figure 8 shows
WF style reservations under this assumption. Since there is no
route from (b) to (c), the reservation forwarded out interface (b)
considers only the reservation on interface (d).
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
_______________
(a)| | (c)
( S1 ) ---------->| >-----------> |----------> ( R1 )
| > |
| > |
(b)| > | (d)
( S2,S3 ) ------->| >-------->--> |----------> ( R2, R3 )
|_______________|
Router Configuration
|
Sends | Reserves Receives
|
| _______
WF( *{4B} ) <- (a) | (c) | * {4B}| (c) <- WF( *{4B} )
| |_______|
|
-----------------------|----------------------------------------
| _______
WF( *{3B} ) <- (b) | (d) | * {3B}| (d) <- WF( * {3B} )
| |_______| <- WF( * {2B} )
Figure 8: WF Reservation Example -- Partial Routing
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
2. RSVP Protocol Mechanisms
2.1 RSVP Messages
Previous Incoming Outgoing Next
Hops Interfaces Interfaces Hops
_____ _____________________ _____
| | data --> | | data --> | |
| A |-----------| a c |--------------| C |
|_____| Path --> | | Path --> |_____|
<-- Resv | | <-- Resv _____
_____ | ROUTER | | | |
| | | | | |--| D |
| B |--| data-->| | data --> | |_____|
|_____| |--------| b d |-----------|
| Path-->| | Path --> | _____
_____ | <--Resv|_____________________| <-- Resv | | |
| | | |--| D' |
| B' |--| | |_____|
|_____| | |
Figure 9: Router Using RSVP
Figure 9 illustrates RSVP's model of a router node. Each data
flow arrives from a "previous hop" through a corresponding
"incoming interface" and departs through one or more "outgoing
interface"(s). The same interface may act in both the incoming
and outgoing roles for different data flows in the same session.
Multiple previous hops and/or next hops may be reached through a
given physical interface; for example, the figure implies that D
and D' are connected to (d) with a broadcast LAN.
There are two fundamental RSVP message types: Resv and Path.
Each receiver host sends RSVP reservation request (Resv) messages
upstream towards the senders. These messages must follow exactly
the reverse of the path(s) the data packets will use, upstream to
all the sender hosts included in the sender selection. They
create and maintain "reservation state" in each node along the
path(s). Resv messages must finally be delivered to the sender
hosts themselves, so that the hosts can set up appropriate traffic
control parameters for the first hop. The processing of Resv
messages was discussed previously in Section 1.2.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
Each RSVP sender host transmits RSVP "Path" messages downstream
along the uni-/multicast routes provided by the routing
protocol(s), following the paths of the data. These Path messages
store "path state" in each node along the way. This path state
includes at least the unicast IP address of the previous hop node,
which is used to route the Resv messages hop-by-hop in the reverse
direction. (In the future, some routing protocols may supply
reverse path forwarding information directly, replacing the
reverse-routing function of path state).
A Path message contains the following information in addition to
the previous hop address:
o Sender Template
A Path message is required to carry a Sender Template, which
describes the format of data packets that the sender will
originate. This template is in the form of a filter spec
that could be used to select this sender's packets from
others in the same session on the same link.
Sender Templates have exactly the same expressive power and
format as filter specs that appear in Resv messages.
Therefore a Sender Template may specify only the sender IP
address and optionally the UDP/TCP sender port, and it
assumes the protocol Id specified for the session.
o Sender Tspec
A Path message is required to carry a Sender Tspec, which
defines the traffic characteristics of the data flow that the
sender will generate. This Tspec is used by traffic control
to prevent over-reservation, and perhaps unnecessary
Admission Control failures.
o Adspec
A Path message may carry a package of OPWA advertising
information, known as an "Adspec". An Adspec received in a
Path message is passed to the local traffic control, which
returns an updated Adspec; the updated version is then
forwarded in Path messages sent downstream.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
Path messages are sent with the same source and destination
addresses as the data, so that they will be routed correctly
through non-RSVP clouds (see Section 2.9). On the other hand,
Resv messages are sent hop-by-hop; each RSVP-speaking node
forwards a Resv message to the unicast address of a previous RSVP
hop.
2.2 Merging Flowspecs
A Resv message forwarded to a previous hop carries a flowspec that
is the "largest" of the flowspecs requested by the next hops to
which the data flow will be sent (however, see Section 3.5 for a
different merging rule used in certain cases). We say the
flowspecs have been "merged". The examples shown in Section 1.4
illustrated another case of merging, when there are multiple
reservation requests from different next hops for the same session
and with the same filter spec, but RSVP should install only one
reservation on that interface. Here again, the installed
reservation should have an effective flowspec that is the
"largest" of the flowspecs requested by the different next hops.
Since flowspecs are opaque to RSVP, the actual rules for comparing
flowspecs must be defined and implemented outside RSVP proper.
The comparison rules are defined in the appropriate integrated
service specification document. An RSVP implementation will need
to call service-specific routines to perform flowspec merging.
Note that flowspecs are generally multi-dimensional vectors; they
may contain both Tspec and Rspec components, each of which may
itself be multi-dimensional. Therefore, it may not be possible to
strictly order two flowspecs. For example, if one request calls
for a higher bandwidth and another calls for a tighter delay
bound, one is not "larger" than the other. In such a case,
instead of taking the larger, the service-specific merging
routines must be able to return a third flowspec that is at least
as large as each; mathematically, this is the "least upper bound"
(LUB). In some cases, a flowspec at least as small is needed;
this is the "greatest lower bound" (GLB) GLB (Greatest Lower
Bound).
The following steps are used to calculate the effective flowspec
(Re, Te) to be installed on an interface [RFC 2210]. Here Te is
the effective Tspec and Re is the effective Rspec.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 21]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
1. An effective flowspec is determined for the outgoing
interface. Depending upon the link-layer technology, this
may require merging flowspecs from different next hops; this
means computing the effective flowspec as the LUB of the
flowspecs. Note that what flowspecs to merge is determined
by the link layer medium (see Section 3.11.2), while how to
merge them is determined by the service model in use [RFC
2210].
The result is a flowspec that is opaque to RSVP but actually
consists of the pair (Re, Resv_Te), where is Re is the
effective Rspec and Resv_Te is the effective Tspec.
2. A service-specific calculation of Path_Te, the sum of all
Tspecs that were supplied in Path messages from different
previous hops (e.g., some or all of A, B, and B' in Figure
9), is performed.
3. (Re, Resv_Te) and Path_Te are passed to traffic control.
Traffic control will compute the effective flowspec as the
"minimum" of Path_Te and Resv_Te, in a service-dependent
manner.
Section 3.11.6 defines a generic set of service-specific calls to
compare flowspecs, to compute the LUB and GLB of flowspecs, and to
compare and sum Tspecs.
2.3 Soft State
RSVP takes a "soft state" approach to managing the reservation
state in routers and hosts. RSVP soft state is created and
periodically refreshed by Path and Resv messages. The state is
deleted if no matching refresh messages arrive before the
expiration of a "cleanup timeout" interval. State may also be
deleted by an explicit "teardown" message, described in the next
section. At the expiration of each "refresh timeout" period and
after a state change, RSVP scans its state to build and forward
Path and Resv refresh messages to succeeding hops.
Path and Resv messages are idempotent. When a route changes, the
next Path message will initialize the path state on the new route,
and future Resv messages will establish reservation state there;
the state on the now-unused segment of the route will time out.
Thus, whether a message is "new" or a "refresh" is determined
separately at each node, depending upon the existence of state at
that node.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 22]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
RSVP sends its messages as IP datagrams with no reliability
enhancement. Periodic transmission of refresh messages by hosts
and routers is expected to handle the occasional loss of an RSVP
message. If the effective cleanup timeout is set to K times the
refresh timeout period, then RSVP can tolerate K-1 successive RSVP
packet losses without falsely deleting state. The network traffic
control mechanism should be statically configured to grant some
minimal bandwidth for RSVP messages to protect them from
congestion losses.
The state maintained by RSVP is dynamic; to change the set of
senders Si or to change any QoS request, a host simply starts
sending revised Path and/or Resv messages. The result will be an
appropriate adjustment in the RSVP state in all nodes along the
path; unused state will time out if it is not explicitly torn
down.
In steady state, state is refreshed hop-by-hop to allow merging.
When the received state differs from the stored state, the stored
state is updated. If this update results in modification of state
to be forwarded in refresh messages, these refresh messages must
be generated and forwarded immediately, so that state changes can
be propagated end-to-end without delay. However, propagation of a
change stops when and if it reaches a point where merging causes
no resulting state change. This minimizes RSVP control traffic
due to changes and is essential for scaling to large multicast
groups.
State that is received through a particular interface I* should
never be forwarded out the same interface. Conversely, state that
is forwarded out interface I* must be computed using only state
that arrived on interfaces different from I*. A trivial example
of this rule is illustrated in Figure 10, which shows a transit
router with one sender and one receiver on each interface (and
assumes one next/previous hop per interface). Interfaces (a) and
(c) serve as both outgoing and incoming interfaces for this
session. Both receivers are making wildcard-style reservations,
in which the Resv messages are forwarded to all previous hops for
senders in the group, with the exception of the next hop from
which they came. The result is independent reservations in the
two directions.
There is an additional rule governing the forwarding of Resv
messages: state from Resv messages received from outgoing
interface Io should be forwarded to incoming interface Ii only if
Path messages from Ii are forwarded to Io.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 23]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
________________
a | | c
( R1, S1 ) <----->| Router |<-----> ( R2, S2 )
|________________|
Send | Receive
|
WF( *{3B}) <-- (a) | (c) <-- WF( *{3B})
|
Receive | Send
|
WF( *{4B}) --> (a) | (c) --> WF( *{4B})
|
Reserve on (a) | Reserve on (c)
__________ | __________
| * {4B} | | | * {3B} |
|__________| | |__________|
|
Figure 10: Independent Reservations
2.4 Teardown
RSVP "teardown" messages remove path or reservation state
immediately. Although it is not necessary to explicitly tear down
an old reservation, we recommend that all end hosts send a
teardown request as soon as an application finishes.
There are two types of RSVP teardown message, PathTear and
ResvTear. A PathTear message travels towards all receivers
downstream from its point of initiation and deletes path state, as
well as all dependent reservation state, along the way. An
ResvTear message deletes reservation state and travels towards all
senders upstream from its point of initiation. A PathTear
(ResvTear) message may be conceptualized as a reversed-sense Path
message (Resv message, respectively).
A teardown request may be initiated either by an application in an
end system (sender or receiver), or by a router as the result of
state timeout or service preemption. Once initiated, a teardown
request must be forwarded hop-by-hop without delay. A teardown
message deletes the specified state in the node where it is
received. As always, this state change will be propagated
immediately to the next node, but only if there will be a net
change after merging. As a result, a ResvTear message will prune
the reservation state back (only) as far as possible.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 24]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
Like all other RSVP messages, teardown requests are not delivered
reliably. The loss of a teardown request message will not cause a
protocol failure because the unused state will eventually time out
even though it is not explicitly deleted. If a teardown message
is lost, the router that failed to receive that message will time
out its state and initiate a new teardown message beyond the loss
point. Assuming that RSVP message loss probability is small, the
longest time to delete state will seldom exceed one refresh
timeout period.
It should be possible to tear down any subset of the established
state. For path state, the granularity for teardown is a single
sender. For reservation state, the granularity is an individual
filter spec. For example, refer to Figure 7. Receiver R1 could
send a ResvTear message for sender S2 only (or for any subset of
the filter spec list), leaving S1 in place.
A ResvTear message specifies the style and filters; any flowspec
is ignored. Whatever flowspec is in place will be removed if all
its filter specs are torn down.
2.5 Errors
There are two RSVP error messages, ResvErr and PathErr. PathErr
messages are very simple; they are simply sent upstream to the
sender that created the error, and they do not change path state
in the nodes though which they pass. There are only a few
possible causes of path errors.
However, there are a number of ways for a syntactically valid
reservation request to fail at some node along the path. A node
may also decide to preempt an established reservation. The
handling of ResvErr messages is somewhat complex (Section 3.5).
Since a request that fails may be the result of merging a number
of requests, a reservation error must be reported to all of the
responsible receivers. In addition, merging heterogeneous
requests creates a potential difficulty known as the "killer
reservation" problem, in which one request could deny service to
another. There are actually two killer-reservation problems.
1. The first killer reservation problem (KR-I) arises when there
is already a reservation Q0 in place. If another receiver
now makes a larger reservation Q1 > Q0, the result of merging
Q0 and Q1 may be rejected by admission control in some
upstream node. This must not deny service to Q0.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 25]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
The solution to this problem is simple: when admission
control fails for a reservation request, any existing
reservation is left in place.
2. The second killer reservation problem (KR-II) is the
converse: the receiver making a reservation Q1 is persistent
even though Admission Control is failing for Q1 in some node.
This must not prevent a different receiver from now
establishing a smaller reservation Q0 that would succeed if
not merged with Q1.
To solve this problem, a ResvErr message establishes
additional state, called "blockade state", in each node
through which it passes. Blockade state in a node modifies
the merging procedure to omit the offending flowspec (Q1 in
the example) from the merge, allowing a smaller request to be
forwarded and established. The Q1 reservation state is said
to be "blockaded". Detailed rules are presented in Section
3.5.
A reservation request that fails Admission Control creates
blockade state but is left in place in nodes downstream of the
failure point. It has been suggested that these reservations
downstream from the failure represent "wasted" reservations and
should be timed out if not actively deleted. However, the
downstream reservations are left in place, for the following
reasons:
o There are two possible reasons for a receiver persisting in a
failed reservation: (1) it is polling for resource
availability along the entire path, or (2) it wants to obtain
the desired QoS along as much of the path as possible.
Certainly in the second case, and perhaps in the first case,
the receiver will want to hold onto the reservations it has
made downstream from the failure.
o If these downstream reservations were not retained, the
responsiveness of RSVP to certain transient failures would be
impaired. For example, suppose a route "flaps" to an
alternate route that is congested, so an existing reservation
suddenly fails, then quickly recovers to the original route.
The blockade state in each downstream router must not remove
the state or prevent its immediate refresh.
o If we did not refresh the downstream reservations, they might
time out, to be restored every Tb seconds (where Tb is the
blockade state timeout interval). Such intermittent behavior
might be very distressing for users.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 26]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
2.6 Confirmation
To request a confirmation for its reservation request, a receiver
Rj includes in the Resv message a confirmation-request object
containing Rj's IP address. At each merge point, only the largest
flowspec and any accompanying confirmation-request object is
forwarded upstream. If the reservation request from Rj is equal
to or smaller than the reservation in place on a node, its Resv is
not forwarded further, and if the Resv included a confirmation-
request object, a ResvConf message is sent back to Rj. If the
confirmation request is forwarded, it is forwarded immediately,
and no more than once for each request.
This confirmation mechanism has the following consequences:
o A new reservation request with a flowspec larger than any in
place for a session will normally result in either a ResvErr
or a ResvConf message back to the receiver from each sender.
In this case, the ResvConf message will be an end-to-end
confirmation.
o The receipt of a ResvConf gives no guarantees. Assume the
first two reservation requests from receivers R1 and R2
arrive at the node where they are merged. R2, whose
reservation was the second to arrive at that node, may
receive a ResvConf from that node while R1's request has not
yet propagated all the way to a matching sender and may still
fail. Thus, R2 may receive a ResvConf although there is no
end-to-end reservation in place; furthermore, R2 may receive
a ResvConf followed by a ResvErr.
2.7 Policy Control
RSVP-mediated QoS requests allow particular user(s) to obtain
preferential access to network resources. To prevent abuse, some
form of back pressure will generally be required on users who make
reservations. For example, such back pressure may be accomplished
by administrative access policies, or it may depend upon some form
of user feedback such as real or virtual billing for the "cost" of
a reservation. In any case, reliable user identification and
selective admission will generally be needed when a reservation is
requested.
The term "policy control" is used for the mechanisms required to
support access policies and back pressure for RSVP reservations.
When a new reservation is requested, each node must answer two
questions: "Are enough resources available to meet this request?"
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 27]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
and "Is this user allowed to make this reservation?" These two
decisions are termed the "admission control" decision and the
"policy control" decision, respectively, and both must be
favorable in order for RSVP to make a reservation. Different
administrative domains in the Internet may have different
reservation policies.
The input to policy control is referred to as "policy data", which
RSVP carries in POLICY_DATA objects. Policy data may include
credentials identifying users or user classes, account numbers,
limits, quotas, etc. Like flowspecs, policy data is opaque to
RSVP, which simply passes it to policy control when required.
Similarly, merging of policy data must be done by the policy
control mechanism rather than by RSVP itself. Note that the merge
points for policy data are likely to be at the boundaries of
administrative domains. It may therefore be necessary to carry
accumulated and unmerged policy data upstream through multiple
nodes before reaching one of these merge points.
Carrying user-provided policy data in Resv messages presents a
potential scaling problem. When a multicast group has a large
number of receivers, it will be impossible or undesirable to carry
all receivers' policy data upstream. The policy data will have to
be administratively merged at places near the receivers, to avoid
excessive policy data. Further discussion of these issues and an
example of a policy control scheme will be found in [PolArch96].
Specifications for the format of policy data objects and RSVP
processing rules for them are under development.
2.8 Security
RSVP raises the following security issues.
o Message integrity and node authentication
Corrupted or spoofed reservation requests could lead to theft
of service by unauthorized parties or to denial of service
caused by locking up network resources. RSVP protects
against such attacks with a hop-by-hop authentication
mechanism using an encrypted hash function. The mechanism is
supported by INTEGRITY objects that may appear in any RSVP
message. These objects use a keyed cryptographic digest
technique, which assumes that RSVP neighbors share a secret.
Although this mechanism is part of the base RSVP
specification, it is described in a companion document
[Baker96].
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 28]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
Widespread use of the RSVP integrity mechanism will require
the availability of the long-sought key management and
distribution infrastructure for routers. Until that
infrastructure becomes available, manual key management will
be required to secure RSVP message integrity.
o User authentication
Policy control will depend upon positive authentication of
the user responsible for each reservation request. Policy
data may therefore include cryptographically protected user
certificates. Specification of such certificates is a future
issue.
Even without globally-verifiable user certificates, it may be
possible to provide practical user authentication in many
cases by establishing a chain of trust, using the hop-by-hop
INTEGRITY mechanism described earlier.
o Secure data streams
The first two security issues concerned RSVP's operation. A
third security issue concerns resource reservations for
secure data streams. In particular, the use of IPSEC (IP
Security) in the data stream poses a problem for RSVP: if
the transport and higher level headers are encrypted, RSVP's
generalized port numbers cannot be used to define a session
or a sender.
To solve this problem, an RSVP extension has been defined in
which the security association identifier (IPSEC SPI) plays a
role roughly equivalent to the generalized ports [RFC 2207].
2.9 Non-RSVP Clouds
It is impossible to deploy RSVP (or any new protocol) at the same
moment throughout the entire Internet. Furthermore, RSVP may
never be deployed everywhere. RSVP must therefore provide correct
protocol operation even when two RSVP-capable routers are joined
by an arbitrary "cloud" of non-RSVP routers. Of course, an
intermediate cloud that does not support RSVP is unable to perform
resource reservation. However, if such a cloud has sufficient
capacity, it may still provide useful realtime service.
RSVP is designed to operate correctly through such a non-RSVP
cloud. Both RSVP and non-RSVP routers forward Path messages
towards the destination address using their local uni-/multicast
routing table. Therefore, the routing of Path messages will be
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 29]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
unaffected by non-RSVP routers in the path. When a Path message
traverses a non-RSVP cloud, it carries to the next RSVP-capable
node the IP address of the last RSVP-capable router before
entering the cloud. An Resv message is then forwarded directly to
the next RSVP-capable router on the path(s) back towards the
source.
Even though RSVP operates correctly through a non-RSVP cloud, the
non-RSVP-capable nodes will in general perturb the QoS provided to
a receiver. Therefore, RSVP passes a `NonRSVP' flag bit to the
local traffic control mechanism when there are non-RSVP-capable
hops in the path to a given sender. Traffic control combines this
flag bit with its own sources of information, and forwards the
composed information on integrated service capability along the
path to receivers using Adspecs [RFC 2210].
Some topologies of RSVP routers and non-RSVP routers can cause
Resv messages to arrive at the wrong RSVP-capable node, or to
arrive at the wrong interface of the correct node. An RSVP
process must be prepared to handle either situation. If the
destination address does not match any local interface and the
message is not a Path or PathTear, the message must be forwarded
without further processing by this node. To handle the wrong
interface case, a "Logical Interface Handle" (LIH) is used. The
previous hop information included in a Path message includes not
only the IP address of the previous node but also an LIH defining
the logical outgoing interface; both values are stored in the path
state. A Resv message arriving at the addressed node carries both
the IP address and the LIH of the correct outgoing interface, i.e,
the interface that should receive the requested reservation,
regardless of which interface it arrives on.
The LIH may also be useful when RSVP reservations are made over a
complex link layer, to map between IP layer and link layer flow
entities.
2.10 Host Model
Before a session can be created, the session identification
(DestAddress, ProtocolId [, DstPort]) must be assigned and
communicated to all the senders and receivers by some out-of-band
mechanism. When an RSVP session is being set up, the following
events happen at the end systems.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 30]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
H1 A receiver joins the multicast group specified by
DestAddress, using IGMP.
H2 A potential sender starts sending RSVP Path messages to the
DestAddress.
H3 A receiver application receives a Path message.
H4 A receiver starts sending appropriate Resv messages,
specifying the desired flow descriptors.
H5 A sender application receives a Resv message.
H6 A sender starts sending data packets.
There are several synchronization considerations.
o H1 and H2 may happen in either order.
o Suppose that a new sender starts sending data (H6) but there
are no multicast routes because no receivers have joined the
group (H1). Then the data will be dropped at some router
node (which node depends upon the routing protocol) until
receivers(s) appear.
o Suppose that a new sender starts sending Path messages (H2)
and data (H6) simultaneously, and there are receivers but no
Resv messages have reached the sender yet (e.g., because its
Path messages have not yet propagated to the receiver(s)).
Then the initial data may arrive at receivers without the
desired QoS. The sender could mitigate this problem by
awaiting arrival of the first Resv message (H5); however,
receivers that are farther away may not have reservations in
place yet.
o If a receiver starts sending Resv messages (H4) before
receiving any Path messages (H3), RSVP will return error
messages to the receiver.
The receiver may simply choose to ignore such error messages,
or it may avoid them by waiting for Path messages before
sending Resv messages.
A specific application program interface (API) for RSVP is not
defined in this protocol spec, as it may be host system dependent.
However, Section 3.11.1 discusses the general requirements and
outlines a generic interface.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 31]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
3. RSVP Functional Specification
3.1 RSVP Message Formats
An RSVP message consists of a common header, followed by a body
consisting of a variable number of variable-length, typed
"objects". The following subsections define the formats of the
common header, the standard object header, and each of the RSVP
message types.
For each RSVP message type, there is a set of rules for the
permissible choice of object types. These rules are specified
using Backus-Naur Form (BNF) augmented with square brackets
surrounding optional sub-sequences. The BNF implies an order for
the objects in a message. However, in many (but not all) cases,
object order makes no logical difference. An implementation
should create messages with the objects in the order shown here,
but accept the objects in any permissible order.
3.1.1 Common Header
0 1 2 3
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Vers | Flags| Msg Type | RSVP Checksum |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Send_TTL | (Reserved) | RSVP Length |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
The fields in the common header are as follows:
Vers: 4 bits
Protocol version number. This is version 1.
Flags: 4 bits
0x01-0x08: Reserved
No flag bits are defined yet.
Msg Type: 8 bits
1 = Path
2 = Resv
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 32]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
3 = PathErr
4 = ResvErr
5 = PathTear
6 = ResvTear
7 = ResvConf
RSVP Checksum: 16 bits
The one's complement of the one's complement sum of the
message, with the checksum field replaced by zero for the
purpose of computing the checksum. An all-zero value
means that no checksum was transmitted.
Send_TTL: 8 bits
The IP TTL value with which the message was sent. See
Section 3.8.
RSVP Length: 16 bits
The total length of this RSVP message in bytes, including
the common header and the variable-length objects that
follow.
3.1.2 Object Formats
Every object consists of one or more 32-bit words with a one-
word header, with the following format:
0 1 2 3
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Length (bytes) | Class-Num | C-Type |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| |
// (Object contents) //
| |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 33]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
An object header has the following fields:
Length
A 16-bit field containing the total object length in
bytes. Must always be a multiple of 4, and at least 4.
Class-Num
Identifies the object class; values of this field are
defined in Appendix A. Each object class has a name,
which is always capitalized in this document. An RSVP
implementation must recognize the following classes:
NULL
A NULL object has a Class-Num of zero, and its C-Type
is ignored. Its length must be at least 4, but can
be any multiple of 4. A NULL object may appear
anywhere in a sequence of objects, and its contents
will be ignored by the receiver.
SESSION
Contains the IP destination address (DestAddress),
the IP protocol id, and some form of generalized
destination port, to define a specific session for
the other objects that follow. Required in every
RSVP message.
RSVP_HOP
Carries the IP address of the RSVP-capable node that
sent this message and a logical outgoing interface
handle (LIH; see Section 3.3). This document refers
to a RSVP_HOP object as a PHOP ("previous hop")
object for downstream messages or as a NHOP (" next
hop") object for upstream messages.
TIME_VALUES
Contains the value for the refresh period R used by
the creator of the message; see Section 3.7.
Required in every Path and Resv message.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 34]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
STYLE
Defines the reservation style plus style-specific
information that is not in FLOWSPEC or FILTER_SPEC
objects. Required in every Resv message.
FLOWSPEC
Defines a desired QoS, in a Resv message.
FILTER_SPEC
Defines a subset of session data packets that should
receive the desired QoS (specified by a FLOWSPEC
object), in a Resv message.
SENDER_TEMPLATE
Contains a sender IP address and perhaps some
additional demultiplexing information to identify a
sender. Required in a Path message.
SENDER_TSPEC
Defines the traffic characteristics of a sender's
data flow. Required in a Path message.
ADSPEC
Carries OPWA data, in a Path message.
ERROR_SPEC
Specifies an error in a PathErr, ResvErr, or a
confirmation in a ResvConf message.
POLICY_DATA
Carries information that will allow a local policy
module to decide whether an associated reservation is
administratively permitted. May appear in Path,
Resv, PathErr, or ResvErr message.
The use of POLICY_DATA objects is not fully specified
at this time; a future document will fill this gap.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 35]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
INTEGRITY
Carries cryptographic data to authenticate the
originating node and to verify the contents of this
RSVP message. The use of the INTEGRITY object is
described in [Baker96].
SCOPE
Carries an explicit list of sender hosts towards
which the information in the message is to be
forwarded. May appear in a Resv, ResvErr, or
ResvTear message. See Section 3.4.
RESV_CONFIRM
Carries the IP address of a receiver that requested a
confirmation. May appear in a Resv or ResvConf
message.
C-Type
Object type, unique within Class-Num. Values are defined
in Appendix A.
The maximum object content length is 65528 bytes. The Class-
Num and C-Type fields may be used together as a 16-bit number
to define a unique type for each object.
The high-order two bits of the Class-Num is used to determine
what action a node should take if it does not recognize the
Class-Num of an object; see Section 3.10.
3.1.3 Path Messages
Each sender host periodically sends a Path message for each
data flow it originates. It contains a SENDER_TEMPLATE object
defining the format of the data packets and a SENDER_TSPEC
object specifying the traffic characteristics of the flow.
Optionally, it may contain may be an ADSPEC object carrying
advertising (OPWA) data for the flow.
A Path message travels from a sender to receiver(s) along the
same path(s) used by the data packets. The IP source address
of a Path message must be an address of the sender it
describes, while the destination address must be the
DestAddress for the session. These addresses assure that the
message will be correctly routed through a non-RSVP cloud.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 36]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
The format of a Path message is as follows:
<Path Message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ]
<SESSION> <RSVP_HOP>
<TIME_VALUES>
[ <POLICY_DATA> ... ]
[ <sender descriptor> ]
<sender descriptor> ::= <SENDER_TEMPLATE> <SENDER_TSPEC>
[ <ADSPEC> ]
If the INTEGRITY object is present, it must immediately follow
the common header. There are no other requirements on
transmission order, although the above order is recommended.
Any number of POLICY_DATA objects may appear.
The PHOP (i.e., RSVP_HOP) object of each Path message contains
the previous hop address, i.e., the IP address of the interface
through which the Path message was most recently sent. It also
carries a logical interface handle (LIH).
Each RSVP-capable node along the path(s) captures a Path
message and processes it to create path state for the sender
defined by the SENDER_TEMPLATE and SESSION objects. Any
POLICY_DATA, SENDER_TSPEC, and ADSPEC objects are also saved in
the path state. If an error is encountered while processing a
Path message, a PathErr message is sent to the originating
sender of the Path message. Path messages must satisfy the
rules on SrcPort and DstPort in Section 3.2.
Periodically, the RSVP process at a node scans the path state
to create new Path messages to forward towards the receiver(s).
Each message contains a sender descriptor defining one sender,
and carries the original sender's IP address as its IP source
address. Path messages eventually reach the applications on
all receivers; however, they are not looped back to a receiver
running in the same application process as the sender.
The RSVP process forwards Path messages and replicates them as
required by multicast sessions, using routing information it
obtains from the appropriate uni-/multicast routing process.
The route depends upon the session DestAddress, and for some
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 37]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
routing protocols also upon the source (sender's IP) address.
The routing information generally includes the list of zero or
more outgoing interfaces to which the Path message is to be
forwarded. Because each outgoing interface has a different IP
address, the Path messages sent out different interfaces
contain different PHOP addresses. In addition, ADSPEC objects
carried in Path messages will also generally differ for
different outgoing interfaces.
Path state for a given session and sender may not necessarily
have a unique PHOP or unique incoming interface. There are two
cases, corresponding to multicast and unicast sessions.
o Multicast Sessions
Multicast routing allows a stable distribution tree in
which Path messages from the same sender arrive from more
than one PHOP, and RSVP must be prepared to maintain all
such path state. The RSVP rules for handling this
situation are contained in Section 3.9. RSVP must not
forward (according to the rules of Section 3.9) Path
messages that arrive on an incoming interface different
from that provided by routing.
o Unicast Sessions
For a short period following a unicast route change
upstream, a node may receive Path messages from multiple
PHOPs for a given (session, sender) pair. The node cannot
reliably determine which is the right PHOP, although the
node will receive data from only one of the PHOPs at a
time. One implementation choice for RSVP is to ignore
PHOP in matching unicast past state, and allow the PHOP to
flip among the candidates. Another implementation choice
is to maintain path state for each PHOP and to send Resv
messages upstream towards all such PHOPs. In either case,
the situation is a transient; the unused path state will
time out or be torn down (because upstream path state
timed out).
3.1.4 Resv Messages
Resv messages carry reservation requests hop-by-hop from
receivers to senders, along the reverse paths of data flows for
the session. The IP destination address of a Resv message is
the unicast address of a previous-hop node, obtained from the
path state. The IP source address is an address of the node
that sent the message.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 38]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
The Resv message format is as follows:
<Resv Message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ]
<SESSION> <RSVP_HOP>
<TIME_VALUES>
[ <RESV_CONFIRM> ] [ <SCOPE> ]
[ <POLICY_DATA> ... ]
<STYLE> <flow descriptor list>
<flow descriptor list> ::= <empty> |
<flow descriptor list> <flow descriptor>
If the INTEGRITY object is present, it must immediately follow
the common header. The STYLE object followed by the flow
descriptor list must occur at the end of the message, and
objects within the flow descriptor list must follow the BNF
given below. There are no other requirements on transmission
order, although the above order is recommended.
The NHOP (i.e., the RSVP_HOP) object contains the IP address of
the interface through which the Resv message was sent and the
LIH for the logical interface on which the reservation is
required.
The appearance of a RESV_CONFIRM object signals a request for a
reservation confirmation and carries the IP address of the
receiver to which the ResvConf should be sent. Any number of
POLICY_DATA objects may appear.
The BNF above defines a flow descriptor list as simply a list
of flow descriptors. The following style-dependent rules
specify in more detail the composition of a valid flow
descriptor list for each of the reservation styles.
o WF Style:
<flow descriptor list> ::= <WF flow descriptor>
<WF flow descriptor> ::= <FLOWSPEC>
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 39]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
o FF style:
<flow descriptor list> ::=
<FLOWSPEC> <FILTER_SPEC> |
<flow descriptor list> <FF flow descriptor>
<FF flow descriptor> ::=
[ <FLOWSPEC> ] <FILTER_SPEC>
Each elementary FF style request is defined by a single
(FLOWSPEC, FILTER_SPEC) pair, and multiple such requests
may be packed into the flow descriptor list of a single
Resv message. A FLOWSPEC object can be omitted if it is
identical to the most recent such object that appeared in
the list; the first FF flow descriptor must contain a
FLOWSPEC.
o SE style:
<flow descriptor list> ::= <SE flow descriptor>
<SE flow descriptor> ::=
<FLOWSPEC> <filter spec list>
<filter spec list> ::= <FILTER_SPEC>
| <filter spec list> <FILTER_SPEC>
The reservation scope, i.e., the set of senders towards which a
particular reservation is to be forwarded (after merging), is
determined as follows:
o Explicit sender selection
The reservation is forwarded to all senders whose
SENDER_TEMPLATE objects recorded in the path state match a
FILTER_SPEC object in the reservation. This match must
follow the rules of Section 3.2.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 40]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
o Wildcard sender selection
A request with wildcard sender selection will match all
senders that route to the given outgoing interface.
Whenever a Resv message with wildcard sender selection is
forwarded to more than one previous hop, a SCOPE object
must be included in the message (see Section 3.4 below);
in this case, the scope for forwarding the reservation is
constrained to just the sender IP addresses explicitly
listed in the SCOPE object.
A Resv message that is forwarded by a node is generally
the result of merging a set of incoming Resv messages
(that are not blockaded; see Section 3.5). If one of
these merged messages contains a RESV_CONFIRM object and
has a FLOWSPEC larger than the FLOWSPECs of the other
merged reservation requests, then this RESV_CONFIRM object
is forwarded in the outgoing Resv message. A RESV_CONFIRM
object in one of the other merged requests (whose
flowspecs are equal to, smaller than, or incomparable to,
the merged flowspec, and which is not blockaded) will
trigger the generation of an ResvConf message containing
the RESV_CONFIRM. A RESV_CONFIRM object in a request that
is blockaded will be neither forwarded nor returned; it
will be dropped in the current node.
3.1.5 Path Teardown Messages
Receipt of a PathTear (path teardown) message deletes matching
path state. Matching state must have match the SESSION,
SENDER_TEMPLATE, and PHOP objects. In addition, a PathTear
message for a multicast session can only match path state for
the incoming interface on which the PathTear arrived. If there
is no matching path state, a PathTear message should be
discarded and not forwarded.
PathTear messages are initiated explicitly by senders or by
path state timeout in any node, and they travel downstream
towards all receivers. A unicast PathTear must not be
forwarded if there is path state for the same (session, sender)
pair but a different PHOP. Forwarding of multicast PathTear
messages is governed by the rules of Section 3.9.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 41]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
A PathTear message must be routed exactly like the
corresponding Path message. Therefore, its IP destination
address must be the session DestAddress, and its IP source
address must be the sender address from the path state being
torn down.
<PathTear Message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ]
<SESSION> <RSVP_HOP>
[ <sender descriptor> ]
<sender descriptor> ::= (see earlier definition)
A PathTear message may include a SENDER_TSPEC or ADSPEC object
in its sender descriptor, but these must be ignored. The order
requirements are as given earlier for a Path message, but the
above order is recommended.
Deletion of path state as the result of a PathTear message or a
timeout must also adjust related reservation state as required
to maintain consistency in the local node. The adjustment
depends upon the reservation style. For example, suppose a
PathTear deletes the path state for a sender S. If the style
specifies explicit sender selection (FF or SE), any reservation
with a filter spec matching S should be deleted; if the style
has wildcard sender selection (WF), the reservation should be
deleted if S is the last sender to the session. These
reservation changes should not trigger an immediate Resv
refresh message, since the PathTear message has already made
the required changes upstream. They should not trigger a
ResvErr message, since the result could be to generate a shower
of such messages.
3.1.6 Resv Teardown Messages
Receipt of a ResvTear (reservation teardown) message deletes
matching reservation state. Matching reservation state must
match the SESSION, STYLE, and FILTER_SPEC objects as well as
the LIH in the RSVP_HOP object. If there is no matching
reservation state, a ResvTear message should be discarded. A
ResvTear message may tear down any subset of the filter specs
in FF-style or SE-style reservation state.
ResvTear messages are initiated explicitly by receivers or by
any node in which reservation state has timed out, and they
travel upstream towards all matching senders.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 42]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
A ResvTear message must be routed like the corresponding Resv
message, and its IP destination address will be the unicast
address of a previous hop.
<ResvTear Message> ::= <Common Header> [<INTEGRITY>]
<SESSION> <RSVP_HOP>
[ <SCOPE> ] <STYLE>
<flow descriptor list>
<flow descriptor list> ::= (see earlier definition)
FLOWSPEC objects in the flow descriptor list of a ResvTear
message will be ignored and may be omitted. The order
requirements for INTEGRITY object, sender descriptor, STYLE
object, and flow descriptor list are as given earlier for a
Resv message, but the above order is recommended. A ResvTear
message may include a SCOPE object, but it must be ignored.
A ResvTear message will cease to be forwarded at the node where
merging would have suppressed forwarding of the corresponding
Resv message. Depending upon the resulting state change in a
node, receipt of a ResvTear message may cause a ResvTear
message to be forwarded, a modified Resv message to be
forwarded, or no message to be forwarded. These three cases
can be illustrated in the case of the FF-style reservations
shown in Figure 6.
o If receiver R2 sends a ResvTear message for its
reservation S3{B}, the corresponding reservation is
removed from interface (d) and a ResvTear for S3{B} is
forwarded out (b).
o If receiver R1 sends a ResvTear for its reservation
S1{4B}, the corresponding reservation is removed from
interface (c) and a modified Resv message FF( S1{3B} ) is
immediately forwarded out (a).
o If receiver R3 sends a ResvTear message for S1{B}, there
is no change in the effective reservation S1{3B} on (d)
and no message is forwarded.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 43]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
3.1.7 Path Error Messages
PathErr (path error) messages report errors in processing Path
messages. They are travel upstream towards senders and are
routed hop-by-hop using the path state. At each hop, the IP
destination address is the unicast address of a previous hop.
PathErr messages do not modify the state of any node through
which they pass; they are only reported to the sender
application.
<PathErr message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ]
<SESSION> <ERROR_SPEC>
[ <POLICY_DATA> ...]
[ <sender descriptor> ]
<sender descriptor> ::= (see earlier definition)
The ERROR_SPEC object specifies the error and includes the IP
address of the node that detected the error (Error Node
Address). One or more POLICY_DATA objects may be included
message to provide relevant information. The sender descriptor
is copied from the message in error. The object order
requirements are as given earlier for a Path message, but the
above order is recommended.
3.1.8 Resv Error Messages
ResvErr (reservation error) messages report errors in
processing Resv messages, or they may report the spontaneous
disruption of a reservation, e.g., by administrative
preemption.
ResvErr messages travel downstream towards the appropriate
receivers, routed hop-by-hop using the reservation state. At
each hop, the IP destination address is the unicast address of
a next-hop node.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 44]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
<ResvErr Message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ]
<SESSION> <RSVP_HOP>
<ERROR_SPEC> [ <SCOPE> ]
[ <POLICY_DATA> ...]
<STYLE> [ <error flow descriptor> ]
The ERROR_SPEC object specifies the error and includes the IP
address of the node that detected the error (Error Node
Address). One or more POLICY_DATA objects may be included in
an error message to provide relevant information (e.g.,, when a
policy control error is being reported). The RSVP_HOP object
contains the previous hop address, and the STYLE object is
copied from the Resv message in error. The use of the SCOPE
object in a ResvErr message is defined below in Section 3.4.
The object order requirements are as given for Resv messages,
but the above order is recommended.
The following style-dependent rules define the composition of a
valid error flow descriptor; the object order requirements are
as given earlier for flow descriptor.
o WF Style:
<error flow descriptor> ::= <WF flow descriptor>
o FF style:
<error flow descriptor> ::= <FF flow descriptor>
Each flow descriptor in a FF-style Resv message must be
processed independently, and a separate ResvErr message
must be generated for each one that is in error.
o SE style:
<error flow descriptor> ::= <SE flow descriptor>
An SE-style ResvErr message may list the subset of the
filter specs in the corresponding Resv message to which
the error applies.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 45]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
Note that a ResvErr message contains only one flow descriptor.
Therefore, a Resv message that contains N > 1 flow descriptors
(FF style) may create up to N separate ResvErr messages.
Generally speaking, a ResvErr message should be forwarded
towards all receivers that may have caused the error being
reported. More specifically:
o The node that detects an error in a reservation request
sends a ResvErr message to the next hop node from which
the erroneous reservation came.
This ResvErr message must contain the information required
to define the error and to route the error message in
later hops. It therefore includes an ERROR_SPEC object, a
copy of the STYLE object, and the appropriate error flow
descriptor. If the error is an admission control failure
while attempting to increase an existing reservation, then
the existing reservation must be left in place and the
InPlace flag bit must be on in the ERROR_SPEC of the
ResvErr message.
o Succeeding nodes forward the ResvErr message to next hops
that have local reservation state. For reservations with
wildcard scope, there is an additional limitation on
forwarding ResvErr messages, to avoid loops; see Section
3.4. There is also a rule restricting the forwarding of a
Resv message after an Admission Control failure; see
Section 3.5.
A ResvErr message that is forwarded should carry the
FILTER_SPEC(s) from the corresponding reservation state.
o When a ResvErr message reaches a receiver, the STYLE
object, flow descriptor list, and ERROR_SPEC object
(including its flags) should be delivered to the receiver
application.
3.1.9 Confirmation Messages
ResvConf messages are sent to (probabilistically) acknowledge
reservation requests. A ResvConf message is sent as the result
of the appearance of a RESV_CONFIRM object in a Resv message.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 46]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
A ResvConf message is sent to the unicast address of a receiver
host; the address is obtained from the RESV_CONFIRM object.
However, a ResvConf message is forwarded to the receiver hop-
by-hop, to accommodate the hop-by-hop integrity check
mechanism.
<ResvConf message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ]
<SESSION> <ERROR_SPEC>
<RESV_CONFIRM>
<STYLE> <flow descriptor list>
<flow descriptor list> ::= (see earlier definition)
The object order requirements are the same as those given
earlier for a Resv message, but the above order is recommended.
The RESV_CONFIRM object is a copy of that object in the Resv
message that triggered the confirmation. The ERROR_SPEC is
used only to carry the IP address of the originating node, in
the Error Node Address; the Error Code and Value are zero to
indicate a confirmation. The flow descriptor list specifies
the particular reservations that are being confirmed; it may be
a subset of flow descriptor list of the Resv that requested the
confirmation.
3.2 Port Usage
An RSVP session is normally defined by the triple: (DestAddress,
ProtocolId, DstPort). Here DstPort is a UDP/TCP destination port
field (i.e., a 16-bit quantity carried at octet offset +2 in the
transport header). DstPort may be omitted (set to zero) if the
ProtocolId specifies a protocol that does not have a destination
port field in the format used by UDP and TCP.
RSVP allows any value for ProtocolId. However, end-system
implementations of RSVP may know about certain values for this
field, and in particular the values for UDP and TCP (17 and 6,
respectively). An end system may give an error to an application
that either:
o specifies a non-zero DstPort for a protocol that does not
have UDP/TCP-like ports, or
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 47]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
o specifies a zero DstPort for a protocol that does have
UDP/TCP-like ports.
Filter specs and sender templates specify the pair: (SrcAddress,
SrcPort), where SrcPort is a UDP/TCP source port field (i.e., a
16-bit quantity carried at octet offset +0 in the transport
header). SrcPort may be omitted (set to zero) in certain cases.
The following rules hold for the use of zero DstPort and/or
SrcPort fields in RSVP.
1. Destination ports must be consistent.
Path state and reservation state for the same DestAddress and
ProtocolId must each have DstPort values that are all zero or
all non-zero. Violation of this condition in a node is a
"Conflicting Dest Ports" error.
2. Destination ports rule.
If DstPort in a session definition is zero, all SrcPort
fields used for that session must also be zero. The
assumption here is that the protocol does not have UDP/TCP-
like ports. Violation of this condition in a node is a "Bad
Src Ports" error.
3. Source Ports must be consistent.
A sender host must not send path state both with and without
a zero SrcPort. Violation of this condition is a
"Conflicting Sender Port" error.
Note that RSVP has no "wildcard" ports, i.e., a zero port cannot
match a non-zero port.
3.3 Sending RSVP Messages
RSVP messages are sent hop-by-hop between RSVP-capable routers as
"raw" IP datagrams with protocol number 46. Raw IP datagrams are
also intended to be used between an end system and the first/last
hop router, although it is also possible to encapsulate RSVP
messages as UDP datagrams for end-system communication, as
described in Appendix C. UDP encapsulation is needed for systems
that cannot do raw network I/O.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 48]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
Path, PathTear, and ResvConf messages must be sent with the Router
Alert IP option [RFC 2113] in their IP headers. This option may
be used in the fast forwarding path of a high-speed router to
detect datagrams that require special processing.
Upon the arrival of an RSVP message M that changes the state, a
node must forward the state modification immediately. However,
this must not trigger sending a message out the interface through
which M arrived (which could happen if the implementation simply
triggered an immediate refresh of all state for the session).
This rule is necessary to prevent packet storms on broadcast LANs.
In this version of the spec, each RSVP message must occupy exactly
one IP datagram. If it exceeds the MTU, such a datagram will be
fragmented by IP and reassembled at the recipient node. This has
several consequences:
o A single RSVP message may not exceed the maximum IP datagram
size, approximately 64K bytes.
o A congested non-RSVP cloud could lose individual message
fragments, and any lost fragment will lose the entire
message.
Future versions of the protocol will provide solutions for these
problems if they prove burdensome. The most likely direction will
be to perform "semantic fragmentation", i.e., break the path or
reservation state being transmitted into multiple self-contained
messages, each of an acceptable size.
RSVP uses its periodic refresh mechanisms to recover from
occasional packet losses. Under network overload, however,
substantial losses of RSVP messages could cause a failure of
resource reservations. To control the queuing delay and dropping
of RSVP packets, routers should be configured to offer them a
preferred class of service. If RSVP packets experience noticeable
losses when crossing a congested non-RSVP cloud, a larger value
can be used for the timeout factor K (see section 3.7).
Some multicast routing protocols provide for "multicast tunnels",
which do IP encapsulation of multicast packets for transmission
through routers that do not have multicast capability. A
multicast tunnel looks like a logical outgoing interface that is
mapped into some physical interface. A multicast routing protocol
that supports tunnels will describe a route using a list of
logical rather than physical interfaces. RSVP can operate across
such multicast tunnels in the following manner:
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 49]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
1. When a node N forwards a Path message out a logical outgoing
interface L, it includes in the message some encoding of the
identity of L, called the "logical interface handle" or LIH.
The LIH value is carried in the RSVP_HOP object.
2. The next hop node N' stores the LIH value in its path state.
3. When N' sends a Resv message to N, it includes the LIH value
from the path state (again, in the RSVP_HOP object).
4. When the Resv message arrives at N, its LIH value provides
the information necessary to attach the reservation to the
appropriate logical interface. Note that N creates and
interprets the LIH; it is an opaque value to N'.
Note that this only solves the routing problem posed by tunnels.
The tunnel appears to RSVP as a non-RSVP cloud. To establish RSVP
reservations within the tunnel, additional machinery will be
required, to be defined in the future.
3.4 Avoiding RSVP Message Loops
Forwarding of RSVP messages must avoid looping. In steady state,
Path and Resv messages are forwarded on each hop only once per
refresh period. This avoids looping packets, but there is still
the possibility of an "auto-refresh" loop, clocked by the refresh
period. Such auto-refresh loops keep state active "forever", even
if the end nodes have ceased refreshing it, until the receivers
leave the multicast group and/or the senders stop sending Path
messages. On the other hand, error and teardown messages are
forwarded immediately and are therefore subject to direct looping.
Consider each message type.
o Path Messages
Path messages are forwarded in exactly the same way as IP
data packets. Therefore there should be no loops of Path
messages (except perhaps for transient routing loops, which
we ignore here), even in a topology with cycles.
o PathTear Messages
PathTear messages use the same routing as Path messages and
therefore cannot loop.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 50]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
o PathErr Messages
Since Path messages do not loop, they create path state
defining a loop-free reverse path to each sender. PathErr
messages are always directed to particular senders and
therefore cannot loop.
o Resv Messages
Resv messages directed to particular senders (i.e., with
explicit sender selection) cannot loop. However, Resv
messages with wildcard sender selection (WF style) have a
potential for auto-refresh looping.
o ResvTear Messages
Although ResvTear messages are routed the same as Resv
messages, during the second pass around a loop there will be
no state so any ResvTear message will be dropped. Hence
there is no looping problem here.
o ResvErr Messages
ResvErr messages for WF style reservations may loop for
essentially the same reasons that Resv messages loop.
o ResvConf Messages
ResvConf messages are forwarded towards a fixed unicast
receiver address and cannot loop.
If the topology has no loops, then looping of Resv and ResvErr
messages with wildcard sender selection can be avoided by simply
enforcing the rule given earlier: state that is received through a
particular interface must never be forwarded out the same
interface. However, when the topology does have cycles, further
effort is needed to prevent auto-refresh loops of wildcard Resv
messages and fast loops of wildcard ResvErr messages. The
solution to this problem adopted by this protocol specification is
for such messages to carry an explicit sender address list in a
SCOPE object.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 51]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
When a Resv message with WF style is to be forwarded to a
particular previous hop, a new SCOPE object is computed from the
SCOPE objects that were received in matching Resv messages. If
the computed SCOPE object is empty, the message is not forwarded
to the previous hop; otherwise, the message is sent containing the
new SCOPE object. The rules for computing a new SCOPE object for
a Resv message are as follows:
1. The union is formed of the sets of sender IP addresses listed
in all SCOPE objects in the reservation state for the given
session.
If reservation state from some NHOP does not contain a SCOPE
object, a substitute sender list must be created and included
in the union. For a message that arrived on outgoing
interface OI, the substitute list is the set of senders that
route to OI.
2. Any local senders (i.e., any sender applications on this
node) are removed from this set.
3. If the SCOPE object is to be sent to PHOP, remove from the
set any senders that did not come from PHOP.
Figure 11 shows an example of wildcard-scoped (WF style) Resv
messages. The address lists within SCOPE objects are shown in
square brackets. Note that there may be additional connections
among the nodes, creating looping topology that is not shown.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 52]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
________________
a | | c
R4, S4<----->| Router |<-----> R2, S2, S3
| |
b | |
R1, S1<----->| |
|________________|
Send on (a): | Receive on (c):
|
<-- WF( [S4] ) | <-- WF( [S4, S1])
|
Send on (b): |
|
<-- WF( [S1] ) |
|
Receive on (a): | Send on (c):
|
WF( [S1,S2,S3]) --> | WF( [S2, S3]) -->
|
Receive on (b): |
|
WF( [S2,S3,S4]) --> |
|
Figure 11: SCOPE Objects in Wildcard-Scope Reservations
SCOPE objects are not necessary if the multicast routing uses
shared trees or if the reservation style has explicit sender
selection. Furthermore, attaching a SCOPE object to a reservation
should be deferred to a node which has more than one previous hop
for the reservation state.
The following rules are used for SCOPE objects in ResvErr messages
with WF style:
1. The node that detected the error initiates an ResvErr message
containing a copy of the SCOPE object associated with the
reservation state or message in error.
2. Suppose a wildcard-style ResvErr message arrives at a node
with a SCOPE object containing the sender host address list
L. The node forwards the ResvErr message using the rules of
Section 3.1.8. However,
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 53]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
the ResvErr message forwarded out OI must contain a SCOPE
object derived from L by including only those senders that
route to OI. If this SCOPE object is empty, the ResvErr
message should not be sent out OI.
3.5 Blockade State
The basic rule for creating a Resv refresh message is to merge the
flowspecs of the reservation requests in place in the node, by
computing their LUB. However, this rule is modified by the
existence of "blockade state" resulting from ResvErr messages, to
solve the KR-II problem (see Section 2.5). The blockade state
also enters into the routing of ResvErr messages for Admission
Control failure.
When a ResvErr message for an Admission Control failure is
received, its flowspec Qe is used to create or refresh an element
of local blockade state. Each element of blockade state consists
of a blockade flowspec Qb taken from the flowspec of the ResvErr
message, and an associated blockade timer Tb. When a blockade
timer expires, the corresponding blockade state is deleted.
The granularity of blockade state depends upon the style of the
ResvErr message that created it. For an explicit style, there may
be a blockade state element (Qb(S),Tb(S)) for each sender S. For
a wildcard style, blockade state is per previous hop P.
An element of blockade state with flowspec Qb is said to
"blockade" a reservation with flowspec Qi if Qb is not (strictly)
greater than Qi. For example, suppose that the LUB of two
flowspecs is computed by taking the max of each of their
corresponding components. Then Qb blockades Qi if for some
component j, Qb[j] <= Qi[j].
Suppose that a node receives a ResvErr message from previous hop P
(or, if style is explicit, sender S) as the result of an Admission
Control failure upstream. Then:
1. An element of blockade state is created for P (or S) if it
did not exist.
2. Qb(P) (or Qb(S)) is set equal to the flowspec Qe from the
ResvErr message.
3. A corresponding blockade timer Tb(P) (or Tb(S)) is started or
restarted for a time Kb*R. Here Kb is a fixed multiplier and
R is the refresh interval for reservation state. Kb should
be configurable.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 54]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
4. If there is some local reservation state that is not
blockaded (see below), an immediate reservation refresh for P
(or S) is generated.
5. The ResvErr message is forwarded to next hops in the
following way. If the InPlace bit is off, the ResvErr
message is forwarded to all next hops for which there is
reservation state. If the InPlace bit is on, the ResvErr
message is forwarded only to the next hops whose Qi is
blockaded by Qb.
Finally, we present the modified rule for merging flowspecs to
create a reservation refresh message.
o If there are any local reservation requests Qi that are not
blockaded, these are merged by computing their LUB. The
blockaded reservations are ignored; this allows forwarding of
a smaller reservation that has not failed and may perhaps
succeed, after a larger reservation fails.
o Otherwise (all local requests Qi are blockaded), they are
merged by taking the GLB (Greatest Lower Bound) of the Qi's.
(The use of some definition of "minimum" improves performance
by bracketing the failure level between the largest that
succeeds and the smallest that fails. The choice of GLB in
particular was made because it is simple to define and
implement, and no reason is known for using a different
definition of "minimum" here).
This refresh merging algorithm is applied separately to each flow
(each sender or PHOP) contributing to a shared reservation (WF or
SE style).
Figure 12 shows an example of the the application of blockade
state for a shared reservation (WF style). There are two previous
hops labeled (a) and (b), and two next hops labeled (c) and (d).
The larger reservation 4B arrived from (c) first, but it failed
somewhere upstream via PHOP (a), but not via PHOP (b). The
figures show the final "steady state" after the smaller
reservation 2B subsequently arrived from (d). This steady state
is perturbed roughly every Kb*R seconds, when the blockade state
times out. The next refresh then sends 4B to previous hop (a);
presumably this will fail, sending a ResvErr message that will
re-establish the blockade state, returning to the situation shown
in the figure. At the same time, the ResvErr message will be
forwarded to next hop (c) and to all receivers downstream
responsible for the 4B reservations.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 55]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
Send Blockade | Reserve Receive
State {Qb}|
| ________
(a) <- WF(*{2B}) {4B} | | * {4B} | WF(*{4B}) <- (c)
| |________|
|
---------------------------|-------------------------------
|
| ________
(b) <- WF(*{4B}) (none)| | * {2B} | WF(*{2B}) <- (d)
| |________|
Figure 12: Blockading with Shared Style
3.6 Local Repair
When a route changes, the next Path or Resv refresh message will
establish path or reservation state (respectively) along the new
route. To provide fast adaptation to routing changes without the
overhead of short refresh periods, the local routing protocol
module can notify the RSVP process of route changes for particular
destinations. The RSVP process should use this information to
trigger a quick refresh of state for these destinations, using the
new route.
The specific rules are as follows:
o When routing detects a change of the set of outgoing
interfaces for destination G, RSVP should update the path
state, wait for a short period W, and then send Path
refreshes for all sessions G/* (i.e., for any session with
destination G, regardless of destination port).
The short wait period before sending Path refreshes is to
allow the routing protocol to settle, and the value for W
should be chosen accordingly. Currently W = 2 sec is
suggested; however, this value should be configurable per
interface.
o When a Path message arrives with a Previous Hop address that
differs from the one stored in the path state, RSVP should
send immediate Resv refreshes to that PHOP.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 56]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
3.7 Time Parameters
There are two time parameters relevant to each element of RSVP
path or reservation state in a node: the refresh period R between
generation of successive refreshes for the state by the neighbor
node, and the local state's lifetime L. Each RSVP Resv or Path
message may contain a TIME_VALUES object specifying the R value
that was used to generate this (refresh) message. This R value is
then used to determine the value for L when the state is received
and stored. The values for R and L may vary from hop to hop.
In more detail:
1. Floyd and Jacobson [FJ94] have shown that periodic messages
generated by independent network nodes can become
synchronized. This can lead to disruption in network
services as the periodic messages contend with other network
traffic for link and forwarding resources. Since RSVP sends
periodic refresh messages, it must avoid message
synchronization and ensure that any synchronization that may
occur is not stable.
For this reason, the refresh timer should be randomly set to
a value in the range [0.5R, 1.5R].
2. To avoid premature loss of state, L must satisfy L >= (K +
0.5)*1.5*R, where K is a small integer. Then in the worst
case, K-1 successive messages may be lost without state being
deleted. To compute a lifetime L for a collection of state
with different R values R0, R1, ..., replace R by max(Ri).
Currently K = 3 is suggested as the default. However, it may
be necessary to set a larger K value for hops with high loss
rate. K may be set either by manual configuration per
interface, or by some adaptive technique that has not yet
been specified.
3. Each Path or Resv message carries a TIME_VALUES object
containing the refresh time R used to generate refreshes.
The recipient node uses this R to determine the lifetime L of
the stored state created or refreshed by the message.
4. The refresh time R is chosen locally by each node. If the
node does not implement local repair of reservations
disrupted by route changes, a smaller R speeds up adaptation
to routing changes, while increasing the RSVP overhead. With
local repair, a router can be more relaxed about R since the
periodic refresh becomes only a backstop robustness
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 57]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
mechanism. A node may therefore adjust the effective R
dynamically to control the amount of overhead due to refresh
messages.
The current suggested default for R is 30 seconds. However,
the default value Rdef should be configurable per interface.
5. When R is changed dynamically, there is a limit on how fast
it may increase. Specifically, the ratio of two successive
values R2/R1 must not exceed 1 + Slew.Max.
Currently, Slew.Max is 0.30. With K = 3, one packet may be
lost without state timeout while R is increasing 30 percent
per refresh cycle.
6. To improve robustness, a node may temporarily send refreshes
more often than R after a state change (including initial
state establishment).
7. The values of Rdef, K, and Slew.Max used in an implementation
should be easily modifiable per interface, as experience may
lead to different values. The possibility of dynamically
adapting K and/or Slew.Max in response to measured loss rates
is for future study.
3.8 Traffic Policing and Non-Integrated Service Hops
Some QoS services may require traffic policing at some or all of
(1) the edge of the network, (2) a merging point for data from
multiple senders, and/or (3) a branch point where traffic flow
from upstream may be greater than the downstream reservation being
requested. RSVP knows where such points occur and must so
indicate to the traffic control mechanism. On the other hand,
RSVP does not interpret the service embodied in the flowspec and
therefore does not know whether policing will actually be applied
in any particular case.
The RSVP process passes to traffic control a separate policing
flag for each of these three situations.
o E_Police_Flag -- Entry Policing
This flag is set in the first-hop RSVP node that implements
traffic control (and is therefore capable of policing).
For example, sender hosts must implement RSVP but currently
many of them do not implement traffic control. In this case,
the E_Police_Flag should be off in the sender host, and it
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 58]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
should only be set on when the first node capable of traffic
control is reached. This is controlled by the E_Police flag
in SESSION objects.
o M_Police_Flag -- Merge Policing
This flag should be set on for a reservation using a shared
style (WF or SE) when flows from more than one sender are
being merged.
o B_Police_Flag -- Branch Policing
This flag should be set on when the flowspec being installed
is smaller than, or incomparable to, a FLOWSPEC in place on
any other interface, for the same FILTER_SPEC and SESSION.
RSVP must also test for the presence of non-RSVP hops in the path
and pass this information to traffic control. From this flag bit
that the RSVP process supplies and from its own local knowledge,
traffic control can detect the presence of a hop in the path that
is not capable of QoS control, and it passes this information to
the receivers in Adspecs [RFC 2210].
With normal IP forwarding, RSVP can detect a non-RSVP hop by
comparing the IP TTL with which a Path message is sent to the TTL
with which it is received; for this purpose, the transmission TTL
is placed in the common header. However, the TTL is not always a
reliable indicator of non-RSVP hops, and other means must
sometimes be used. For example, if the routing protocol uses IP
encapsulating tunnels, then the routing protocol must inform RSVP
when non-RSVP hops are included. If no automatic mechanism will
work, manual configuration will be required.
3.9 Multihomed Hosts
Accommodating multihomed hosts requires some special rules in
RSVP. We use the term `multihomed host' to cover both hosts (end
systems) with more than one network interface and routers that are
supporting local application programs.
An application executing on a multihomed host may explicitly
specify which interface any given flow will use for sending and/or
for receiving data packets, to override the system-specified
default interface. The RSVP process must be aware of the default,
and if an application sets a specific interface, it must also pass
that information to RSVP.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 59]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
o Sending Data
A sender application uses an API call (SENDER in Section
3.11.1) to declare to RSVP the characteristics of the data
flow it will originate. This call may optionally include the
local IP address of the sender. If it is set by the
application, this parameter must be the interface address for
sending the data packets; otherwise, the system default
interface is implied.
The RSVP process on the host then sends Path messages for
this application out the specified interface (only).
o Making Reservations
A receiver application uses an API call (RESERVE in Section
3.11.1) to request a reservation from RSVP. This call may
optionally include the local IP address of the receiver,
i.e., the interface address for receiving data packets. In
the case of multicast sessions, this is the interface on
which the group has been joined. If the parameter is
omitted, the system default interface is used.
In general, the RSVP process should send Resv messages for an
application out the specified interface. However, when the
application is executing on a router and the session is
multicast, a more complex situation arises. Suppose in this
case that a receiver application joins the group on an
interface Iapp that differs from Isp, the shortest-path
interface to the sender. Then there are two possible ways
for multicast routing to deliver data packets to the
application. The RSVP process must determine which case
holds by examining the path state, to decide which incoming
interface to use for sending Resv messages.
1. The multicast routing protocol may create a separate
branch of the multicast distribution `tree' to deliver
to Iapp. In this case, there will be path state for
both interfaces Isp and Iapp. The path state on Iapp
should only match a reservation from the local
application; it must be marked "Local_only" by the RSVP
process. If "Local_only" path state for Iapp exists,
the Resv message should be sent out Iapp.
Note that it is possible for the path state blocks for
Isp and Iapp to have the same next hop, if there is an
intervening non-RSVP cloud.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 60]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
2. The multicast routing protocol may forward data within
the router from Isp to Iapp. In this case, Iapp will
appear in the list of outgoing interfaces of the path
state for Isp, and the Resv message should be sent out
Isp.
3. When Path and PathTear messages are forwarded, path
state marked "Local_Only" must be ignored.
3.10 Future Compatibility
We may expect that in the future new object C-Types will be
defined for existing object classes, and perhaps new object
classes will be defined. It will be desirable to employ such new
objects within the Internet using older implementations that do
not recognize them. Unfortunately, this is only possible to a
limited degree with reasonable complexity. The rules are as
follows (`b' represents a bit).
1. Unknown Class
There are three possible ways that an RSVP implementation can
treat an object with unknown class. This choice is
determined by the two high-order bits of the Class-Num octet,
as follows.
o Class-Num = 0bbbbbbb
The entire message should be rejected and an "Unknown
Object Class" error returned.
o Class-Num = 10bbbbbb
The node should ignore the object, neither forwarding it
nor sending an error message.
o Class-Num = 11bbbbbb
The node should ignore the object but forward it,
unexamined and unmodified, in all messages resulting
from this message.
The following more detailed rules hold for unknown-class
objects with a Class-Num of the form 11bbbbbb:
1. Such unknown-class objects received in PathTear,
ResvTear, PathErr, or ResvErr messages should be
forwarded immediately in the same messages.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 61]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
2. Such unknown-class objects received in Path or Resv
messages should be saved with the corresponding state
and forwarded in any refresh message resulting from that
state.
3. When a Resv refresh is generated by merging multiple
reservation requests, the refresh message should include
the union of unknown-class objects from the component
requests. Only one copy of each unique unknown-class
object should be included in this union.
4. The original order of such unknown-class objects need
not be retained; however, the message that is forwarded
must obey the general order requirements for its message
type.
Although objects with unknown class cannot be merged, these
rules will forward such objects until they reach a node that
knows how to merge them. Forwarding objects with unknown
class enables incremental deployment of new objects; however,
the scaling limitations of doing so must be carefully
examined before a new object class is deployed with both high
bits on.
2. Unknown C-Type for Known Class
One might expect the known Class-Num to provide information
that could allow intelligent handling of such an object.
However, in practice such class-dependent handling is
complex, and in many cases it is not useful.
Generally, the appearance of an object with unknown C-Type
should result in rejection of the entire message and
generation of an error message (ResvErr or PathErr as
appropriate). The error message will include the Class-Num
and C-Type that failed (see Appendix B); the end system that
originated the failed message may be able to use this
information to retry the request using a different C-Type
object, repeating this process until it runs out of
alternatives or succeeds.
Objects of certain classes (FLOWSPEC, ADSPEC, and
POLICY_DATA) are opaque to RSVP, which simply hands them to
traffic control or policy modules. Depending upon its
internal rules, either of the latter modules may reject a C-
Type and inform the RSVP process; RSVP should then reject the
message and send an error, as described in the previous
paragraph.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 62]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
3.11 RSVP Interfaces
RSVP on a router has interfaces to routing and to traffic control.
RSVP on a host has an interface to applications (i.e, an API) and
also an interface to traffic control (if it exists on the host).
3.11.1 Application/RSVP Interface
This section describes a generic interface between an
application and an RSVP control process. The details of a real
interface may be operating-system dependent; the following can
only suggest the basic functions to be performed. Some of
these calls cause information to be returned asynchronously.
o Register Session
Call: SESSION( DestAddress , ProtocolId, DstPort
[ , SESSION_object ]
[ , Upcall_Proc_addr ] ) -> Session-id
This call initiates RSVP processing for a session, defined
by DestAddress together with ProtocolId and possibly a
port number DstPort. If successful, the SESSION call
returns immediately with a local session identifier
Session-id, which may be used in subsequent calls.
The Upcall_Proc_addr parameter defines the address of an
upcall procedure to receive asynchronous error or event
notification; see below. The SESSION_object parameter is
included as an escape mechanism to support some more
general definition of the session ("generalized
destination port"), should that be necessary in the
future. Normally SESSION_object will be omitted.
o Define Sender
Call: SENDER( Session-id
[ , Source_Address ] [ , Source_Port ]
[ , Sender_Template ]
[ , Sender_Tspec ] [ , Adspec ]
[ , Data_TTL ] [ , Policy_data ] )
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 63]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
A sender uses this call to define, or to modify the
definition of, the attributes of the data flow. The first
SENDER call for the session registered as `Session-id'
will cause RSVP to begin sending Path messages for this
session; later calls will modify the path information.
The SENDER parameters are interpreted as follows:
- Source_Address
This is the address of the interface from which the
data will be sent. If it is omitted, a default
interface will be used. This parameter is needed
only on a multihomed sender host.
- Source_Port
This is the UDP/TCP port from which the data will be
sent.
- Sender_Template
This parameter is included as an escape mechanism to
support a more general definition of the sender
("generalized source port"). Normally this parameter
may be omitted.
- Sender_Tspec
This parameter describes the traffic flow to be sent;
see [RFC 2210].
- Adspec
This parameter may be specified to initialize the
computation of QoS properties along the path; see
[RFC 2210].
- Data_TTL
This is the (non-default) IP Time-To-Live parameter
that is being supplied on the data packets. It is
needed to ensure that Path messages do not have a
scope larger than multicast data packets.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 64]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
- Policy_data
This optional parameter passes policy data for the
sender. This data may be supplied by a system
service, with the application treating it as opaque.
o Reserve
Call: RESERVE( session-id, [ receiver_address , ]
[ CONF_flag, ] [ Policy_data, ]
style, style-dependent-parms )
A receiver uses this call to make or to modify a resource
reservation for the session registered as `session-id'.
The first RESERVE call will initiate the periodic
transmission of Resv messages. A later RESERVE call may
be given to modify the parameters of the earlier call (but
note that changing existing reservations may result in
admission control failures).
The optional `receiver_address' parameter may be used by a
receiver on a multihomed host (or router); it is the IP
address of one of the node's interfaces. The CONF_flag
should be set on if a reservation confirmation is desired,
off otherwise. The `Policy_data' parameter specifies
policy data for the receiver, while the `style' parameter
indicates the reservation style. The rest of the
parameters depend upon the style; generally these will be
appropriate flowspecs and filter specs.
The RESERVE call returns immediately. Following a RESERVE
call, an asynchronous ERROR/EVENT upcall may occur at any
time.
o Release
Call: RELEASE( session-id )
This call removes RSVP state for the session specified by
session-id. The node then sends appropriate teardown
messages and ceases sending refreshes for this session-id.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 65]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
o Error/Event Upcalls
The general form of a upcall is as follows:
Upcall: <Upcall_Proc>( ) -> session-id, Info_type,
information_parameters
Here "Upcall_Proc" represents the upcall procedure whose
address was supplied in the SESSION call. This upcall may
occur asynchronously at any time after a SESSION call and
before a RELEASE call, to indicate an error or an event.
Currently there are five upcall types, distinguished by
the Info_type parameter. The selection of information
parameters depends upon the type.
1. Info_type = PATH_EVENT
A Path Event upcall results from receipt of the first
Path message for this session, indicating to a
receiver application that there is at least one
active sender, or if the path state changes.
Upcall: <Upcall_Proc>( ) -> session-id,
Info_type=PATH_EVENT,
Sender_Tspec, Sender_Template
[ , Adspec ] [ , Policy_data ]
This upcall presents the Sender_Tspec, the
Sender_Template, the Adspec, and any policy data from
a Path message.
2. Info_type = RESV_EVENT
A Resv Event upcall is triggered by the receipt of
the first RESV message, or by modification of a
previous reservation state, for this session.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 66]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
Upcall: <Upcall_Proc>( ) -> session-id,
Info_type=RESV_EVENT,
Style, Flowspec, Filter_Spec_list
[ , Policy_data ]
Here `Flowspec' will be the effective QoS that has
been received. Note that an FF-style Resv message
may result in multiple RESV_EVENT upcalls, one for
each flow descriptor.
3. Info_type = PATH_ERROR
An Path Error event indicates an error in sender
information that was specified in a SENDER call.
Upcall: <Upcall_Proc>( ) -> session-id,
Info_type=PATH_ERROR,
Error_code , Error_value ,
Error_Node , Sender_Template
[ , Policy_data_list ]
The Error_code parameter will define the error, and
Error_value may supply some additional (perhaps
system-specific) data about the error. The
Error_Node parameter will specify the IP address of
the node that detected the error. The
Policy_data_list parameter, if present, will contain
any POLICY_DATA objects from the failed Path message.
4. Info_type = RESV_ERR
An Resv Error event indicates an error in a
reservation message to which this application
contributed.
Upcall: <Upcall_Proc>( ) -> session-id,
Info_type=RESV_ERROR,
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 67]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
Error_code , Error_value ,
Error_Node , Error_flags ,
Flowspec, Filter_spec_list
[ , Policy_data_list ]
The Error_code parameter will define the error and
Error_value may supply some additional (perhaps
system-specific) data. The Error_Node parameter will
specify the IP address of the node that detected the
event being reported.
There are two Error_flags:
- InPlace
This flag may be on for an Admission Control
failure, to indicate that there was, and is, a
reservation in place at the failure node. This
flag is set at the failure point and forwarded
in ResvErr messages.
- NotGuilty
This flag may be on for an Admission Control
failure, to indicate that the flowspec requested
by this receiver was strictly less than the
flowspec that got the error. This flag is set
at the receiver API.
Filter_spec_list and Flowspec will contain the
corresponding objects from the error flow descriptor
(see Section 3.1.8). List_count will specify the
number of FILTER_SPECS in Filter_spec_list. The
Policy_data_list parameter will contain any
POLICY_DATA objects from the ResvErr message.
5. Info_type = RESV_CONFIRM
A Confirmation event indicates that a ResvConf
message was received.
Upcall: <Upcall_Proc>( ) -> session-id,
Info_type=RESV_CONFIRM,
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 68]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
Style, List_count,
Flowspec, Filter_spec_list
[ , Policy_data ]
The parameters are interpreted as in the Resv Error
upcall.
Although RSVP messages indicating path or resv events may
be received periodically, the API should make the
corresponding asynchronous upcall to the application only
on the first occurrence or when the information to be
reported changes. All error and confirmation events
should be reported to the application.
3.11.2 RSVP/Traffic Control Interface
It is difficult to present a generic interface to traffic
control, because the details of establishing a reservation
depend strongly upon the particular link layer technology in
use on an interface.
Merging of RSVP reservations is required because of multicast
data delivery, which replicates data packets for delivery to
different next-hop nodes. At each such replication point, RSVP
must merge reservation requests from the corresponding next
hops by computing the "maximum" of their flowspecs. At a given
router or host, one or more of the following three replication
locations may be in use.
1. IP layer
IP multicast forwarding performs replication in the IP
layer. In this case, RSVP must merge the reservations
that are in place on the corresponding outgoing interfaces
in order to forward a request upstream.
2. "The network"
Replication might take place downstream from the node,
e.g., in a broadcast LAN, in link-layer switches, or in a
mesh of non-RSVP-capable routers (see Section 2.8). In
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 69]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
these cases, RSVP must merge the reservations from the
different next hops in order to make the reservation on
the single outgoing interface. It must also merge
reservations requests from all outgoing interfaces in
order to forward a request upstream.
3. Link-layer driver
For a multi-access technology, replication may occur in
the link layer driver or interface card. For example,
this case might arise when there is a separate ATM point-
to-point VC towards each next hop. RSVP may need to apply
traffic control independently to each VC, without merging
requests from different next hops.
In general, these complexities do not impact the protocol
processing that is required by RSVP, except to determine
exactly what reservation requests need to be merged. It may be
desirable to organize an RSVP implementation into two parts: a
core that performs link-layer-independent processing, and a
link-layer-dependent adaptation layer. However, we present
here a generic interface that assumes that replication can
occur only at the IP layer or in "the network".
o Make a Reservation
Call: TC_AddFlowspec( Interface, TC_Flowspec,
TC_Tspec, TC_Adspec, Police_Flags )
-> RHandle [, Fwd_Flowspec]
The TC_Flowspec parameter defines the desired effective
QoS to admission control; its value is computed as the
maximum over the flowspecs of different next hops (see the
Compare_Flowspecs call below). The TC_Tspec parameter
defines the effective sender Tspec Path_Te (see Section
2.2). The TC_Adspec parameter defines the effective
Adspec. The Police_Flags parameter carries the three
flags E_Police_Flag, M_Police_Flag, and B_Police_Flag; see
Section 3.8.
If this call is successful, it establishes a new
reservation channel corresponding to RHandle; otherwise,
it returns an error code. The opaque number RHandle is
used by the caller for subsequent references to this
reservation. If the traffic control service updates the
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 70]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
flowspec, the call will also return the updated object as
Fwd_Flowspec.
o Modify Reservation
Call: TC_ModFlowspec( Interface, RHandle, TC_Flowspec,
TC_Tspec, TC_Adspec, Police_flags )
[ -> Fwd_Flowspec ]
This call is used to modify an existing reservation.
TC_Flowspec is passed to Admission Control; if it is
rejected, the current flowspec is left in force. The
corresponding filter specs, if any, are not affected. The
other parameters are defined as in TC_AddFlowspec. If the
service updates the flowspec, the call will also return
the updated object as Fwd_Flowspec.
o Delete Flowspec
Call: TC_DelFlowspec( Interface, RHandle )
This call will delete an existing reservation, including
the flowspec and all associated filter specs.
o Add Filter Spec
Call: TC_AddFilter( Interface, RHandle,
Session , FilterSpec ) -> FHandle
This call is used to associate an additional filter spec
with the reservation specified by the given RHandle,
following a successful TC_AddFlowspec call. This call
returns a filter handle FHandle.
o Delete Filter Spec
Call: TC_DelFilter( Interface, FHandle )
This call is used to remove a specific filter, specified
by FHandle.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 71]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
o OPWA Update
Call: TC_Advertise( Interface, Adspec,
Non_RSVP_Hop_flag ) -> New_Adspec
This call is used for OPWA to compute the outgoing
advertisement New_Adspec for a specified interface. The
flag bit Non_RSVP_Hop_flag should be set whenever the RSVP
daemon detects that the previous RSVP hop included one or
more non-RSVP-capable routers. TC_Advertise will insert
this information into New_Adspec to indicate that a non-
integrated-service hop was found; see Section 3.8.
o Preemption Upcall
Upcall: TC_Preempt() -> RHandle, Reason_code
In order to grant a new reservation request, the admission
control and/or policy control modules may preempt one or
more existing reservations. This will trigger a
TC_Preempt() upcall to RSVP for each preempted
reservation, passing the RHandle of the reservation and a
sub-code indicating the reason.
3.11.3 RSVP/Policy Control Interface
This interface will be specified in a future document.
3.11.4 RSVP/Routing Interface
An RSVP implementation needs the following support from the
routing mechanisms of the node.
o Route Query
To forward Path and PathTear messages, an RSVP process
must be able to query the routing process(s) for routes.
Ucast_Route_Query( [ SrcAddress, ] DestAddress,
Notify_flag ) -> OutInterface
Mcast_Route_Query( [ SrcAddress, ] DestAddress,
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 72]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
Notify_flag )
-> [ IncInterface, ] OutInterface_list
Depending upon the routing protocol, the query may or may
not depend upon SrcAddress, i.e., upon the sender host IP
address, which is also the IP source address of the
message. Here IncInterface is the interface through which
the packet is expected to arrive; some multicast routing
protocols may not provide it. If the Notify_flag is True,
routing will save state necessary to issue unsolicited
route change notification callbacks (see below) whenever
the specified route changes.
A multicast route query may return an empty
OutInterface_list if there are no receivers downstream of
a particular router. A route query may also return a `No
such route' error, probably as a result of a transient
inconsistency in the routing (since a Path or PathTear
message for the requested route did arrive at this node).
In either case, the local state should be updated as
requested by the message, which cannot be forwarded
further. Updating local state will make path state
available immediately for a new local receiver, or it will
tear down path state immediately.
o Route Change Notification
If requested by a route query with the Notify_flag True,
the routing process may provide an asynchronous callback
to the RSVP process that a specified route has changed.
Ucast_Route_Change( ) -> [ SrcAddress, ] DestAddress,
OutInterface
Mcast_Route_Change( ) -> [ SrcAddress, ] DestAddress,
[ IncInterface, ] OutInterface_list
o Interface List Discovery
RSVP must be able to learn what real and virtual
interfaces are active, with their IP addresses.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 73]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
It should be possible to logically disable an interface
for RSVP. When an interface is disabled for RSVP, a Path
message should never be forwarded out that interface, and
if an RSVP message is received on that interface, the
message should be silently discarded (perhaps with local
logging).
3.11.5 RSVP/Packet I/O Interface
An RSVP implementation needs the following support from the
packet I/O and forwarding mechanisms of the node.
o Promiscuous Receive Mode for RSVP Messages
Packets received for IP protocol 46 but not addressed to
the node must be diverted to the RSVP program for
processing, without being forwarded. The RSVP messages to
be diverted in this manner will include Path, PathTear,
and ResvConf messages. These message types carry the
Router Alert IP option, which can be used to pick them out
of a high-speed forwarding path. Alternatively, the node
can intercept all protocol 46 packets.
On a router or multi-homed host, the identity of the
interface (real or virtual) on which a diverted message is
received, as well as the IP source address and IP TTL with
which it arrived, must also be available to the RSVP
process.
o Outgoing Link Specification
RSVP must be able to force a (multicast) datagram to be
sent on a specific outgoing real or virtual link,
bypassing the normal routing mechanism. A virtual link
might be a multicast tunnel, for example. Outgoing link
specification is necessary to send different versions of
an outgoing Path message on different interfaces, and to
avoid routing loops in some cases.
o Source Address and TTL Specification
RSVP must be able to specify the IP source address and IP
TTL to be used when sending Path messages.
o Router Alert
RSVP must be able to cause Path, PathTear, and ResvConf
message to be sent with the Router Alert IP option.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 74]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
3.11.6 Service-Dependent Manipulations
Flowspecs, Tspecs, and Adspecs are opaque objects to RSVP;
their contents are defined in service specification documents.
In order to manipulate these objects, RSVP process must have
available to it the following service-dependent routines.
o Compare Flowspecs
Compare_Flowspecs( Flowspec_1, Flowspec_2 ) ->
result_code
The possible result_codes indicate: flowspecs are equal,
Flowspec_1 is greater, Flowspec_2 is greater, flowspecs
are incomparable but LUB can be computed, or flowspecs are
incompatible.
Note that comparing two flowspecs implicitly compares the
Tspecs that are contained. Although the RSVP process
cannot itself parse a flowspec to extract the Tspec, it
can use the Compare_Flowspecs call to implicitly calculate
Resv_Te (see Section 2.2).
o Compute LUB of Flowspecs
LUB_of_Flowspecs( Flowspec_1, Flowspec_2 ) ->
Flowspec_LUB
o Compute GLB of Flowspecs
GLB_of_Flowspecs( Flowspec_1, Flowspec_2 ) ->
Flowspec_GLB
o Compare Tspecs
Compare_Tspecs( Tspec_1, Tspec_2 ) -> result_code
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 75]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
The possible result_codes indicate: Tspecs are equal, or
Tspecs are unequal.
o Sum Tspecs
Sum_Tspecs( Tspec_1, Tspec_2 ) -> Tspec_sum
This call is used to compute Path_Te (see Section 2.2).
4. Acknowledgments
The design of RSVP is based upon research performed in 1992-1993 by a
collaboration including Lixia Zhang (UCLA), Deborah Estrin
(USC/ISI), Scott Shenker (Xerox PARC), Sugih Jamin (USC/Xerox PARC),
and Daniel Zappala (USC). Sugih Jamin developed the first prototype
implementation of RSVP and successfully demonstrated it in May 1993.
Shai Herzog, and later Steve Berson, continued development of RSVP
prototypes.
Since 1993, many members of the Internet research community have
contributed to the design and development of RSVP; these include (in
alphabetical order) Steve Berson, Bob Braden, Lee Breslau, Dave
Clark, Deborah Estrin, Shai Herzog, Craig Partridge, Scott Shenker,
John Wroclawski, Daniel Zappala, and Lixia Zhang. In addition, a
number of host and router vendors have made valuable contributions to
the RSVP documents, particularly Fred Baker (Cisco), Mark Baugher
(Intel), Lou Berger (Fore Systems), Don Hoffman (Sun), Steve Jakowski
(NetManage), John Krawczyk (Bay Networks), and Bill Nowicki (SGI), as
well as many others.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 76]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
APPENDIX A. Object Definitions
C-Types are defined for the two Internet address families IPv4 and
IPv6. To accommodate other address families, additional C-Types
could easily be defined. These definitions are contained as an
Appendix, to ease updating.
All unused fields should be sent as zero and ignored on receipt.
A.1 SESSION Class
SESSION Class = 1.
o IPv4/UDP SESSION object: Class = 1, C-Type = 1
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| IPv4 DestAddress (4 bytes) |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Protocol Id | Flags | DstPort |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
o IPv6/UDP SESSION object: Class = 1, C-Type = 2
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| |
+ +
| |
+ IPv6 DestAddress (16 bytes) +
| |
+ +
| |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Protocol Id | Flags | DstPort |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
DestAddress
The IP unicast or multicast destination address of the
session. This field must be non-zero.
Protocol Id
The IP Protocol Identifier for the data flow. This field
must be non-zero.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 77]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
Flags
0x01 = E_Police flag
The E_Police flag is used in Path messages to determine
the effective "edge" of the network, to control traffic
policing. If the sender host is not itself capable of
traffic policing, it will set this bit on in Path
messages it sends. The first node whose RSVP is capable
of traffic policing will do so (if appropriate to the
service) and turn the flag off.
DstPort
The UDP/TCP destination port for the session. Zero may be
used to indicate `none'.
Other SESSION C-Types could be defined in the future to
support other demultiplexing conventions in the transport-
layer or application layer.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 78]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
A.2 RSVP_HOP Class
RSVP_HOP class = 3.
o IPv4 RSVP_HOP object: Class = 3, C-Type = 1
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| IPv4 Next/Previous Hop Address |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Logical Interface Handle |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
o IPv6 RSVP_HOP object: Class = 3, C-Type = 2
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| |
+ +
| |
+ IPv6 Next/Previous Hop Address +
| |
+ +
| |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Logical Interface Handle |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
This object carries the IP address of the interface through which
the last RSVP-knowledgeable hop forwarded this message. The
Logical Interface Handle (LIH) is used to distinguish logical
outgoing interfaces, as discussed in Sections 3.3 and 3.9. A node
receiving an LIH in a Path message saves its value and returns it
in the HOP objects of subsequent Resv messages sent to the node
that originated the LIH. The LIH should be identically zero if
there is no logical interface handle.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 79]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
A.3 INTEGRITY Class
INTEGRITY class = 4.
See [Baker96].
A.4 TIME_VALUES Class
TIME_VALUES class = 5.
o TIME_VALUES Object: Class = 5, C-Type = 1
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Refresh Period R |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
Refresh Period
The refresh timeout period R used to generate this message;
in milliseconds.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 80]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
A.5 ERROR_SPEC Class
ERROR_SPEC class = 6.
o IPv4 ERROR_SPEC object: Class = 6, C-Type = 1
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| IPv4 Error Node Address (4 bytes) |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Flags | Error Code | Error Value |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
o IPv6 ERROR_SPEC object: Class = 6, C-Type = 2
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| |
+ +
| |
+ IPv6 Error Node Address (16 bytes) +
| |
+ +
| |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Flags | Error Code | Error Value |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
Error Node Address
The IP address of the node in which the error was detected.
Flags
0x01 = InPlace
This flag is used only for an ERROR_SPEC object in a
ResvErr message. If it on, this flag indicates that
there was, and still is, a reservation in place at the
failure point.
0x02 = NotGuilty
This flag is used only for an ERROR_SPEC object in a
ResvErr message, and it is only set in the interface to
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 81]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
the receiver application. If it on, this flag indicates
that the FLOWSPEC that failed was strictly greater than
the FLOWSPEC requested by this receiver.
Error Code
A one-octet error description.
Error Value
A two-octet field containing additional information about the
error. Its contents depend upon the Error Type.
The values for Error Code and Error Value are defined in Appendix
B.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 82]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
A.6 SCOPE Class
SCOPE class = 7.
This object contains a list of IP addresses, used for routing
messages with wildcard scope without loops. The addresses must be
listed in ascending numerical order.
o IPv4 SCOPE List object: Class = 7, C-Type = 1
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| IPv4 Src Address (4 bytes) |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
// //
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| IPv4 Src Address (4 bytes) |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
o IPv6 SCOPE list object: Class = 7, C-Type = 2
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| |
+ +
| |
+ IPv6 Src Address (16 bytes) +
| |
+ +
| |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
// //
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| |
+ +
| |
+ IPv6 Src Address (16 bytes) +
| |
+ +
| |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 83]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
A.7 STYLE Class
STYLE class = 8.
o STYLE object: Class = 8, C-Type = 1
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Flags | Option Vector |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
Flags: 8 bits
(None assigned yet)
Option Vector: 24 bits
A set of bit fields giving values for the reservation
options. If new options are added in the future,
corresponding fields in the option vector will be assigned
from the least-significant end. If a node does not recognize
a style ID, it may interpret as much of the option vector as
it can, ignoring new fields that may have been defined.
The option vector bits are assigned (from the left) as
follows:
19 bits: Reserved
2 bits: Sharing control
00b: Reserved
01b: Distinct reservations
10b: Shared reservations
11b: Reserved
3 bits: Sender selection control
000b: Reserved
001b: Wildcard
010b: Explicit
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 84]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
011b - 111b: Reserved
The low order bits of the option vector are determined by the
style, as follows:
WF 10001b
FF 01010b
SE 10010b
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 85]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
A.8 FLOWSPEC Class
FLOWSPEC class = 9.
o Reserved (obsolete) flowspec object: Class = 9, C-Type = 1
o Inv-serv Flowspec object: Class = 9, C-Type = 2
The contents and encoding rules for this object are specified
in documents prepared by the int-serv working group [RFC
2210].
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 86]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
A.9 FILTER_SPEC Class
FILTER_SPEC class = 10.
o IPv4 FILTER_SPEC object: Class = 10, C-Type = 1
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| IPv4 SrcAddress (4 bytes) |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| ////// | ////// | SrcPort |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
o IPv6 FILTER_SPEC object: Class = 10, C-Type = 2
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| |
+ +
| |
+ IPv6 SrcAddress (16 bytes) +
| |
+ +
| |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| ////// | ////// | SrcPort |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
o IPv6 Flow-label FILTER_SPEC object: Class = 10, C-Type = 3
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| |
+ +
| |
+ IPv6 SrcAddress (16 bytes) +
| |
+ +
| |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| /////// | Flow Label (24 bits) |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
SrcAddress
The IP source address for a sender host. Must be non-zero.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 87]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
SrcPort
The UDP/TCP source port for a sender, or zero to indicate
`none'.
Flow Label
A 24-bit Flow Label, defined in IPv6. This value may be used
by the packet classifier to efficiently identify the packets
belonging to a particular (sender->destination) data flow.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 88]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
A.10 SENDER_TEMPLATE Class
SENDER_TEMPLATE class = 11.
o IPv4 SENDER_TEMPLATE object: Class = 11, C-Type = 1
Definition same as IPv4/UDP FILTER_SPEC object.
o IPv6 SENDER_TEMPLATE object: Class = 11, C-Type = 2
Definition same as IPv6/UDP FILTER_SPEC object.
o IPv6 Flow-label SENDER_TEMPLATE object: Class = 11, C-Type =
3
A.11 SENDER_TSPEC Class
SENDER_TSPEC class = 12.
o Intserv SENDER_TSPEC object: Class = 12, C-Type = 2
The contents and encoding rules for this object are specified
in documents prepared by the int-serv working group.
A.12 ADSPEC Class
ADSPEC class = 13.
o Intserv ADSPEC object: Class = 13, C-Type = 2
The contents and format for this object are specified in
documents prepared by the int-serv working group.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 89]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
A.13 POLICY_DATA Class
POLICY_DATA class = 14.
o Type 1 POLICY_DATA object: Class = 14, C-Type = 1
The contents of this object are for further study.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 90]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
A.14 Resv_CONFIRM Class
RESV_CONFIRM class = 15.
o IPv4 RESV_CONFIRM object: Class = 15, C-Type = 1
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| IPv4 Receiver Address (4 bytes) |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
o IPv6 RESV_CONFIRM object: Class = 15, C-Type = 2
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| |
+ +
| |
+ IPv6 Receiver Address (16 bytes) +
| |
+ +
| |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 91]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
APPENDIX B. Error Codes and Values
The following Error Codes may appear in ERROR_SPEC objects and be
passed to end systems. Except where noted, these Error Codes may
appear only in ResvErr messages.
o Error Code = 00: Confirmation
This code is reserved for use in the ERROR_SPEC object of a
ResvConf message. The Error Value will also be zero.
o Error Code = 01: Admission Control failure
Reservation request was rejected by Admission Control due to
unavailable resources.
For this Error Code, the 16 bits of the Error Value field are:
ssur cccc cccc cccc
where the bits are:
ss = 00: Low order 12 bits contain a globally-defined sub-code
(values listed below).
ss = 10: Low order 12 bits contain a organization-specific sub-
code. RSVP is not expected to be able to interpret this
except as a numeric value.
ss = 11: Low order 12 bits contain a service-specific sub-code.
RSVP is not expected to be able to interpret this except as
a numeric value.
Since the traffic control mechanism might substitute a
different service, this encoding may include some
representation of the service in use.
u = 0: RSVP rejects the message without updating local
state.
u = 1: RSVP may use message to update local state and forward
the message. This means that the message is informational.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 92]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
r: Reserved bit, should be zero.
cccc cccc cccc: 12 bit code.
The following globally-defined sub-codes may appear in the low-
order 12 bits when ssur = 0000:
- Sub-code = 1: Delay bound cannot be met
- Sub-code = 2: Requested bandwidth unavailable
- Sub-code = 3: MTU in flowspec larger than interface MTU.
o Error Code = 02: Policy Control failure
Reservation or path message has been rejected for administrative
reasons, for example, required credentials not submitted,
insufficient quota or balance, or administrative preemption.
This Error Code may appear in a PathErr or ResvErr message.
Contents of the Error Value field are to be determined in the
future.
o Error Code = 03: No path information for this Resv message.
No path state for this session. Resv message cannot be
forwarded.
o Error Code = 04: No sender information for this Resv message.
There is path state for this session, but it does not include
the sender matching some flow descriptor contained in the Resv
message. Resv message cannot be forwarded.
o Error Code = 05: Conflicting reservation style
Reservation style conflicts with style(s) of existing
reservation state. The Error Value field contains the low-order
16 bits of the Option Vector of the existing style with which
the conflict occurred. This Resv message cannot be forwarded.
o Error Code = 06: Unknown reservation style
Reservation style is unknown. This Resv message cannot be
forwarded.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 93]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
o Error Code = 07: Conflicting dest ports
Sessions for same destination address and protocol have appeared
with both zero and non-zero dest port fields. This Error Code
may appear in a PathErr or ResvErr message.
o Error Code = 08: Conflicting sender ports
Sender port is both zero and non-zero in Path messages for the
same session. This Error Code may appear only in a PathErr
message.
o Error Code = 09, 10, 11: (reserved)
o Error Code = 12: Service preempted
The service request defined by the STYLE object and the flow
descriptor has been administratively preempted.
For this Error Code, the 16 bits of the Error Value field are:
ssur cccc cccc cccc
Here the high-order bits ssur are as defined under Error Code
01. The globally-defined sub-codes that may appear in the low-
order 12 bits when ssur = 0000 are to be defined in the future.
o Error Code = 13: Unknown object class
Error Value contains 16-bit value composed of (Class-Num, C-
Type) of unknown object. This error should be sent only if RSVP
is going to reject the message, as determined by the high-order
bits of the Class-Num. This Error Code may appear in a PathErr
or ResvErr message.
o Error Code = 14: Unknown object C-Type
Error Value contains 16-bit value composed of (Class-Num, C-
Type) of object.
o Error Code = 15-19: (reserved)
o Error Code = 20: Reserved for API
Error Value field contains an API error code, for an API error
that was detected asynchronously and must be reported via an
upcall.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 94]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
o Error Code = 21: Traffic Control Error
Traffic Control call failed due to the format or contents of the
parameters to the request. The Resv or Path message that caused
the call cannot be forwarded, and repeating the call would be
futile.
For this Error Code, the 16 bits of the Error Value field are:
ss00 cccc cccc cccc
Here the high-order bits ss are as defined under Error Code 01.
The following globally-defined sub-codes may appear in the low
order 12 bits (cccc cccc cccc) when ss = 00:
- Sub-code = 01: Service conflict
Trying to merge two incompatible service requests.
- Sub-code = 02: Service unsupported
Traffic control can provide neither the requested service
nor an acceptable replacement.
- Sub-code = 03: Bad Flowspec value
Malformed or unreasonable request.
- Sub-code = 04: Bad Tspec value
Malformed or unreasonable request.
- Sub-code = 05: Bad Adspec value
Malformed or unreasonable request.
o Error Code = 22: Traffic Control System error
A system error was detected and reported by the traffic control
modules. The Error Value will contain a system-specific value
giving more information about the error. RSVP is not expected
to be able to interpret this value.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 95]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
o Error Code = 23: RSVP System error
The Error Value field will provide implementation-dependent
information on the error. RSVP is not expected to be able to
interpret this value.
In general, every RSVP message is rebuilt at each hop, and the node
that creates an RSVP message is responsible for its correct
construction. Similarly, each node is required to verify the correct
construction of each RSVP message it receives. Should a programming
error allow an RSVP to create a malformed message, the error is not
generally reported to end systems in an ERROR_SPEC object; instead,
the error is simply logged locally, and perhaps reported through
network management mechanisms.
The only message formatting errors that are reported to end systems
are those that may reflect version mismatches, and which the end
system might be able to circumvent, e.g., by falling back to a
previous CType for an object; see code 13 and 14 above.
The choice of message formatting errors that an RSVP may detect and
log locally is implementation-specific, but it will typically include
the following:
o Wrong-length message: RSVP Length field does not match message
length.
o Unknown or unsupported RSVP version.
o Bad RSVP checksum
o INTEGRITY failure
o Illegal RSVP message Type
o Illegal object length: not a multiple of 4, or less than 4.
o Next hop/Previous hop address in HOP object is illegal.
o Bad source port: Source port is non-zero in a filter spec or
sender template for a session with destination port zero.
o Required object class (specify) missing
o Illegal object class (specify) in this message type.
o Violation of required object order
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 96]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
o Flow descriptor count wrong for style or message type
o Logical Interface Handle invalid
o Unknown object Class-Num.
o Destination address of ResvConf message does not match Receiver
Address in the RESV_CONFIRM object it contains.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 97]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
APPENDIX C. UDP Encapsulation
An RSVP implementation will generally require the ability to perform
"raw" network I/O, i.e., to send and receive IP datagrams using
protocol 46. However, some important classes of host systems may not
support raw network I/O. To use RSVP, such hosts must encapsulate
RSVP messages in UDP.
The basic UDP encapsulation scheme makes two assumptions:
1. All hosts are capable of sending and receiving multicast packets
if multicast destinations are to be supported.
2. The first/last-hop routers are RSVP-capable.
A method of relaxing the second assumption is given later.
Let Hu be a "UDP-only" host that requires UDP encapsulation, and Hr a
host that can do raw network I/O. The UDP encapsulation scheme must
allow RSVP interoperation among an arbitrary topology of Hr hosts, Hu
hosts, and routers.
Resv, ResvErr, ResvTear, and PathErr messages are sent to unicast
addresses learned from the path or reservation state in the node. If
the node keeps track of which previous hops and which interfaces need
UDP encapsulation, these messages can be sent using UDP encapsulation
when necessary. On the other hand, Path and PathTear messages are
sent to the destination address for the session, which may be unicast
or multicast.
The tables in Figures 13 and 14 show the basic rules for UDP
encapsulation of Path and PathTear messages, for unicast DestAddress
and multicast DestAddress, respectively. The other message types,
which are sent unicast, should follow the unicast rules in Figure 13.
Under the `RSVP Send' columns in these figures, the notation is
`mode(destaddr, destport)'; destport is omitted for raw packets. The
`Receive' columns show the group that is joined and, where relevant,
the UDP Listen port.
It is useful to define two flavors of UDP encapsulation, one to be
sent by Hu and the other to be sent by Hr and R, to avoid double
processing by the recipient. In practice, these two flavors are
distinguished by differing UDP port numbers Pu and Pu'.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 98]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
The following symbols are used in the tables.
o D is the DestAddress for the particular session.
o G* is a well-known group address of the form 224.0.0.14, i.e., a
group that is limited to the local connected network.
o Pu and Pu' are two well-known UDP ports for UDP encapsulation of
RSVP, with values 1698 and 1699.
o Ra is the IP address of the router interface `a'.
o Router interface `a' is on the local network connected to Hu and
Hr.
o
The following notes apply to these figures:
[Note 1] Hu sends a unicast Path message either to the destination
address D, if D is local, or to the address Ra of the first-hop
router. Ra is presumably known to the host.
[Note 2] Here D is the address of the local interface through
which the message arrived.
[Note 3] This assumes that the application has joined the group D.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 99]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
UNICAST DESTINATION D:
RSVP RSVP
Node Send Receive
___ _____________ _______________
Hu UDP(D/Ra,Pu) UDP(D,Pu)
[Note 1] and UDP(D,Pu')
[Note 2]
Hr Raw(D) Raw()
and if (UDP) and UDP(D, Pu)
then UDP(D,Pu') [Note 2]
(Ignore Pu')
R (Interface a):
Raw(D) Raw()
and if (UDP) and UDP(Ra, Pu)
then UDP(D,Pu') (Ignore Pu')
Figure 13: UDP Encapsulation Rules for Unicast Path and Resv Messages
MULTICAST DESTINATION D:
RSVP RSVP
Node Send Receive
___ _____________ _________________
Hu UDP(G*,Pu) UDP(D,Pu')
[Note 3]
and UDP(G*,Pu)
Hr Raw(D,Tr) Raw()
and if (UDP) and UDP(G*,Pu)
then UDP(D,Pu') (Ignore Pu')
R (Interface a):
Raw(D,Tr) Raw()
and if (UDP) and UDP(G*,Pu)
then UDP(D,Pu') (Ignore Pu')
Figure 14: UDP Encapsulation Rules for Multicast Path Messages
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 100]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
A router may determine if its interface X needs UDP encapsulation by
listening for UDP-encapsulated Path messages that were sent to either
G* (multicast D) or to the address of interface X (unicast D). There
is one failure mode for this scheme: if no host on the connected
network acts as an RSVP sender, there will be no Path messages to
trigger UDP encapsulation. In this (unlikely) case, it will be
necessary to explicitly configure UDP encapsulation on the local
network interface of the router.
When a UDP-encapsulated packet is received, the IP TTL is not
available to the application on most systems. The RSVP process that
receives a UDP-encapsulated Path or PathTear message should therefore
use the Send_TTL field of the RSVP common header as the effective
receive TTL. This may be overridden by manual configuration.
We have assumed that the first-hop RSVP-capable router R is on the
directly-connected network. There are several possible approaches if
this is not the case.
1. Hu can send both unicast and multicast sessions to UDP(Ra,Pu)
with TTL=Ta
Here Ta must be the TTL to exactly reach R. If Ta is too small,
the Path message will not reach R. If Ta is too large, R and
succeeding routers may forward the UDP packet until its hop
count expires. This will turn on UDP encapsulation between
routers within the Internet, perhaps causing bogus UDP traffic.
The host Hu must be explicitly configured with Ra and Ta.
2. A particular host on the LAN connected to Hu could be designated
as an "RSVP relay host". A relay host would listen on (G*,Pu)
and forward any Path messages directly to R, although it would
not be in the data path. The relay host would have to be
configured with Ra and Ta.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 101]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
APPENDIX D. Glossary
o Admission control
A traffic control function that decides whether the packet
scheduler in the node can supply the requested QoS while
continuing to provide the QoS requested by previously-admitted
requests. See also "policy control" and "traffic control".
o Adspec
An Adspec is a data element (object) in a Path message that
carries a package of OPWA advertising information. See "OPWA".
o Auto-refresh loop
An auto-refresh loop is an error condition that occurs when a
topological loop of routers continues to refresh existing
reservation state even though all receivers have stopped
requesting these reservations. See section 3.4 for more
information.
o Blockade state
Blockade state helps to solve a "killer reservation" problem.
See sections 2.5 and 3.5, and "killer reservation".
o Branch policing
Traffic policing at a multicast branching point on an outgoing
interface that has "less" resources reserved than another
outgoing interface for the same flow. See "traffic policing".
o C-Type
The class type of an object; unique within class-name. See
"class-name".
o Class-name
The class of an object. See "object".
o DestAddress
The IP destination address; part of session identification. See
"session".
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 102]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
o Distinct style
A (reservation) style attribute; separate resources are reserved
for each different sender. See also "shared style".
o Downstream
Towards the data receiver(s).
o DstPort
The IP (generalized) destination port used as part of a session.
See "generalized destination port".
o Entry policing
Traffic policing done at the first RSVP- (and policing-) capable
router on a data path.
o ERROR_SPEC
Object that carries the error report in a PathErr or ResvErr
message.
o Explicit sender selection
A (reservation) style attribute; all reserved senders are to be
listed explicitly in the reservation message. See also
"wildcard sender selection".
o FF style
Fixed Filter reservation style, which has explicit sender
selection and distinct attributes.
o FilterSpec
Together with the session information, defines the set of data
packets to receive the QoS specified in a flowspec. The
filterspec is used to set parameters in the packet classifier
function. A filterspec may be carried in a FILTER_SPEC or
SENDER_TEMPLATE object.
o Flow descriptor
The combination of a flowspec and a filterspec.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 103]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
o Flowspec
Defines the QoS to be provided for a flow. The flowspec is used
to set parameters in the packet scheduling function to provide
the requested quality of service. A flowspec is carried in a
FLOWSPEC object. The flowspec format is opaque to RSVP and is
defined by the Integrated Services Working Group.
o Generalized destination port
The component of a session definition that provides further
transport or application protocol layer demultiplexing beyond
DestAddress. See "session".
o Generalized source port
The component of a filter spec that provides further transport
or application protocol layer demultiplexing beyond the sender
address.
o GLB
Greatest Lower Bound
o Incoming interface
The interface on which data packets are expected to arrive, and
on which Resv messages are sent.
o INTEGRITY
Object of an RSVP control message that contains cryptographic
data to authenticate the originating node and to verify the
contents of an RSVP message.
o Killer reservation problem
The killer reservation problem describes a case where a receiver
attempting and failing to make a large QoS reservation prevents
smaller QoS reservations from being established. See Sections
2.5 and 3.5 for more information.
o LIH
The LIH (Logical Interface Handle) is used to help deal with
non-RSVP clouds. See Section 2.9 for more information.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 104]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
o Local repair
Allows RSVP to rapidly adapt its reservations to changes in
routing. See Section 3.6 for more information.
o LPM
Local Policy Module. the function that exerts policy control.
o LUB
Least Upper Bound.
o Merge policing
Traffic policing that takes place at data merge point of a
shared reservation.
o Merging
The process of taking the maximum (or more generally the least
upper bound) of the reservations arriving on outgoing
interfaces, and forwarding this maximum on the incoming
interface. See Section 2.2 for more information.
o MTU
Maximum Transmission Unit.
o Next hop
The next router in the direction of traffic flow.
o NHOP
An object that carries the Next Hop information in RSVP control
messages.
o Node
A router or host system.
o Non-RSVP clouds
Groups of hosts and routers that do not run RSVP. Dealing with
nodes that do not support RSVP is important for backwards
compatibility. See section 2.9.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 105]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
o Object
An element of an RSVP control message; a type, length, value
triplet.
o OPWA
Abbreviation for "One Pass With Advertising". Describes a
reservation setup model in which (Path) messages sent downstream
gather information that the receiver(s) can use to predict the
end-to-end service. The information that is gathered is called
an advertisement. See also "Adspec".
o Outgoing interface
Interface through which data packets and Path messages are
forwarded.
o Packet classifier
Traffic control function in the primary data packet forwarding
path that selects a service class for each packet, in accordance
with the reservation state set up by RSVP. The packet
classifier may be combined with the routing function. See also
"traffic control".
o Packet scheduler
Traffic control function in the primary data packet forwarding
path that implements QoS for each flow, using one of the service
models defined by the Integrated Services Working Group. See
also " traffic control".
o Path state
Information kept in routers and hosts about all RSVP senders.
o PathErr
Path Error RSVP control message.
o PathTear
Path Teardown RSVP control message.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 106]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
o PHOP
An object that carries the Previous Hop information in RSVP
control messages.
o Police
See traffic policing.
o Policy control
A function that determines whether a new request for quality of
service has administrative permission to make the requested
reservation. Policy control may also perform accounting (usage
feedback) for a reservation.
o Policy data
Data carried in a Path or Resv message and used as input to
policy control to determine authorization and/or usage feedback
for the given flow.
o Previous hop
The previous router in the direction of traffic flow. Resv
messages flow towards previous hops.
o ProtocolId
The component of session identification that specifies the IP
protocol number used by the data stream.
o QoS
Quality of Service.
o Reservation state
Information kept in RSVP-capable nodes about successful RSVP
reservation requests.
o Reservation style
Describes a set of attributes for a reservation, including the
sharing attributes and sender selection attributes. See Section
1.3 for details.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 107]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
o Resv message
Reservation request RSVP control message.
o ResvConf
Reservation Confirmation RSVP control message, confirms
successful installation of a reservation at some upstream node.
o ResvErr
Reservation Error control message, indicates that a reservation
request has failed or an active reservation has been preempted.
o ResvTear
Reservation Teardown RSVP control message, deletes reservation
state.
o Rspec
The component of a flowspec that defines a desired QoS. The
Rspec format is opaque to RSVP and is defined by the Integrated
Services Working Group of the IETF.
o RSVP_HOP
Object of an RSVP control message that carries the PHOP or NHOP
address of the source of the message.
o Scope
The set of sender hosts to which a given reservation request is
to be propagated.
o SE style
Shared Explicit reservation style, which has explicit sender
selection and shared attributes.
o Semantic fragmentation
A method of fragmenting a large RSVP message using information
about the structure and contents of the message, so that each
fragment is a logically complete RSVP message.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 108]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
o Sender template
Parameter in a Path message that defines a sender; carried in a
SENDER_TEMPLATE object. It has the form of a filter spec that
can be used to select this sender's packets from other packets
in the same session on the same link.
o Sender Tspec
Parameter in a Path message, a Tspec that characterizes the
traffic parameters for the data flow from the corresponding
sender. It is carried in a SENDER_TSPEC object.
o Session
An RSVP session defines one simplex unicast or multicast data
flow for which reservations are required. A session is
identified by the destination address, transport-layer protocol,
and an optional (generalized) destination port.
o Shared style
A (reservation) style attribute: all reserved senders share the
same reserved resources. See also "distinct style".
o Soft state
Control state in hosts and routers that will expire if not
refreshed within a specified amount of time.
o STYLE
Object of an RSVP message that specifies the desired reservation
style.
o Style
See "reservation style"
o TIME_VALUES
Object in an RSVP control message that specifies the time period
timer used for refreshing the state in this message.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 109]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
o Traffic control
The entire set of machinery in the node that supplies requested
QoS to data streams. Traffic control includes packet
classifier, packet scheduler, and admission control functions.
o Traffic policing
The function, performed by traffic control, of forcing a given
data flow into compliance with the traffic parameters implied by
the reservation. It may involve dropping non-compliant packets
or sending them with lower priority, for example.
o TSpec
A traffic parameter set that describes a flow. The format of a
Tspec is opaque to RSVP and is defined by the Integrated Service
Working Group.
o UDP encapsulation
A way for hosts that cannot use raw sockets to participate in
RSVP by encapsulating the RSVP protocol (raw) packets in
ordinary UDP packets. See Section APPENDIX C for more
information.
o Upstream
Towards the traffic source. RSVP Resv messages flow upstream.
o WF style
Wildcard Filter reservation style, which has wildcard sender
selection and shared attributes.
o Wildcard sender selection
A (reservation) style attribute: traffic from any sender to a
specific session receives the same QoS. See also "explicit
sender selection".
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 110]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
References
[Baker96] Baker, F., "RSVP Cryptographic Authentication", Work in
Progress.
[RFC 1633] Braden, R., Clark, D., and S. Shenker, "Integrated Services
in the Internet Architecture: an Overview", RFC 1633, ISI, MIT, and
PARC, June 1994.
[FJ94] Floyd, S. and V. Jacobson, "Synchronization of Periodic Routing
Messages", IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, Vol. 2, No. 2,
April, 1994.
[RFC 2207] Berger, L. and T. O'Malley, "RSVP Extensions for IPSEC Data
Flows", RFC 2207, September 1997.
[RFC 2113] Katz, D., "IP Router Alert Option", RFC 2113, cisco Systems,
February 1997.
[RFC 2210] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with Integrated Services",
RFC 2210, September 1997.
[PolArch96] Herzog, S., "Policy Control for RSVP: Architectural
Overview". Work in Progress.
[OPWA95] Shenker, S. and L. Breslau, "Two Issues in Reservation
Establishment", Proc. ACM SIGCOMM '95, Cambridge, MA, August 1995.
[RSVP93] Zhang, L., Deering, S., Estrin, D., Shenker, S., and D.
Zappala, "RSVP: A New Resource ReSerVation Protocol", IEEE Network,
September 1993.
Security Considerations
See Section 2.8.
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 111]
RFC 2205 RSVP September 1997
Authors' Addresses
Bob Braden
USC Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Phone: (310) 822-1511
EMail: Braden@ISI.EDU
Lixia Zhang
UCLA Computer Science Department
4531G Boelter Hall
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1596 USA
Phone: 310-825-2695
EMail: lixia@cs.ucla.edu
Steve Berson
USC Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Phone: (310) 822-1511
EMail: Berson@ISI.EDU
Shai Herzog
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P.O Box 704
Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
Phone: (914) 784-6059
EMail: Herzog@WATSON.IBM.COM
Sugih Jamin
University of Michigan
CSE/EECS
1301 Beal Ave.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2122
Phone: (313) 763-1583
EMail: jamin@EECS.UMICH.EDU
Braden, Ed., et. al. Standards Track [Page 112]