SBM (Subnet Bandwidth Manager): A Protocol for RSVP-based Admission Control over IEEE 802-style networks
RFC 2814
Document | Type | RFC - Proposed Standard (May 2000) | |
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Fred Baker , Don Hoffman , Yoram Bernet , Michael F. Speer , Dr. Raj Yavatkar | ||
Last updated | 2013-03-02 | ||
RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
Formats | |||
Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
IESG | Responsible AD | (None) | |
Send notices to | (None) |
RFC 2814
gt;] <sender descriptor> <PATH_TEAR Message> ::= <RSVP Common Header> [<INTEGRITY>] <LAN_LOOPBACK> <LAN_NHOP> <SESSION> <RSVP_HOP> [<sender descriptor>] Yavatkar, et al. Standards Track [Page 52] RFC 2814 SBM (Subnet Bandwidth Manager) May 2000 If the INTEGRITY object is present, it must immediately follow the RSVP common header. L2-specific objects must always precede the SESSION object. B.5. RSVP RESV Message Format As specified in the RSVP specification, an RSVP_RESV message contains the RSVP Common Header and relevant RSVP objects. In addition, it may contain an optional TCLASS object as described earlier. B.6. Additional RSVP message types to handle SBM interactions New RSVP message types are introduced to allow interactions between a DSBM and an RSVP node (host/router) for the purpose of discovering and binding to a DSBM. New RSVP message types needed are as follows: RSVP Msg Type (8 bits) Value DSBM_WILLING 66 I_AM_DSBM 67 All SBM-specific messages are formatted as RSVP messages with an RSVP common header followed by SBM-specific objects. <SBMP_MESSAGE> ::= <SBMP common header> <SBM-specific objects> where <SBMP common header> ::= <RSVP common Header> [<INTEGRITY>] For each SBM 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. Any exceptions to this rule will be pointed out in the specific message formats. DSBM_WILLING Message <DSBM_WILLING message> ::= <SBM Common Header> <DSBM IP ADDRESS> <DSBM L2 address> <SBM PRIORITY> I_AM_DSBM Message <I_AM_DSBM> ::= <SBM Common Header> <DSBM IP ADDRESS> <DSBM L2 address> <SBM PRIORITY> <DSBM Timer Intervals> [<NON_RESV_SEND_LIMIT>] Yavatkar, et al. Standards Track [Page 53] RFC 2814 SBM (Subnet Bandwidth Manager) May 2000 For compatibility reasons, receivers of the I_AM_DSBM message must be prepared to receive additional objects of the Unknown Class type [RFC-2205]. All I_AM_DSBM messages are multicast to the well known AllSBMAddress. The default priority of a SBM is 1 and higher priority values represent higher precedence. The priority value zero indicates that the SBM is not eligible to be the DSBM. Relevant Objects DSBM IP ADDRESS objects use object class = 42; IPv4 DSBM IP ADDRESS object uses <Class=42, C-Type=1> and IPv6 DSBM IP ADDRESS object uses <Class=42, C-Type=2>. IPv4 DSBM IP ADDRESS object: class = 42, C-Type =1 0 1 2 3 +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ | IPv4 DSBM IP Address | +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ IPv6 DSBM IP ADDRESS object: Class = 42, C-Type = 2 +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ | | + + | | + IPv6 DSBM IP Address + | | + + | | +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ <DSBM L2 address> Object is the same as <RSVP_HOP_L2> object with C- Type = 1 for IEEE Canonical Address format. <DSBM L2 address> ::= <RSVP_HOP_L2> A SBM may omit this object by including a NULL L2 address object. For C-Type=1 (IEEE Canonical address format), such a version of the L2 address object contains value zero in the six octets corresponding to the MAC address (see section B.3.4 for the exact format). Yavatkar, et al. Standards Track [Page 54] RFC 2814 SBM (Subnet Bandwidth Manager) May 2000 SBM_PRIORITY Object: class = 43, C-Type =1 0 1 2 3 +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ | /// | /// | /// | SBM priority | +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ TIMER INTERVAL VALUES. The two timer intervals, namely, DSBM Dead Interval and DSBM Refresh Interval, are specified as integer values each in the range of 0..255 seconds. Both values are included in a single "DSBM Timer Intervals" object described below. DSBM Timer Intervals Object: class = 44, C-Type =1 +---------------+---------------+---------------+----------------+ | /// | /// | DeadInterval | RefreshInterval| +---------------+---------------+---------------+----------------+ NON_RESV_SEND_LIMIT Object: class = 45, C-Type = 1 0 1 2 3 +---------------+---------------+---------------+----------------+ | NonResvSendLimit(limit on traffic allowed to send without RESV)| | | +---------------+---------------+---------------+----------------+ <NonResvSendLimit> ::= <Intserv Sender_TSPEC object> (class=12, C-Type =2) The NON_RESV_SEND_LIMIT object specifies a per-flow limit on the profile of traffic which a sending host is allowed to send onto a managed segment without a valid RSVP reservation (see Appendix C for further details on the usage of this object). The object contains the NonResvSendLimit parameter. This parameter is equivalent to the Intserv SENDER_TSPEC (see RFC 2210 for contents and encoding rules). The SENDER_TSPEC includes five parameters which describe a traffic profile (r, b, p, m and M). Sending hosts compare the SENDER_TSPEC describing a sender traffic flow to the SENDER_TSPEC advertised by the DSBM. If the SENDER_TSPEC of the traffic flow in question is less than or equal to the SENDER_TSPEC advertised by the DSBM, it is allowable to send traffic on the corresponding flow without a valid RSVP reservation in place. Otherwise it is not. The network administrator may configure the DSBM to disallow any sent traffic in the absence of an RSVP reservation by configuring a NonResvSendLimit in which r = 0, b = 0, p = 0, m = infinity and M = Yavatkar, et al. Standards Track [Page 55] RFC 2814 SBM (Subnet Bandwidth Manager) May 2000 0. Similarly the network administrator may allow any traffic to be sent in the absence of an RSVP reservation by configuring a NonResvSendLimit in which r = infinity, b = infinity, p = infinity, m = 0 and M = infinity. Of course, any of these parameters may be set to values between zero and infinity to advertise finite per-flow limits. The NON_RESV_SEND_LIMIT object is optional. Senders on a managed segment should interpret the absence of the NON_RESV_SEND_LIMIT object as equivalent to an infinitely large SENDER_TSPEC (it is permissible to send any traffic profile in the absence of an RSVP reservation). Yavatkar, et al. Standards Track [Page 56] RFC 2814 SBM (Subnet Bandwidth Manager) May 2000 Appendix C The DSBM as a Source of Centralized Configuration Information There are certain configuration parameters which it may be useful to distribute to layer-3 senders on a managed segment. The DSBM may serve as a centralized management point from which such parameters can easily be distributed. In particular, it is possible for the network administrator configuring a DSBM to cause certain configuration parameters to be distributed as objects appended to the I_AM_DSBM messages. The following configuration object is defined at this time. Others may be defined in the future. See Appendix B for further details regarding the NON_RESV_SEND_LIMIT object. C.1. NON_RESV_SEND_LIMIT As we QoS enable layer 2 segments, we expect an evolution from subnets comprised of traditional shared segments (with no means of traffic separation and no DSBM), to subnets comprised of dedicated segments switched by sophisticated switches (with both DSBM and 802.1p traffic separation capability). A set of intermediate configurations consists of a group of QoS enabled hosts sending onto a traditional shared segment. A layer-3 device (or a layer-2 device) acts as a DSBM for the shared segment, but cannot enforce traffic separation. In such a configuration, the DSBM can be configured to limit the number of reservations approved for senders on the segment, but cannot prevent them from sending. As a result, senders may congest the segment even though a network administrator has configured an appropriate limit for admission control in the DSBM. One solution to this problem which would give the network administrator control over the segment, is to require applications (or operating systems on behalf of applications) not to send until they have obtained a reservation. This is problematic as most applications are used to sending as soon as they wish to and expect to get whatever service quality the network is able to grant at that time. Furthermore, it may often be acceptable to allow certain applications to send before a reservation is received. For example, on a segment comprised of a single 10 Mbps ethernet and 10 hosts, it may be acceptable to allow a 16 Kbps telephony stream to be transmitted but not a 3 Mbps video stream. A more pragmatic solution then, is to allow the network administrator to set a per-flow limit on the amount of non-adaptive traffic which a sender is allowed to generate on a managed segment in the absence of a valid reservation. This limit is advertised by the DSBM and received by sending hosts. An API on the sending host can then approve or deny an application's QoS request based on the resources Yavatkar, et al. Standards Track [Page 57] RFC 2814 SBM (Subnet Bandwidth Manager) May 2000 requested. The NON_RESV_SEND_LIMIT object can be used to advertise a Flowspec which describes the shape of traffic that a sender is allowed to generate on a managed segment when its RSVP reservation requests have either not yet completed or have been rejected. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Authors are grateful to Eric Crawley (Argon), Russ Fenger (Intel), David Melman (Siemens), Ramesh Pabbati (Microsoft), Mick Seaman (3COM), Andrew Smith (Extreme Networks) for their constructive comments on the SBM design and the earlier versions of this document. 6. Authors' Addresses Raj Yavatkar Intel Corporation 2111 N.E. 25th Avenue, Hillsboro, OR 97124 USA Phone: +1 503-264-9077 EMail: yavatkar@ibeam.intel.com Don Hoffman Teledesic Corporation 2300 Carillon Point Kirkland, WA 98033 USA Phone: +1 425-602-0000 Yoram Bernet Microsoft 1 Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052 USA Phone: +1 206 936 9568 EMail: yoramb@microsoft.com Yavatkar, et al. Standards Track [Page 58] RFC 2814 SBM (Subnet Bandwidth Manager) May 2000 Fred Baker Cisco Systems 519 Lado Drive Santa Barbara, California 93111 USA Phone: +1 408 526 4257 EMail: fred@cisco.com Michael Speer Sun Microsystems, Inc 901 San Antonio Road UMPK15-215 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Phone: +1 650-786-6368 EMail: speer@Eng.Sun.COM Yavatkar, et al. Standards Track [Page 59] RFC 2814 SBM (Subnet Bandwidth Manager) May 2000 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Yavatkar, et al. Standards Track [Page 60]