Network Working Group B. Cheng
Internet-Draft MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Intended status: Standards Track D. Wiggins
Expires: 25 September 2025
L. Berger
D. Fedyk, Ed.
LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
24 March 2025
Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Traffic Classification Data Item
draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-15
Abstract
This document defines a new Data Item for the Dynamic Link Exchange
Protocol (DLEP) to support traffic classification. Traffic
classification information identifies traffic flows based on frame/
packet content such as destination address. The Data Item is defined
in an extensible and reusable fashion. Its use will be mandated in
other documents defining specific DLEP extensions. This document
also introduces DLEP Sub-Data Items, and Sub-Data Items are defined
to support DiffServ and Ethernet traffic classification.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 25 September 2025.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Cheng, et al. Expires 25 September 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DLEP Traffic Classification March 2025
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Traffic Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Traffic Classification Data Item . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.1. Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. DiffServ Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item . . . . . . 7
2.2.1. Router Receive Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3. Ethernet Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item . . . . . . 8
2.3.1. Router Receive Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. Data Item Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. DLEP Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Registry . . . 12
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction
The Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) is defined in [RFC8175].
This protocol provides the exchange of link related control
information between DLEP peers. DLEP peers are comprised of a modem
and a router. DLEP defines a base set of mechanisms as well as
support for possible extensions. DLEP defines Data Items which are
sets of information that can be reused in DLEP messaging. The DLEP
specification does not include any flow identification beyond DLEP
endpoints, i.e., flows are identified based on their DLEP endpoint.
This document defines DLEP Data Item formats which provide flow
identification on a more granular basis. Specifically, it enables a
router to use traffic flow classification information provided by the
modem to identify traffic flows based on a combination of information
found in a data plane header. (For general background on traffic
classification see [RFC2475] Section 2.3.) The Data Item is
Cheng, et al. Expires 25 September 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DLEP Traffic Classification March 2025
structured to allow for use of the defined traffic classification
information with applications such as credit window control as
specified in [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control]. The credit
window control document provides an example of combining traffic
classification and credit window flow control.
This document defines traffic classification based on a DLEP
destination and flows identified by either DiffServ [RFC2475]
Differentiated Services Codepoints (DSCPs) or IEEE 802.1Q [IEEE8021Q]
Ethernet Priority Code Points (PCPs). The defined mechanism allows
for flows to be described in a flexible fashion and when combined
with applications such as credit window control, allows credit
windows to be shared across traffic sent to multiple DLEP
destinations and as part of multiple flows, or used exclusively for
traffic sent to a particular destination and/or belonging to a
particular flow. The extension also supports the "wildcard" matching
of any flow (DSCP or PCP). Traffic classification information is
provided such that it can be readily extended to support other
traffic classification techniques, or be used by non-credit window
related extensions, such as [RFC8651] or even 5-tuple IP flows.
This document defines support for traffic classification using a
single new Data Item in Section 2.1 for general support and two new
Sub-Data Items are defined to support identification of flows based
on DSCPs and PCPs.
1.1. Key Words
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Traffic Classification
The Traffic Classification Data Item represents a list of flows that
may be used at the same time to provide different service classes for
traffic sent from a router to a modem. The data plane information
used to identify each flow is represented in a separate Sub-Data
Item. The Data Item and Sub-Data Item structure is intended to be
independent of any specific usage of the flow identification, e.g.,
flow control. The Sub-Data Item structure is also intended to allow
for future traffic classification types, e.g., 5-tuple flows. While
the structure of the Data Items is extensible, actual flow
information is expected to be used in an extension dependent manner.
Support for DSCP and PCP-based flows are defined via individual Sub-
Data Items below. Other types of flow identification, e.g., based on
Cheng, et al. Expires 25 September 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DLEP Traffic Classification March 2025
IP protocol and ports, may be defined in the future via new Sub-Data
Items. Note that when extensions supporting multiple Sub-Data Item
types are negotiated, these types MAY be combined in a single Data
Item.
Each list of flows is identified using a "Traffic Classification
Identifier" or "TID" and is expected to represent a valid combination
of data plane identifiers that may be used at the same time. Each
flow is identified via a "Flow Identifier" or "FID". Each FID is
defined in a Sub-Data Item which carries the data plane identifier or
identifiers used to associate traffic with the flow. A DLEP
destination address is also needed to complete traffic classification
information used in extensions such as flow control. This
information is expected to be provided in an extension specific
manner. For example, this address can be provided by a modem when it
identifies the traffic classification set in a Destination Up Message
using the Credit Window Associate Data Item defined in
[I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control]. TID and FID values have
modem-local scope.
2.1. Traffic Classification Data Item
This section defines the Traffic Classification Data Item. This Data
Item is used by a modem to provide a router with traffic
classification information. When an extension requires use of any
Data Item, the Data Items, including this Traffic Classification Data
Item SHOULD be included by a modem in any Session Initialization
Response Message, e.g., see
[I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control]. Updates to previously
provided traffic classifications or new traffic classifications MAY
be sent by a modem by including the Data Item in Session Update
Messages. More than one Data Item MAY be included in a message to
provide information on multiple traffic classifiers.
The set of traffic classification information provided in the data
item is identified using a Traffic Classification Identifier, or TID.
The actual data plane related information used in traffic
classification is provided in a variable list of Traffic
Classification Sub-Data Items.
The format of the Traffic Classification Data Item is:
Cheng, et al. Expires 25 September 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DLEP Traffic Classification March 2025
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data Item Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Traffic Class. Identifier (TID)| Num SDIs | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: ... :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Data Item Type:
TBA1
Length:
Variable
Per [RFC8175] Length is the number of octets in the Data Item,
excluding the Type and Length fields. The length here is limited
by the packet data unit (PDU) length supported. For example if
the Packet is limited to 1400 bytes then the length MUST NOT
exceed this value. If larger packets are supported the maximum
MUST be adjusted to be smaller or equal to the maximum PDU.
Multiple messages can be used if there is more than fits in a
single TLV.
Traffic Classification Identifier (TID):
A 16-bit unsigned integer identifying a traffic classification
set. There is no restriction on values used by a modem, and there
is no requirement for sequential or ordered values.
Num SDIs:
An 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the number of Traffic
Classification Sub-Data Items included in the Data Item. A value
of zero (0) is allowed and indicates that no traffic should be
matched against this TID.
Reserved:
For the Traffic Classification Data Item this reserved field is
currently unused. It MUST be set to all zeros for this version of
the Data Item and it is currently ignored on reception. This
allows for future extensions of the Data Item if needed.
Cheng, et al. Expires 25 September 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DLEP Traffic Classification March 2025
Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item:
Zero or more Traffic Classification Sub-Data Items of the format
defined below MAY be included. The number MUST match the value
carried in the Num SDIs field.
A router receiving the Traffic Classification Data Item MUST locate
the traffic classification information that is associated with the
TID indicated in each received Data Item. If no associated traffic
classification information is found, the router MUST initialize a new
information set using the values carried in the Data Item. If the
associated traffic classification information is found, the router
MUST replace the corresponding information using the values carried
in the Data Item. In both cases, a router MUST also ensure that any
data plane state, e.g., [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control],
that is associated with the TID is updated as needed.
2.1.1. Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item
All Traffic Classification Sub-Data Items share a common format that
is patterned after the standard DLEP Data Item format, see [RFC8175]
Section 11.3. There is no requirement on, or meaning to Sub-Data
Item ordering. Any errors or inconsistencies encountered in parsing
Sub-Data Items are handled in the same fashion as any other Data Item
parsing error encountered in DLEP, see [RFC8175].
The format of the Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item is:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-Data Item Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value... :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Sub-Data Item Type:
A 16-bit unsigned integer that indicates the type and
corresponding format of the Sub-Data Item's Value field. Sub-Data
Item Types are scoped within the Data Item in which they are
carried, i.e., the Sub-Data Item Type field MUST be used together
with the Traffic Classification Data Item Type to identify the
format of the Sub-Data Item. Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item
Types are managed according to the IANA registry described in
Section 5.2.
Length:
Variable
Cheng, et al. Expires 25 September 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DLEP Traffic Classification March 2025
Copying [RFC8175], Length is a 16-bit unsigned integer that is the
number of octets in the Sub-Data Item, excluding the Type and
Length fields. The maximum length is limited on a per Sub-Data
Item Type.
2.2. DiffServ Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item
The DiffServ Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item identifies the set
of DSCPs that should be treated as a single flow, i.e., receive the
same traffic treatment. DSCPs are identified in a list of DiffServ
fields. An implementation that does not support DSCPs and wants the
same traffic treatment for all traffic to a destination or
destinations would indicate 0 DSCPs.
The format of the DiffServ Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item is:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-Data Item Type (1) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flow Identifier (FID) | Num DSCPs | DS Field 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| DS Field 2 | ... | DS Field n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Sub-Data Item Type:
Sub-Data Item Type with value one (1) identifies the DiffServ
Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Type in the format defined in
Section 2.1.1.
Length:
Variable
Length is defined above. For this Sub-Data Item, it is equal to
three (3) octets plus the value of the Num DSCPs field. This
means that the maximum Length base on a FID per DSCP for this TLV
could be 64 times 3 plus one for Num DSCPs plus one DSCPs or 320
octets. The definition can be in multiple Sub-Data Items that are
much smaller than this.
Flow Identifier (FID):
A 16-bit unsigned integer representing the data plane information
carried in the Sub-Data Item that is to be used in identifying a
flow. The value of 0xFFFF is reserved and MUST NOT be used in
this field.
Cheng, et al. Expires 25 September 2025 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DLEP Traffic Classification March 2025
Num DSCPs:
An 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the number of DSCPs carried
in the Sub-Data Item. A zero (0) indicates a (wildcard) match
against any DSCP value that does not have an explicit match to a
FID. A typical use of this is mapping any DSCPs that are not
explicitly mapped to a default queue.
DS Field:
Each DS Field is an 8-bit that carries the DSCP field defined in
[RFC2474].
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| DSCP | MBZ |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
DSCP: Differentiated Services Codepoint (RFC 2474).
MBZ: Must Be Zero - set to zero when transmitted.
2.2.1. Router Receive Processing
A router receiving the Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item MUST
validate the information on receipt, prior to using the carried
information, including potentially updating the data behavior as
determined by the extension requiring the use of the Sub-Data Item.
Validation failures MUST be treated as an error as described above in
Section 2.1.1.
Once validated, the receiver MUST ensure that each DS Field value is
listed only once across the whole Traffic Classification Data Item.
Note, this check is across the Data Item and not the individual Sub-
Data Item. If the same DS Field value is listed more than once
within the same Traffic Classification Data Item, the Data Item MUST
be treated as an error as described above in Section 2.1.1.
2.3. Ethernet Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item
The Ethernet Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item identifies the VLAN
and PCPs that should be treated as a single flow, i.e., receive the
same traffic treatment. Ethernet Priority Code Point support is
defined as part of the IEEE 802.1Q [IEEE8021Q] tag format and
includes a 3 bit "PCP" field. The tag format also includes a 12 bit
VLAN identifier (VID) field. PCPs are identified in a list of
priority fields. An implementation that does not support PCPs and
wants the same traffic treatment for all traffic to a destination or
destinations would indicate 0 PCPs. Such an implementation could
identify a VLAN to use per destination.
Cheng, et al. Expires 25 September 2025 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DLEP Traffic Classification March 2025
The format of the Ethernet Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item is:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-Data Item Type (2) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flow Identifier (FID) |NumPCPs| VLAN Identifier (VID) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Pri. 1| Pri. 2| ..... | ..... | ..... | Pad |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Sub-Data Item Type:
Sub-Data Item Type with value two (2) identifies the Ethernet
Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Type in the format defined in
Section 2.1.1.
Length:
Variable
Length is defined above. For this Sub-Data Item, it is equal to
four (4) plus the number of octets needed to accommodate the
number of Priority fields indicated by the NumPCPs field. Note
that as length is in octets and each Priority field is 4 bits, the
additional length is the value carried in the NumPCPs field
divided by two and rounded up to the next higher integer quantity.
This TLV has maximum length of 4 plus 8 divided by 2 or 16 octets.
Flow Identifier (FID):
A 16-bit unsigned integer representing the data plane information
carried in the Sub-Data Item that is to be used in identifying a
flow. The value of 0xFFFF is reserved and MUST NOT be used in
this field.
Num PCPs:
A 4-bit unsigned integer indicating the number of Priority fields
carried in the Sub-Data Item. A zero (0) indicates a (wildcard)
match against any PCP value that does not have an explicit match
to a FID. A typical use of a wildcard is mapping any PCPs that
are not explicitly mapped to a default queue. The maximum number
of PCPs 8.
Cheng, et al. Expires 25 September 2025 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DLEP Traffic Classification March 2025
VLAN identifier (VID):
A 12-bit unsigned integer field indicating the VLAN to be used in
traffic classification. A value of zero (0) indicates that the
VID is to be ignored and any VID is to be accepted during traffic
classification. Any explicitly mapped VLANs are match first and
then any VLANs that do not have a mapping map to this default
mapping.
Priority:
Each Priority Field is 4-bits long and indicates a PCP field
defined in [IEEE8021Q]. Note that zero (0) is a valid value for
either PCP.
0 1 2 3
+---+---+---+---+
| PCP |MBZ|
+---+---+---+---+
PCP: Priority Code Point (IEEE8021Q)
MBZ: Must Be Zero - set to zero when transmitted.
Pad:
A 4-bit long field included when NumPCPs is an odd number. This
field MUST be set to zero by the sender, and MUST be ignored on
receipt.
2.3.1. Router Receive Processing
A router receiving the Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item MUST
validate the information on receipt, prior to the using the carried
information, including potentially updating the data behavior as
determined by the extension requiring the use of the Sub-Data Item.
Note that validation can include usage specific semantics such as
those found in [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control]. Any
failures MUST be treated as an error as described above in
Section 2.1.1.
After successful validation, the receiver MUST ensure that each
Priority Field value is listed only once across the whole Traffic
Classification Data Item. Note, this check is across the Data Item
and not the individual Sub-Data Items. If the same Priority Field
value is listed more than once within the same Traffic Classification
Data Item, the Data Item MUST be treated as an error as described
above in Section 2.1.1.
Cheng, et al. Expires 25 September 2025 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DLEP Traffic Classification March 2025
In cases where both Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item types are
defined, matching on Ethernet information takes precedence. More
specifically, when a packet matches both a DSCP indicated in a
DiffServ Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item (Section 2.2) and a
VID/PCP identified in an Ethernet Traffic Classification Sub-Data
Item (Section 2.3), then the TID associated with the matching VLAN/
PCP MUST be used.
3. Compatibility
The formats defined in this document will only be used when
extensions require their use.
The DLEP specification [RFC8175] defines handling of unexpected
appearances of any Data Items, including those defined in this
document.
4. Security Considerations
This document introduces finer grained flow identification mechanisms
to DLEP. These mechanisms expose vulnerabilities similar to existing
DLEP messages. For example, a malicious actor masquerading as a DLEP
peer could inject a modified Traffic Flow Classification Data Item
resulting in changes to class of service for affected flows. The
Layer 2 and transport layer security mechanisms documented in
[RFC8175] can be applied equally to the mechanism defined in this
document.
The transport layer security mechanisms documented in [RFC8175] can,
with some updates, be applied to this document. Implementations
following the "networked deployment" model described in the
"Implementation Scenarios" of [RFC8175] SHOULD refer to [BCP195] for
additional details. The Layer 2 security mechanisms documented in
[RFC8175] can also, with some updates, be applied to the mechanism
defined in this document. Examples of technologies that can be
deployed to secure the Layer 2 link include [IEEE-802.1AE] and
[IEEE-8802-1X].
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. Data Item Values
This document requests the following new assignments to the DLEP Data
Item Registry named "Data Item Type Values" from the range with the
"Specification Required" policy. The requested value is as follows:
Cheng, et al. Expires 25 September 2025 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DLEP Traffic Classification March 2025
+===========+========================+
| Type Code | Description |
+===========+========================+
| TBA1 | Traffic Classification |
+-----------+------------------------+
Table 1: Requested Data Item Values
5.2. DLEP Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Registry
Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to create a new
DLEP registry, named "Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Type
Values".
The following table provides initial registry values and the
[RFC8126] defined policies that should apply to the registry:
+=============+=================================+=============+
| Type Code | Description | Reference |
+=============+=================================+=============+
| 0 | Reserved | |
+-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+
| 1 | DiffServ Traffic Classification | [RFC2474] |
+-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+
| 2 | Ethernet Traffic Classification | [IEEE8021Q] |
+-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+
| 3-65407 | Specification Required | |
+-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+
| 65408-65534 | Private Use | |
+-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+
| 65535 | Reserved | |
+-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+
Table 2: Initial Registry Values
This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to the
Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Type Values registry for the
DLEP protocol, in accordance with BCP 26 and [RFC8126].
Cheng, et al. Expires 25 September 2025 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DLEP Traffic Classification March 2025
This registry encompasses packet traffic classification, where
standard packet header identifiers in packets or data frames indicate
Quality of Service (QoS) treatment. It includes two specific
registries for widely recognized identifiers used in QoS management
for IP and Ethernet networks. Reserved values are set aside for
similar future identifiers that may emerge to denote QoS treatment.
However, requests for new entries are not expected to be frequent.
Allocations within the registry are subject to the following
requirements:
1. Documentation of the intended use of the requested value, in
compliance with the "Specification Required" policy defined in
[RFC8126].
2. Approval by the Designated Expert (DE) appointed by the IESG.
The DE must:
* Verify that the requested value is clearly documented and its
purpose and usage are unambiguous.
* Ensure the proposed value does not conflict with existing work
or ongoing efforts within the IETF.
* Confirm that any specification requesting a code point has
undergone review by the MANET working group (or a successor
mailing list designated by the IESG).
* Validate that external specifications requesting code points
are publicly available, permanently archived, and do not
conflict with active or published IETF work.
* Ensure the review process is conducted in a timely manner,
with any disputes resolved through consultation with the
appropriate working groups.
To simplify future registrations, it is recommended that this
guidance serves as a standard reference for all DLEP-related
registries. Future specifications may include a header note pointing
to this guidance document.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
Cheng, et al. Expires 25 September 2025 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft DLEP Traffic Classification March 2025
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8175] Ratliff, S., Jury, S., Satterwhite, D., Taylor, R., and B.
Berry, "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)", RFC 8175,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8175, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8175>.
6.2. Informative References
[BCP195] Best Current Practice 195,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp195>.
At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following:
Sheffer, Y., Saint-Andre, P., and T. Fossati,
"Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 9325, DOI 10.17487/RFC9325, November
2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9325>.
Moriarty, K. and S. Farrell, "Deprecating TLS 1.0 and TLS
1.1", BCP 195, RFC 8996, DOI 10.17487/RFC8996, March 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8996>.
[I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control]
Cheng, B., Wiggins, D., Ratliff, S., Berger, L., and E.
Kinzie, "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Credit-
Based Flow Control Messages and Data Items", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-
flow-control-18, 19 March 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/api/v1/doc/document/draft-
ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control/>.
[I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension]
Cheng, B., Wiggins, D., Berger, L., and D. E. Eastlake,
"DLEP DiffServ Aware Credit Window Extension", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-
extension-21, 3 March 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-manet-
dlep-da-credit-extension-21>.
[IEEE-802.1AE]
"802.1AE-2018 - IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan
area networks-Media Access Control (MAC) Security",
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8585421>.
Cheng, et al. Expires 25 September 2025 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft DLEP Traffic Classification March 2025
[IEEE-8802-1X]
"8802-1X-2021 - IEEE/ISO/IEC International Standard-
Telecommunications and exchange between information
technology systems--Requirements for local and
metropolitan area networks--Part 1X:Port-based network
access control",
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9650828>.
[IEEE8021Q]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
Networks--Bridges and Bridged Networks",
DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2022.10004498, IEEE 802.1Q-2022, July
2022, <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8403927>.
[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.
[RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
Services", RFC 2475, DOI 10.17487/RFC2475, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2475>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8651] Cheng, B., Wiggins, D., and L. Berger, Ed., "Dynamic Link
Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Control-Plane-Based Pause
Extension", RFC 8651, DOI 10.17487/RFC8651, October 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8651>.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments
The Sub-Data Item format was inspired by Rick Taylor's "Data Item
Containers". He also proposed the separation of credit windows from
traffic classification at IETF98. Many useful comments were received
from contributors to the MANET working group. This document was
derived from [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension] as a result of
discussions at IETF 101. Many useful comments were received from
contributors to the MANET working group, notably Ronald in't Velt and
David Black.
Cheng, et al. Expires 25 September 2025 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft DLEP Traffic Classification March 2025
We had the honor of working too briefly with David Wiggins on this
and related DLEP work. His contribution to the IETF and publication
of the first and definitive open source DLEP implementation have been
critical to the acceptance of DLEP. We mourn his passing on November
23, 2023. We wish to recognize his guidance, leadership and
professional excellence. We were fortunate to benefit from his
leadership and friendship. He shall be missed.
Authors' Addresses
Bow-Nan Cheng
MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
244 Wood Street
Lexington
Email: bcheng@ll.mit.edu
David Wiggins
Email: david@none.org
Lou Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Email: lberger@labn.net
Don Fedyk (editor)
LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Email: dfedyk@labn.net
Cheng, et al. Expires 25 September 2025 [Page 16]