





Network Working Group                                           Y. Bernet
Request for Comments: 2998                                        P. Ford
Category: Informational                                         Microsoft
                                                              R. Yavatkar
                                                                    Intel
                                                                 F. Baker
                                                                    Cisco
                                                                 L. Zhang
                                                                     UCLA
                                                                 M. Speer
                                                         Sun Microsystems
                                                                R. Braden
                                                                      ISI
                                                                 B. Davie
                                                                    Cisco
                                                            J. Wroclawski
                                                                  MIT LCS
                                                             E. Felstaine
                                                                   SANRAD
                                                            November 2000


  A Framework for Integrated Services Operation over Diffserv Networks

Status of this Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
   memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   The Integrated Services (Intserv) architecture provides a means for
   the delivery of end-to-end Quality of Service (QoS) to applications
   over heterogeneous networks.  To support this end-to-end model, the
   Intserv architecture must be supported over a wide variety of
   different types of network elements.  In this context, a network that
   supports Differentiated Services (Diffserv) may be viewed as a
   network element in the total end-to-end path.  This document
   describes a framework by which Integrated Services may be supported
   over Diffserv networks.






Bernet, et al.               Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 2998       Integrated Services Over Diffserv Networks  November 2000


Table of Contents

   1. Introduction .................................................  3
   1.1 Integrated Services Architecture ............................  3
   1.2 RSVP ........................................................  3
   1.3 Diffserv ....................................................  4
   1.4 Roles of Intserv, RSVP and Diffserv .........................  4
   1.5 Components of Intserv, RSVP and Diffserv ....................  5
   1.6 The Framework ...............................................  6
   1.7 Contents ....................................................  6
   2. Benefits of Using Intserv with Diffserv ......................  7
   2.1 Resource Based Admission Control ............................  7
   2.2 Policy Based Admission Control ..............................  8
   2.3 Assistance in Traffic Identification/Classification .........  8
   2.3.1 Host Marking ..............................................  9
   2.3.2 Router Marking ............................................  9
   2.4 Traffic Conditioning ........................................ 10
   3. The Framework ................................................ 10
   3.1 Reference Network ........................................... 11
   3.1.1 Hosts ..................................................... 11
   3.1.2 End-to-End RSVP Signaling ................................. 12
   3.1.3 Edge Routers .............................................. 12
   3.1.4 Border Routers ............................................ 12
   3.1.5 Diffserv Network Region ................................... 13
   3.1.6 Non-Diffserv Network Regions .............................. 13
   3.2 Service Mapping ............................................. 13
   3.2.1 Default Mapping ........................................... 14
   3.2.2 Network Driven Mapping .................................... 14
   3.2.3 Microflow Separation ...................................... 14
   3.3 Resource Management in Diffserv Regions ..................... 15
   4. Detailed Examples of the Operation of
      Intserv over Diffserv Regions ................................ 16
   4.1 Statically Provisioned Diffserv Network Region .............. 16
   4.1.1 Sequence of Events in Obtaining End-to-end QoS ............ 16
   4.2 RSVP-Aware Diffserv Network Region .......................... 18
   4.2.1 Aggregated or Tunneled RSVP ............................... 19
   4.2.3 Per-flow RSVP ............................................. 20
   4.2.4 Granularity of Deployment of RSVP Aware Routers ........... 20
   4.3 Dynamically Provisioned, Non-RSVP-aware Diffserv Region ..... 21
   5. Implications of the Framework for Diffserv Network Regions ... 21
   5.1 Requirements from Diffserv Network Regions .................. 21
   5.2 Protection of Intserv Traffic from Other Traffic ............ 22
   6. Multicast .................................................... 22
   6.1 Remarking of packets in branch point routers ................ 24
   6.2 Multicast SLSs and Heterogeneous Trees ...................... 25
   7. Security Considerations ...................................... 26
   7.1 General RSVP Security ....................................... 26
   7.2 Host Marking ................................................ 26



Bernet, et al.               Informational                      [Page 2]

RFC 2998       Integrated Services Over Diffserv Networks  November 2000


   8. Acknowledgments .............................................. 27
   9. References ................................................... 27
   10. Authors' Addresses .......................................... 29
   11.  Full Copyright Statement ................................... 31

1. Introduction

   Work on QoS-enabled IP networks has led to two distinct approaches:
   the Integrated Services architecture (Intserv) [10] and its
   accompanying signaling protocol, RSVP [1], and the Differentiated
   Services architecture (Diffserv) [8].  This document describes ways
   in which a Diffserv network can be used in the context of the Intserv
   architecture to support the delivery of end-to-end QOS.

1.1 Integrated Services Architecture

   The integrated services architecture defined a set of extensions to
   the traditional best effort model of the Internet with the goal of
   allowing end-to-end QOS to be provided to applications.  One of the
   key components of the architecture is a set of service definitions;
   the current set of services consists of the controlled load and
   guaranteed services.  The architecture assumes that some explicit
   setup mechanism is used to convey information to routers so that they
   can provide requested services to flows that require them.  While
   RSVP is the most widely known example of such a setup mechanism, the
   Intserv architecture is designed to accommodate other mechanisms.

   Intserv services are implemented by "network elements".  While it is
   common for network elements to be individual nodes such as routers or
   links, more complex entities, such as ATM "clouds" or 802.3 networks
   may also function as network elements.  As discussed in more detail
   below, a Diffserv network (or "cloud") may be viewed as a network
   element within a larger Intserv network.

1.2 RSVP

   RSVP is a signaling protocol that applications may use to request
   resources from the network.  The network responds by explicitly
   admitting or rejecting RSVP requests.  Certain applications that have
   quantifiable resource requirements express these requirements using
   Intserv parameters as defined in the appropriate Intserv service
   specification.  As noted above, RSVP and Intserv are separable.  RSVP
   is a signaling protocol which may carry Intserv information.  Intserv
   defines the models for expressing service types, quantifying resource
   requirements and for determining the availability of the requested
   resources at relevant network elements (admission control).





Bernet, et al.               Informational                      [Page 3]

RFC 2998       Integrated Services Over Diffserv Networks  November 2000


   The current prevailing model of RSVP usage is based on a combined
   RSVP/Intserv architecture.  In this model, RSVP signals per-flow
   resource requirements to network elements, using Intserv parameters.
   These network elements apply Intserv admission control to signaled
   requests.  In addition, traffic control mechanisms on the network
   element are configured to ensure that each admitted flow receives the
   service requested in strict isolation from other traffic.  To this
   end, RSVP signaling configures microflow (MF) [8] packet classifiers
   in Intserv capable routers along the path of the traffic flow.  These
   classifiers enable per-flow classification of packets based on IP
   addresses and port numbers.

   The following factors have impeded deployment of RSVP (and the
   Intserv architecture) in the Internet at large:

   1. The use of per-flow state and per-flow processing raises
      scalability concerns for large networks.

   2. Only a small number of hosts currently generate RSVP signaling.
      While this number is expected to grow dramatically, many
      applications may never generate RSVP signaling.

   3. The necessary policy control mechanisms -- access control,
      authentication, and accounting -- have only recently become
      available [17].

1.3 Diffserv

   In contrast to the per-flow orientation of RSVP, Diffserv networks
   classify packets into one of a small number of aggregated flows or
   "classes", based on the Diffserv codepoint (DSCP) in the packet's IP
   header.  This is known as behavior aggregate (BA) classification [8].
   At each Diffserv router, packets are subjected to a "per-hop
   behavior" (PHB), which is invoked by the DSCP.  The primary benefit
   of Diffserv is its scalability.  Diffserv eliminates the need for
   per-flow state and per-flow processing and therefore scales well to
   large networks.

1.4 Roles of Intserv, RSVP and Diffserv

   We view Intserv, RSVP and Diffserv as complementary technologies in
   the pursuit of end-to-end QoS.  Together, these mechanisms can
   facilitate deployment of applications such as IP-telephony, video-
   on-demand, and various non-multimedia mission-critical applications.
   Intserv enables hosts to request per-flow, quantifiable resources,
   along end-to-end data paths and to obtain feedback regarding
   admissibility of these requests.  Diffserv enables scalability across
   large networks.



Bernet, et al.               Informational                      [Page 4]

RFC 2998       Integrated Services Over Diffserv Networks  November 2000


1.5 Components of Intserv, RSVP and Diffserv

   Before proceeding, it is helpful to identify the following components
   of the QoS technologies described:

   RSVP signaling - This term refers to the standard RSVP signaling
   protocol.  RSVP signaling is used by hosts to signal application
   resource requirements to the network (and to each other).  Network
   elements use RSVP signaling to return an admission control decision
   to hosts.  RSVP signaling may or may not carry Intserv parameters.

   Admission control at a network element may or may not be based on the
   Intserv model.

   MF traffic control - This term refers to traffic control which is
   applied independently to individual traffic flows and therefore
   requires recognizing individual traffic flows via MF classification.

   Aggregate traffic control - This term refers to traffic control which
   is applied collectively to sets of traffic flows.  These sets of
   traffic flows are recognized based on BA (DSCP) classification.  In
   this document, we use the terms "aggregate traffic control" and
   "Diffserv" interchangeably.

   Aggregate RSVP.  While the existing definition of RSVP supports only
   per-flow reservations, extensions to RSVP are being developed to
   enable RSVP reservations to be made for aggregated traffic, i.e.,
   sets of flows that may be recognized by BA classification.  This use
   of RSVP may be useful in controlling the allocation of bandwidth in
   Diffserv networks.

   Per-flow RSVP.  The conventional usage of RSVP to perform resource
   reservations for individual microflows.

   RSVP/Intserv - This term is used to refer to the prevailing model of
   RSVP usage which includes RSVP signaling with Intserv parameters,
   Intserv admission control and per-flow traffic control at network
   elements.

   Diffserv Region.  A set of contiguous routers which support BA
   classification and traffic control.  While such a region may also
   support MF classification, the goal of this document is to describe
   how such a region may be used in delivery of end-to-end QOS when only
   BA classification is performed inside the Diffserv region.

   Non-Diffserv Region.  The portions of the network outside the
   Diffserv region.  Such a region may also offer a variety of different
   types of classification and traffic control.



Bernet, et al.               Informational                      [Page 5]

RFC 2998       Integrated Services Over Diffserv Networks  November 2000


   Note that, for the purposes of this document, the defining features
   of a Diffserv region is the type of classification and traffic
   control that is used for the delivery of end-to-end QOS for a
   particular application.  Thus, while it may not be possible to
   identify a certain region as "purely Diffserv" with respect to all
   traffic flowing through the region, it is possible to define it in
   this way from the perspective of the treatment of traffic from a
   single application.

1.6 The Framework

   In the framework we present, end-to-end, quantitative QoS is provided
   by applying the Intserv model end-to-end across a network containing
   one or more Diffserv regions.  The Diffserv regions may, but are not
   required to, participate in end-to-end RSVP signaling for the purpose
   of optimizing resource allocation and supporting admission control.

   From the perspective of Intserv, Diffserv regions of the network are
   treated as virtual links connecting Intserv capable routers or hosts
   (much as an 802.1p network region is treated as a virtual link in
   [5]).  Within the Diffserv regions of the network routers implement
   specific PHBs (aggregate traffic control).  The total amount of
   traffic that is admitted into the Diffserv region that will receive a
   certain PHB may be limited by policing at the edge.  As a result we
   expect that the Diffserv regions of the network will be able to
   support the Intserv style services requested from the periphery.  In
   our framework, we address the support of end-to-end Integrated
   Services over the Diffserv regions of the network.  Our goal is to
   enable seamless inter-operation.  As a result, the network
   administrator is free to choose which regions of the network act as
   Diffserv regions.  In one extreme the Diffserv region is pushed all
   the way to the periphery, with hosts alone having full Intserv
   capability.  In the other extreme, Intserv is pushed all the way to
   the core, with no Diffserv region.

1.7 Contents

   In section 3 we discuss the benefits that can be realized by using
   the aggregate traffic control provided by Diffserv network regions in
   the broader context of the Intserv architecture.  In section 4, we
   present the framework and the reference network.  Section 5 details
   two possible realizations of the framework.  Section 6 discusses the
   implications of the framework for Diffserv.  Section 7 presents some
   issues specific to multicast flows.







Bernet, et al.               Informational                      [Page 6]

RFC 2998       Integrated Services Over Diffserv Networks  November 2000


2. Benefits of Using Intserv with Diffserv

   The primary benefit of Diffserv aggregate traffic control is its
   scalability.  In this section, we discuss the benefits that
   interoperation with Intserv can bring to a Diffserv network region.
   Note that this discussion is in the context of servicing quantitative
   QoS applications specifically.  By this we mean those applications
   that are able to quantify their traffic and QoS requirements.

2.1 Resource Based Admission Control

   In Intserv networks, quantitative QoS applications use an explicit
   setup mechanism (e.g., RSVP) to request resources from the network.
   The network may accept or reject these requests in response.  This is
   "explicit admission control".  Explicit and dynamic admission control
   helps to assure that network resources are optimally used.  To
   further understand this issue, consider a Diffserv network region
   providing only aggregate traffic control with no signaling.  In the
   Diffserv network region, admission control is applied in a relatively
   static way by provisioning policing parameters at network elements.
   For example, a network element at the ingress to a Diffserv network
   region could be provisioned to accept only 50 Kbps of traffic for the
   EF DSCP.

   While such static forms of admission control do protect the network
   to some degree, they can be quite ineffective.  For example, consider
   that there may be 10 IP telephony sessions originating outside the
   Diffserv network region, each requiring 10 Kbps of EF service from
   the Diffserv network region.  Since the network element protecting
   the Diffserv network region is provisioned to accept only 50 Kbps of
   traffic for the EF DSCP, it will discard half the offered traffic.
   This traffic will be discarded from the aggregation of traffic marked
   EF, with no regard to the microflow from which it originated.  As a
   result, it is likely that of the ten IP telephony sessions, none will
   obtain satisfactory service when in fact, there are sufficient
   resources available in the Diffserv network region to satisfy five
   sessions.

   In the case of explicitly signaled, dynamic admission control, the
   network will signal rejection in response to requests for resources
   that would exceed the 50 Kbps limit.  As a result, upstream network
   elements (including originating hosts) and applications will have the
   information they require to take corrective action.  The application
   might respond by refraining from transmitting, or by requesting
   admission for a lesser traffic profile.  The host operating system
   might respond by marking the application's traffic for the DSCP that
   corresponds to best-effort service.  Upstream network elements might
   respond by re-marking packets on the rejected flow to a lower service



Bernet, et al.               Informational                      [Page 7]

RFC 2998       Integrated Services Over Diffserv Networks  November 2000


   level.  In some cases, it may be possible to reroute traffic over
   alternate paths or even alternate networks (e.g., the PSTN for voice
   calls).  In any case, the integrity of those flows that were admitted
   would be preserved, at the expense of the flows that were not
   admitted.  Thus, by appointing an Intserv-conversant admission
   control agent for the Diffserv region of the network it is possible
   to enhance the service that the network can provide to quantitative
   QoS applications.

2.2 Policy Based Admission Control

   In network regions where RSVP is used, resource requests can be
   intercepted by RSVP-aware network elements and can be reviewed
   against policies stored in policy databases.  These resource requests
   securely identify the user and the application for which the
   resources are requested.  Consequently, the network element is able
   to consider per-user and/or per-application policy when deciding
   whether or not to admit a resource request.  So, in addition to
   optimizing the use of resources in a Diffserv network region (as
   discussed in 3.1) RSVP conversant admission control agents can be
   used to apply specific customer policies in determining the specific
   customer traffic flows entitled to use the Diffserv network region's
   resources.  Customer policies can be used to allocate resources to
   specific users and/or applications.

   By comparison, in Diffserv network regions without RSVP signaling,
   policies are typically applied based on the Diffserv customer network
   from which traffic originates, not on the originating user or
   application within the customer network.

2.3 Assistance in Traffic Identification/Classification

   Within Diffserv network regions, traffic is allotted service based on
   the DSCP marked in each packet's IP header.  Thus, in order to obtain
   a particular level of service within the Diffserv network region, it
   is necessary to effect the marking of the correct DSCP in packet
   headers.  There are two mechanisms for doing so, host marking and
   router marking.  In the case of host marking, the host operating
   system marks the DSCP in transmitted packets.  In the case of router
   marking, routers in the network are configured to identify specific
   traffic (typically based on MF classification) and to mark the DSCP
   as packets transit the router.  There are advantages and
   disadvantages to each scheme.  Regardless of the scheme used,
   explicit signaling offers significant benefits.







Bernet, et al.               Informational                      [Page 8]

RFC 2998       Integrated Services Over Diffserv Networks  November 2000


2.3.1 Host Marking

   In the case of host marking, the host operating system marks the DSCP
   in transmitted packets.  This approach has the benefit of shifting
   per-flow classification and marking to the source of the traffic,
   where it scales best.  It also enables the host to make decisions
   regarding the mark that is appropriate for each transmitted packet
   and hence the relative importance attached to each packet.  The host
   is generally better equipped to make this decision than the network.
   Furthermore, if IPSEC encryption is used, the host may be the only
   device in the network that is able to make a meaningful determination
   of the appropriate marking for each packet, since various fields such
   as port numbers would be unavailable to routers for MF
   classification.

   Host marking requires that the host be aware of the interpretation of
   DSCPs by the network.  This information can be configured into each
   host.  However, such configuration imposes a management burden.
   Alternatively, hosts can use an explicit signaling protocol such as
   RSVP to query the network to obtain a suitable DSCP or set of DSCPs
   to apply to packets for which a certain Intserv service has been
   requested.  An example of how this can be achieved is described in
   [14].

2.3.2 Router Marking

   In the case of router marking, MF classification criteria must be
   configured in the router in some way.  This may be done dynamically
   (e.g., using COPS provisioning), by request from the host operating
   system, or statically via manual configuration or via automated
   scripts.

   There are significant difficulties in doing so statically.  In many
   cases, it is desirable to allot service to traffic based on the
   application and/or user originating the traffic.  At times it is
   possible to identify packets associated with a specific application
   by the IP port numbers in the headers.  It may also be possible to
   identify packets originating from a specific user by the source IP
   address.  However, such classification criteria may change
   frequently.  Users may be assigned different IP addresses by DHCP.
   Applications may use transient ports.  To further complicate matters,
   multiple users may share an IP address.  These factors make it very
   difficult to manage static configuration of the classification
   information required to mark traffic in routers.

   An attractive alternative to static configuration is to allow host
   operating systems to signal classification criteria to the router on
   behalf of users and applications.  As we will show later in this



Bernet, et al.               Informational                      [Page 9]

RFC 2998       Integrated Services Over Diffserv Networks  November 2000


   document, RSVP signaling is ideally suited for this task.  In
   addition to enabling dynamic and accurate updating of MF
   classification criteria, RSVP signaling enables classification of
   IPSEC [13] packets (by use of the SPI) which would otherwise be
   unrecognizable.

2.4 Traffic Conditioning

   Intserv-capable network elements are able to condition traffic at a
   per-flow granularity, by some combination of shaping and/or policing.
   Pre-conditioning traffic in this manner before it is submitted to the
   Diffserv region of the network is beneficial.  In particular, it
   enhances the ability of the Diffserv region of the network to provide
   quantitative services using aggregate traffic control.

3. The Framework

   In the general framework we envision an Internet in which the
   Integrated Services architecture is used to deliver end-to-end QOS to
   applications.  The network includes some combination of Intserv
   capable nodes (in which MF classification and per-flow traffic
   control is applied) and Diffserv regions (in which aggregate traffic
   control is applied).  Individual routers may or may not participate
   in RSVP signaling regardless of where in the network they reside.

   We will consider two specific realizations of the framework. In the
   first, resources within the Diffserv regions of the network are
   statically provisioned and these regions include no RSVP aware
   devices.  In the second, resources within the Diffserv region of the
   network are dynamically provisioned and select devices within the
   Diffserv network regions participate in RSVP signaling.




















Bernet, et al.               Informational                     [Page 10]

RFC 2998       Integrated Services Over Diffserv Networks  November 2000


3.1 Reference Network

   The two realizations of the framework will be discussed in the
   context of the following reference network:

             ________         ______________         ________
            /        \       /              \       /        \
           /          \     /                \     /          \
    |---| |        |---|   |---|          |---|   |---|        | |---|
    |Tx |-|        |ER1|---|BR1|          |BR2|---|ER2|        |-|Rx |
    |---| |        |-- |   |---|          |---|   |---|        | |---|
           \          /     \                /     \          /
            \________/       \______________/       \________/

        Non-Diffserv region   Diffserv region     Non-Diffserv region

                 Figure 1: Sample Network Configuration

   The reference network includes a Diffserv region in the middle of a
   larger network supporting Intserv end-to-end.  The Diffserv region
   contains a mesh of routers, at least some of which provide aggregate
   traffic control.  The regions outside the Diffserv region (non-
   Diffserv regions) contain meshes of routers and attached hosts, at
   least some of which support the Integrated Services architecture.

   In the interest of simplicity we consider a single QoS sender, Tx
   communicating across this network with a single QoS receiver, Rx.
   The edge routers (ER1, ER2) which are adjacent to the Diffserv region
   interface to the border routers (BR1, BR2) within the Diffserv
   region.

   From an economic viewpoint, we may consider that the Diffserv region
   sells service to the network outside the Diffserv region, which in
   turn provides service to hosts.  Thus, we may think of the non-
   Diffserv regions as clients or customers of the Diffserv region.  In
   the following, we use the term "customer" for the non-Diffserv
   regions.  Note that the boundaries of the regions may or may not
   align with administrative domain boundaries, and that a single region
   might contain multiple administrative domains.

   We now define the major components of the reference network.

3.1.1 Hosts

   We assume that both sending and receiving hosts use RSVP to
   communicate the quantitative QoS requirements of QoS-aware
   applications running on the host.  In principle, other mechanisms may
   be used to establish resource reservations in Intserv-capable nodes,



Bernet, et al.               Informational                     [Page 11]

RFC 2998       Integrated Services Over Diffserv Networks  November 2000


   but RSVP is clearly the prevalent mechanism for this purpose.

   Typically, a QoS process within the host operating system generates
   RSVP signaling on behalf of applications.  This process may also
   invoke local traffic control.

   As discussed above, traffic control in the host may mark the DSCP in
   transmitted packets, and shape transmitted traffic to the
   requirements of the Intserv service in use.  Alternatively, the first
   Intserv-capable router downstream from the host may provide these
   traffic control functions.

3.1.2 End-to-End RSVP Signaling

   We assume that RSVP signaling messages travel end-to-end between
   hosts Tx and Rx to support RSVP/Intserv reservations outside the
   Diffserv network region.  We require that these end-to-end RSVP
   messages are at least carried across the Diffserv region.  Depending
   on the specific realization of the framework, these messages may be
   processed by none, some or all of the routers in the Diffserv region.

3.1.3 Edge Routers

   ER1 and ER2 are edge routers, residing adjacent to the Diffserv
   network regions.  The functionality of the edge routers varies
   depending on the specific realization of the framework.  In the case
   in which the Diffserv network region is RSVP unaware, edge routers
   act as admission control agents to the Diffserv network.  They
   process signaling messages from both Tx and Rx, and apply admission
   control based on resource availability within the Diffserv network
   region and on customer defined policy.  In the case in which the
   Diffserv network region is RSVP aware, the edge routers apply
   admission control based on local resource availability and on
   customer defined policy.  In this case, the border routers act as the
   admission control agent to the Diffserv network region.

   We will later describe the functionality of the edge routers in
   greater depth for each of the two realizations of the framework.

3.1.4 Border Routers

   BR1 and BR2 are border routers, residing in the Diffserv network
   region.  The functionality of the border routers varies depending on
   the specific realization of the framework.  In the case in which the
   Diffserv network region is RSVP-unaware, these routers act as pure
   Diffserv routers.  As such, their sole responsibility is to police
   submitted traffic based on the service level specified in the DSCP
   and the agreement negotiated with the customer (aggregate



Bernet, et al.               Informational                     [Page 12]

RFC 2998       Integrated Services Over Diffserv Networks  November 2000


   trafficcontrol).  In the case in which the Diffserv network region is
   RSVP-aware, the border routers participate in RSVP signaling and act
   as admission control agents for the Diffserv network region.

   We will later describe the functionality of the border routers in
   greater depth for each of the two realizations of the framework.

3.1.5 Diffserv Network Region

   The Diffserv network region supports aggregate traffic control and is
   assumed not to be capable of MF classification.  Depending on the
   specific realization of the framework, some number of routers within
   the Diffserv region may be RSVP aware and therefore capable of per-
   flow signaling and admission control.  If devices in the Diffserv
   region are not RSVP aware, they will pass RSVP messages transparently
   with negligible performance impact (see [6]).

   The Diffserv network region provides two or more levels of service
   based on the DSCP in packet headers.  It may be a single
   administrative domain or may span multiple domains.

3.1.6 Non-Diffserv Network Regions

   The network outside of the Diffserv region consists of Intserv
   capable hosts and other network elements.  Other elements may include
   routers and perhaps various types of network (e.g., 802, ATM, etc.).
   These network elements may reasonably be assumed to support Intserv,
   although this might not be required in the case of over-provisioning.
   Even if these elements are not Intserv capable, we assume that they
   will pass RSVP messages unhindered.  Routers outside of the Diffserv
   network region are not precluded from providing aggregate traffic
   control to some subset of the traffic passing through them.

3.2 Service Mapping

   Intserv service requests specify an Intserv service type and a set of
   quantitative parameters known as a "flowspec".  At each hop in an
   Intserv network, the Intserv service requests are interpreted in a
   form meaningful to the specific link layer medium.  For example at an
   802.1 hop, the Intserv parameters are mapped to an appropriate 802.1p
   priority level [5].

   In our framework, Diffserv regions of the network are analogous to
   the 802.1p capable switched segments described in [5].  Requests for
   Intserv services must be mapped onto the underlying capabilities of
   the Diffserv network region.  Aspects of the mapping include:





Bernet, et al.               Informational                     [Page 13]

RFC 2998       Integrated Services Over Diffserv Networks  November 2000


    - selecting an appropriate PHB, or set of PHBs, for the requested
      service;
    - performing appropriate policing (including, perhaps, shaping or
      remarking) at the edges of the Diffserv region;
    - exporting Intserv parameters from the Diffserv region (e.g., for
      the updating of ADSPECs);
    - performing admission control on the Intserv requests that takes
      into account the resource availability in the Diffserv region.

   Exactly how these functions are performed will be a function of the
   way bandwidth is managed inside the Diffserv network region, which is
   a topic we discuss in Section 4.3.

   When the PHB (or set of PHBs) has been selected for a particular
   Intserv flow, it may be necessary to communicate the choice of DSCP
   for the flow to other network elements. Two schemes may be used to
   achieve this end, as discussed below.

3.2.1 Default Mapping

   In this scheme, there is some standard, well-known mapping from
   Intserv service type to a DSCP that will invoke the appropriate
   behavior in the Diffserv network.

3.2.2 Network Driven Mapping

   In this scheme, RSVP conversant routers in the Diffserv network
   region (perhaps at its edge) may override the well-known mapping
   described in 4.2.1.  In the case that DSCPs are marked at the ingress
   to the Diffserv region, the DSCPs can simply be remarked at the
   boundary routers.  However, in the case that DSCP marking occurs
   upstream of the Diffserv region, either in a host or a router, then
   the appropriate mapping needs to be communicated upstream, to the
   marking device.  This may be accomplished using RSVP, as described in
   [14].

   The decision regarding where to mark DSCP and whether to override the
   well-known service mapping is a mater of policy to be decided by the
   administrator of the Diffserv network region in cooperation with the
   administrator of the network adjacent to the Diffserv region.

3.2.3 Microflow Separation

   Boundary routers residing at the edge of the Diffserv region will
   typically police traffic submitted from the outside the Diffserv
   region in order to protect resources within the Diffserv region.
   This policing will be applied on an aggregate basis, with no regard
   for the individual microflows making up each aggregate.  As a result,



Bernet, et al.               Informational                     [Page 14]

RFC 2998       Integrated Services Over Diffserv Networks  November 2000


   it is possible for a misbehaving microflow to claim more than its
   fair share of resources within the aggregate, thereby degrading the
   service provided to other microflows.  This problem may be addressed
   by:

   1. Providing per microflow policing at the edge routers - this is
   generally the most appropriate location for microflow policing, since
   it pushes per-flow work to the edges of the network, where it scales
   better.  In addition, since Intserv-capable routers outside the
   Diffserv region are responsible for providing microflow service to
   their customers and the Diffserv region is responsible for providing
   aggregate service to its customers, this distribution of
   functionality mirrors the distribution of responsibility.

   2. Providing per microflow policing at the border routers - this
   approach tends to be less scalable than the previous approach.  It
   also imposes a management burden on the Diffserv region of the
   network.  However, it may be appropriate in certain cases, for the
   Diffserv boundary routers to offer per microflow policing as a
   value-add to its Intserv customers.

   3. Relying on upstream shaping and policing - in certain cases, the
   customer may trust the shaping of certain groups of hosts
   sufficiently to not warrant reshaping or policing at the boundary of
   the Diffserv region.  Note that, even if the hosts are shaping
   microflows properly, these shaped flows may become distorted as they
   transit through the non-Diffserv region of the network.  Depending on
   the degree of distortion, it may be necessary to somewhat over-
   provision the aggregate capacities in the Diffserv region, or to re-
   police using either 1 or 2 above.  The choice of one mechanism or
   another is a matter of policy to be decided by the administrator of
   the network outside the Diffserv region.

3.3 Resource Management in Diffserv Regions

   A variety of options exist for management of resources (e.g.,
   bandwidth) in the Diffserv network regions to meet the needs of end-
   to-end Intserv flows.  These options include:

    - statically provisioned resources;
    - resources dynamically provisioned by RSVP;
    - resources dynamically provisioned by other means (e.g., a form of
      Bandwidth Broker).

   Some of the details of using each of these different approaches are
   discussed in the following section.





Bernet, et al.               Informational                     [Page 15]

RFC 2998       Integrated Services Over Diffserv Networks  November 2000


4. Detailed Examples of the Operation of Intserv over Diffserv Regions

   In this section we provide detailed examples of our framework in
   action.  We discuss two examples, one in which the Diffserv network
   region is RSVP unaware, the other in which the Diffserv network
   region is RSVP aware.

4.1 Statically Provisioned Diffserv Network Region

   In this example, no devices in the Diffserv network region are RSVP
   aware.  The Diffserv network region is statically provisioned.  The
   customer(s) of the Diffserv network regions and the owner of the
   Diffserv network region have negotiated a static contract (service
   level specification, or SLS) for the transmit capacity to be provided
   to the customer at each of a number of standard Diffserv service
   levels.  The "transmit capacity" may be simply an amount of bandwidth
   or it could be a more complex "profile" involving a number of factors
   such as burst size, peak rate, time of day etc.

   It is helpful to consider each edge router in the customer network as
   consisting of two halves, a standard Intserv half, which interfaces
   to the customer's network regions and a Diffserv half which
   interfaces to the Diffserv network region.  The Intserv half is able
   to identify and process traffic on per-flow granularity.

   The Diffserv half of the router can be considered to consist of a
   number of virtual transmit interfaces, one for each Diffserv service
   level negotiated in the SLS.  The router contains a table that
   indicates the transmit capacity provisioned, per the SLS at each
   Diffserv service level.  This table, in conjunction with the default
   mapping described in 4.2.1, is used to perform admission control
   decisions on Intserv flows which cross the Diffserv network region.

4.1.1 Sequence of Events in Obtaining End-to-end QoS

   The following sequence illustrates the process by which an
   application obtains end-to-end QoS when RSVP is used by the hosts.

   1. The QoS process on the sending host Tx generates an RSVP PATH
   message that describes the traffic offered by the sending
   application.

   2. The PATH message is carried toward the receiving host, Rx.  In the
   network region to which the sender is attached, standard RSVP/Intserv
   processing is applied at capable network elements.

   3. At the edge router ER1, the PATH message is subjected to standard
   RSVP processing and PATH state is installed in the router.  The PATH



Bernet, et al.               Informational                     [Page 16]

RFC 2998       Integrated Services Over Diffserv Networks  November 2000


   message is sent onward to the Diffserv network region.

   4. The PATH message is ignored by routers in the Diffserv network
   region and then processed at ER2 according to standard RSVP
   processing rules.

   5. When the PATH message reaches the receiving host Rx, the operating
   system generates an RSVP RESV message, indicating interest in offered
   traffic of a certain Intserv service type.

   6. The RESV message is carried back towards the Diffserv network
   region and the sending host.  Consistent with standard RSVP/Intserv
   processing, it may be rejected at any RSVP-capable node in the path
   if resources are deemed insufficient to carry the traffic requested.

   7. At ER2, the RESV message is subjected to standard RSVP/Intserv
   processing.  It may be rejected if resources on the downstream
   interface of ER2 are deemed insufficient to carry the resources
   requested.  If it is not rejected, it will be carried transparently
   through the Diffserv network region, arriving at ER1.

   8. In ER1, the RESV message triggers admission control processing.
   ER1 compares the resources requested in the RSVP/Intserv request to
   the resources available in the Diffserv network region at the
   corresponding Diffserv service level.  The corresponding service
   level is determined by the Intserv to Diffserv mapping discussed
   previously.  The availability of resources is determined by the
   capacity provisioned in the SLS.  ER1 may also apply a policy
   decision such that the resource request may be rejected based on the
   customer's specific policy criteria, even though the aggregate
   resources are determined to be available per the SLS.

   9. If ER1 approves the request, the RESV message is admitted and is
   allowed to continue upstream towards the sender.  If it rejects the
   request, the RESV is not forwarded and the appropriate RSVP error
   messages are sent.  If the request is approved, ER1 updates its
   internal tables to indicate the reduced capacity available at the
   admitted service level on its transmit interface.

   10. The RESV message proceeds through the network region to which the
   sender is attached.  Any RSVP node in this region may reject the
   reservation request due to inadequate resources or policy.  If the
   request is not rejected, the RESV message will arrive at the sending
   host, Tx.

   11. At Tx, the QoS process receives the RESV message.  It interprets
   receipt of the message as indication that the specified traffic flow
   has been admitted for the specified Intserv service type (in the



Bernet, et al.               Informational                     [Page 17]

RFC 2998       Integrated Services Over Diffserv Networks  November 2000


   Intserv-capable nodes).  It may also learn the appropriate DSCP
   marking to apply to packets for this flow from information provided
   in the RESV.

   12. Tx may mark the DSCP in the headers of packets that are
   transmitted on the admitted traffic flow.  The DSCP may be the
   default value which maps to the Intserv service type specified in the
   admitted RESV message, or it may be a value explicitly provided in
   the RESV.

   In this manner, we obtain end-to-end QoS through a combination of
   networks that support RSVP/Intserv and networks that support
   Diffserv.

4.2 RSVP-Aware Diffserv Network Region

   In this example, the customer's edge routers are standard RSVP
   routers.  The border router, BR1 is RSVP aware.  In addition, there
   may be other routers within the Diffserv network region which are
   RSVP aware.  Note that although these routers are able to participate
   in some form of RSVP signaling, they classify and schedule traffic in
   aggregate, based on DSCP, not on the per-flow classification criteria
   used by standard RSVP/Intserv routers.  It can be said that their
   control-plane is RSVP while their data-plane is Diffserv.  This
   approach exploits the benefits of RSVP signaling while maintaining
   much of the scalability associated with Diffserv.

   In the preceding example, there is no signaling between the Diffserv
   network region and network elements outside it.  The negotiation of
   an SLS is the only explicit exchange of resource availability
   information between the two network regions.  ER1 is configured with
   the information represented by the SLS and as such, is able to act as
   an admission control agent for the Diffserv network region.  Such
   configuration does not readily support dynamically changing SLSs,
   since ER1 requires reconfiguration each time the SLS changes.  It is
   also difficult to make efficient use of the resources in the Diffserv
   network region.  This is because admission control does not consider
   the availability of resources in the Diffserv network region along
   the specific path that would be impacted.

   By contrast, when the Diffserv network region is RSVP aware, the
   admission control agent is part of the Diffserv network.  As a
   result, changes in the capacity available in the Diffserv network
   region can be indicated to the Intserv-capable nodes outside the
   Diffserv region via RSVP.  By including routers interior to the
   Diffserv network region in RSVP signaling, it is possible to
   simultaneously improve the efficiency of resource usage within the
   Diffserv region and to improve the level of confidence that the



Bernet, et al.               Informational                     [Page 18]

RFC 2998       Integrated Services Over Diffserv Networks  November 2000


   resources requested at admission control are indeed available at this
   particular point in time.  This is because admission control can be
   linked to the availability of resources along the specific path that
   would be impacted.  We refer to this benefit of RSVP signaling as
   "topology aware admission control".  A further benefit of supporting
   RSVP signaling within the Diffserv network region is that it is
   possible to effect changes in the provisioning of the Diffserv
   network region (e.g., allocating more or less bandwidth to the EF
   queue in a router) in response to resource requests from outside of
   the Diffserv region.

   Various mechanisms may be used within the Diffserv network region to
   support dynamic provisioning and topology aware admission control.
   These include aggregated RSVP, per-flow RSVP and bandwidth brokers,
   as described in the following paragraphs.

4.2.1 Aggregated or Tunneled RSVP

   A number of documents [3,6,15,16] propose mechanisms for extending
   RSVP to reserve resources for an aggregation of flows between edges
   of a network.  Border routers may interact with core routers and
   other border routers using aggregated RSVP to reserve resources
   between edges of the Diffserv network region.  Initial reservation
   levels for each service level may be established between major border
   routers, based on anticipated traffic patterns.  Border routers could
   trigger changes in reservation levels as a result of the cumulative
   per-flow RSVP requests from the non-Diffserv regions reaching high or
   low-water marks.

   In this approach, admission of per-flow RSVP requests from nodes
   outside the Diffserv region would be counted against the appropriate
   aggregate reservations for the corresponding service level.  The size
   of the aggregate reservations may or may not be dynamically adjusted
   to deal with the changes in per-flow reservations.

   The advantage of this approach is that it offers dynamic, topology
   aware admission control to the Diffserv network region without
   requiring the level of RSVP signaling processing that would be
   required to support per-flow RSVP.

   We note that resource management of a Diffserv region using
   aggregated RSVP is most likely to be feasible only within a single
   administrative domain, as each domain will probably choose its own
   mechanism to manage its resources.







Bernet, et al.               Informational                     [Page 19]

RFC 2998       Integrated Services Over Diffserv Networks  November 2000


4.2.3 Per-flow RSVP

   In this approach, described in [3], routers in the Diffserv network
   region respond to the standard per-flow RSVP signaling originating
   from the Intserv-capable nodes outside the Diffserv region.  This
   approach provides the benefits of the previous approach (dynamic,
   topology aware admission control) without requiring aggregated RSVP
   support.  Resources are also used more efficiently as a result of the
   per-flow admission control.  However, the demands on RSVP signaling
   resources within the Diffserv network region may be significantly
   higher than in an aggregated RSVP approach.

   Note that per-flow RSVP and aggregated RSVP are not mutually
   exclusive in a single Diffserv region. It is possible to use per-flow
   RSVP at the edges of the Diffserv region and aggregation only in some
   "core" region within the Diffserv region.

4.2.4 Granularity of Deployment of RSVP Aware Routers

   In 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 some subset of the routers within the Diffserv
   network is RSVP signaling aware (though traffic control is aggregated
   as opposed to per-flow).  The relative number of routers in the core
   that participate in RSVP signaling is a provisioning decision that
   must be made by the network administrator.

   In one extreme case, only the border routers participate in RSVP
   signaling.  In this case, either the Diffserv network region must be
   extremely over-provisioned and therefore, inefficiently used, or else
   it must be carefully and statically provisioned for limited traffic
   patterns.  The border routers must enforce these patterns.

   In the other extreme case, each router in the Diffserv network region
   might participate in RSVP signaling.  In this case, resources can be
   used with optimal efficiency, but signaling processing requirements
   and associated overhead increase.  As noted above, RSVP aggregation
   is one way to limit the signaling overhead at the cost of some loss
   of optimality in resource utilization.

   It is likely that some network administrators will compromise by
   enabling RSVP signaling on some subset of routers in the Diffserv
   network region.  These routers will likely represent major traffic
   switching points with over-provisioned or statically provisioned
   regions of RSVP unaware routers between them.








Bernet, et al.               Informational                     [Page 20]

RFC 2998       Integrated Services Over Diffserv Networks  November 2000


4.3 Dynamically Provisioned, Non-RSVP-aware Diffserv Region

   Border routers might not use any form of RSVP signaling within the
   Diffserv network region but might instead use custom protocols to
   interact with an "oracle".  The oracle is an agent that has
   sufficient knowledge of resource availability and network topology to
   make admission control decisions.  The set of RSVP aware routers in
   the previous two examples can be considered collectively as a form of
   distributed oracle.  In various definitions of the "bandwidth broker"
   [4], it is able to act as a centralized oracle.

5. Implications of the Framework for Diffserv Network Regions

   We have described a framework in which RSVP/Intserv style QoS can be
   provided across end-to-end paths that include Diffserv network
   regions.  This section discusses some of the implications of this
   framework for the Diffserv network region.

5.1 Requirements from Diffserv Network Regions

   A Diffserv network region must meet the following requirements in
   order for it to support the framework described in this document.

   1. A Diffserv network region must be able to provide support for the
   standard Intserv QoS services between its border routers.  It must be
   possible to invoke these services by use of standard PHBs within the
   Diffserv region and appropriate behavior at the edge of the Diffserv
   region.

   2. Diffserv network regions must provide admission control
   information to their "customer" (non-Diffserv) network regions.  This
   information can be provided by a dynamic protocol or through static
   service level agreements enforced at the edges of the Diffserv
   region.

   3. Diffserv network regions must be able to pass RSVP messages, in
   such a manner that they can be recovered at the egress of the
   Diffserv network region.  The Diffserv network region may, but is not
   required to, process these messages.  Mechanisms for transparently
   carrying RSVP messages across a transit network are described in
   [3,6,15,16].

   To meet these requirements, additional work is required in the areas
   of:

   1. Mapping Intserv style service specifications to services that can
   be provided by Diffserv network regions.




Bernet, et al.               Informational                     [Page 21]

RFC 2998       Integrated Services Over Diffserv Networks  November 2000


   2. Definition of the functionality required in network elements to
   support RSVP signaling with aggregate traffic control (for network
   elements residing in the Diffserv network region).
   3. Definition of mechanisms to efficiently and dynamically provision
   resources in a Diffserv network region (e.g., aggregated RSVP,
   tunneling, MPLS, etc.).  This might include protocols by which an
   "oracle" conveys information about resource availability within a
   Diffserv region to border routers.  One example of such a mechanism
   is the so-called "bandwidth broker" proposed in [19,20,21].

5.2 Protection of Intserv Traffic from Other Traffic

   Network administrators must be able to share resources in the
   Diffserv network region between three types of traffic:

   a. End-to-end Intserv traffic.  This is typically traffic associated
   with quantitative QoS applications.  It requires a specific quantity
   of resources with a high degree of assurance.

   b. Non-Intserv traffic.  The Diffserv region may allocate resources
   to traffic that does not make use of Intserv techniques to quantify
   its requirements, e.g., through the use of static provisioning and
   SLSs enforced at the edges of the region.  Such traffic might be
   associated with applications whose QoS requirements are not readily
   quantifiable but which require a "better than best-effort" level of
   service.

   c. All other (best-effort) traffic.  These three classes of traffic
   must be isolated from each other by the appropriate configuration of
   policers and classifiers at ingress points to the Diffserv network
   region, and by appropriate provisioning within the Diffserv network
   region.  To provide protection for Intserv traffic in Diffserv
   regions of the network, we suggest that the DSCPs assigned to such
   traffic not overlap with the DSCPs assigned to other traffic.

6. Multicast

   The use of integrated services over Diffserv networks is
   significantly more complex for multicast sessions than for unicast
   sessions.  With respect to a multicast connection, each participating
   region has a single ingress router and zero, one or several egress
   routers.  The difficulties of multicast are associated with Diffserv
   regions that contain several egress routers.  (Support of multicast
   functionality outside the Diffserv region is relatively
   straightforward since every Intserv-capable router along the
   multicast tree stores state for each flow.)

   Consider the following reference network:



Bernet, et al.               Informational                     [Page 22]

RFC 2998       Integrated Services Over Diffserv Networks  November 2000


                                          Non-Diffserv region 2
                                                    ________
                                                   /        \
                                                  |          | |---|
             ________         _____________       |          |-|Rx1|
            /        \       /          |--\      |---|      | |---|
           /          \     /          /|BR2\-----\ER2|     /
    |---| |        |---|   |---|  |--|/ |---|      \--|____/
    |Tx |-|        |ER1|---|BR1|--|RR|      |       ________
    |---| |        |-- |   |---|  |--|\ |---|      /--|     \
           \          /     \          \|BR3/-----|ER3|      | |---|
            \________/       \__________|--/      |---|      |-|Rx2|
                                                  |          | |---|
    Non-Diffserv region 1   Diffserv region        \        /
                                                    \______/

                                          Non-Diffserv region 3

           Figure 2: Sample Multicast Network Configuration

   The reference network is similar to that of Figure 1.  However, in
   Figure 2, copies of the packets sent by Tx are delivered to several
   receivers outside of the Diffserv region, namely to Rx1 and Rx2.
   Moreover, packets are copied within the Diffserv region in a "branch
   point" router RR.  In the reference network BR1 is the ingress router
   to the Diffserv region whereas BR2 and BR3 are the egress routers.

   In the simplest case the receivers, Rx1 and Rx2 in the reference
   network, require identical reservations.  The Diffserv framework [18]
   supports service level specifications (SLS) from an ingress router to
   one, some or all of the egress routers.  This calls for a "one to
   many" SLS within the Diffserv region, from BR1 to BR2 and BR3.  Given
   that the SLS is granted by the Diffserv region, the ingress router
   BR1, or perhaps an upstream node such as ER1, marks packets entering
   the Diffserv region with the appropriate DSCP.  The packets are
   routed to the egresses of the Diffserv domain using the original
   multicast address.

   The two major problems, explained in the following, are associated
   with heterogeneous multicast trees containing branch points within
   the Diffserv region, i.e., multicast trees where the level of
   resource requirement is not uniform among all receivers.  An example
   of such a scenario in the network of Figure 2 is the case where both
   Rx1 and Rx2 need to receive multicast data from Tx1 but only one of
   the receivers has requested a level of service above best effort.  We
   consider such scenarios in the following paragraphs.





Bernet, et al.               Informational                     [Page 23]

RFC 2998       Integrated Services Over Diffserv Networks  November 2000


6.1 Remarking of packets in branch point routers

   In the above scenario, the packets that arrive at BR1 are marked with
   an appropriate DSCP for the requested Intserv service and are sent to
   RR.  Packets arriving at the branch point must be sent towards BR2
   with the same DSCP otherwise the service to Rx1 is degraded.
   However, the packets going from RR towards BR3 need not maintain the
   high assurance level anymore.  They may be demoted to best effort so
   that the QoS provided to other packets along this branch of the tree
   is not disrupted.  Several problems can be observed in the given
   scenario:

        - In the Diffserv region, DSCP marking is done at edge routers
          (ingress), whereas a branch point router might be a core
          router, which does not mark packets.

        - Being a core Diffserv router, RR classifies based on
          aggregate traffic streams (BA), as opposed to per flow (MF)
          classification.  Hence, it does not necessarily have the
          capability to distinguish those packets which belong to a
          specific multicast tree and require demotion from the other
          packets in the behavior aggregate, which carry the same DSCP.

        - Since RR may be RSVP-unaware, it may not participate in the
          admission control process, and would thus not store any per-
          flow state about the reservations for the multicast tree.
          Hence, even if RR were able to perform MF classification and
          DSCP remarking, it would not know enough about downstream
          reservations to remark the DSCP intelligently.

   These problems could be addressed by a variety of mechanisms.  We
   list some below, while noting that none is ideal in all cases and
   that further mechanisms may be developed in the future:

   1. If some Intserv-capable routers are placed within the Diffserv
   region, it might be possible to administer the network topology and
   routing parameters so as to ensure that branch points occur only
   within such routers.  These routers would support MF classification
   and remarking and hold per-flow state for the heterogeneous
   reservations for which they are the branch point.  Note that in this
   case, branch point routers would have essentially the same
   functionality as ingress routers of an RSVP-aware Diffserv domain.

   2. Packets sent on the "non-reserved" branch (from RR towards BR3)
   are marked with the "wrong" DSCP; that is, they are not demoted to
   best effort but retain their DSCP.  This in turn requires over
   reservation of resources along that link or runs the risk of
   degrading service to packets that legitimately bear the same DSCP



Bernet, et al.               Informational                     [Page 24]

RFC 2998       Integrated Services Over Diffserv Networks  November 2000


   along this path.  However, it allows the Diffserv routers to remain
   free of per-flow state.

   3. A combination of mechanism 1 and 2 may be an effective compromise.
   In this case, there are some Intserv-capable routers in the core of
   the network, but the network cannot be administered so that ALL
   branch points fall at such routers.

   4. Administrators of Diffserv regions may decide not to enable
   heterogeneous sub-trees in their domains.  In the case of different
   downstream reservations, a ResvErr message would be sent according to
   the RSVP rules.  This is similar to the approach taken for Intserv
   over IEEE 802 Networks [2,5].

   5. In [3], a scheme was introduced whereby branch point routers in
   the interior of the aggregation region (i.e., the Diffserv region)
   keep reduced state information regarding the reservations by using
   measurement based admission control.  Under this scheme, packets are
   tagged by the more knowledgeable Intserv edges routers with
   scheduling information that is used in place of the detailed Intserv
   state.  If the Diffserv region and branch point routers are designed
   following that framework, demotion of packets becomes possible.

6.2 Multicast SLSs and Heterogeneous Trees

   Multicast flows with heterogeneous reservations present some
   challenges in the area of SLSs.  For example, a common example of an
   SLS is one where a certain amount of traffic is allowed to enter a
   Diffserv region marked with a certain DSCP, and such traffic may be
   destined to any egress router of that region.  We call such an SLS a
   homogeneous, or uniform, SLS.  However, in a multicast environment, a
   single packet that is admitted to the Diffserv region may consume
   resources along many paths in the region as it is replicated and
   forwarded towards many egress routers; alternatively, it may flow
   along a single path.  This situation is further complicated by the
   possibility described above and depicted in Figure 2, in which a
   multicast packet might be treated as best effort along some branches
   while receiving some higher QOS treatment along others.  We simply
   note here that the specification of meaningful SLSs which meet the
   needs of heterogeneous flows and which can be met be providers is
   likely to be challenging.

   Dynamic SLSs may help to address these issues.  For example, by using
   RSVP to signal the resources that are required along different
   branches of a multicast tree, it may be possible to more closely
   approach the goal of allocating appropriate resources only where they
   are needed rather than overprovisioning or underprovisioning along
   certain branches of a tree.  This is essentially the approach



Bernet, et al.               Informational                     [Page 25]

RFC 2998       Integrated Services Over Diffserv Networks  November 2000


   described in [15].

7. Security Considerations

7.1 General RSVP Security

   We are proposing that RSVP signaling be used to obtain resources in
   both Diffserv and non-Diffserv regions of a network.  Therefore, all
   RSVP security considerations apply [9].  In addition, network
   administrators are expected to protect network resources by
   configuring secure policers at interfaces with untrusted customers.

7.2 Host Marking

   Though it does not mandate host marking of the DSCP, our proposal
   does allow it.  Allowing hosts to set the DSCP directly may alarm
   network administrators.  The obvious concern is that hosts may
   attempt to "steal" resources.  In fact, hosts may attempt to exceed
   negotiated capacity in Diffserv network regions at a particular
   service level regardless of whether they invoke this service level
   directly (by setting the DSCP) or indirectly (by submitting traffic
   that classifies in an intermediate marking router to a particular
   DSCP).

   In either case, it will generally be necessary for each Diffserv
   network region to protect its resources by policing to assure that
   customers do not use more resources than they are entitled to, at
   each service level (DSCP).  The exception to this rule is when the
   host is known to be trusted, e.g., a server that is under the control
   of the network administrators.  If an untrusted sending host does not
   perform DSCP marking, the boundary router (or trusted intermediate
   routers) must provide MF classification, mark and police.  If an
   untrusted sending host does perform marking, the boundary router
   needs only to provide BA classification and to police to ensure that
   the customer is not exceeding the aggregate capacity negotiated for
   the service level.

   In summary, there are no additional security concerns raised by
   marking the DSCP at the edge of the network since Diffserv providers
   will have to police at their boundaries anyway.  Furthermore, this
   approach reduces the granularity at which border routers must police,
   thereby pushing finer grain shaping and policing responsibility to
   the edges of the network, where it scales better and provides other
   benefits described in Section 3.3.1.  The larger Diffserv network
   regions are thus focused on the task of protecting their networks,
   while the Intserv-capable nodes are focused on the task of shaping
   and policing their own traffic to be in compliance with their
   negotiated Intserv parameters.



Bernet, et al.               Informational                     [Page 26]

RFC 2998       Integrated Services Over Diffserv Networks  November 2000


8. Acknowledgments

   Authors thank the following individuals for their comments that led
   to improvements to the previous version(s) of this document: David
   Oran, Andy Veitch, Curtis Villamizer, Walter Weiss, Francois le
   Faucheur and Russell White.

   Many of the ideas in this document have been previously discussed in
   the original Intserv architecture document [10].

9. References

   [1]  Braden, R., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S. and S. Jamin,
        "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Version 1 Functional
        Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.

   [2]  Yavatkar, R., Hoffman, D., Bernet, Y., Baker, F. and M. Speer,
        "SBM (Subnet Bandwidth Manager): A Protocol For RSVP-based
        Admission Control Over IEEE 802 Style Networks", RFC 2814, May
        2000.

   [3]  Berson, S. and R. Vincent, "Aggregation of Internet Integrated
        Services State", Work in Progress.

   [4]  Nichols, K., Jacobson, V. and L. Zhang, "A Two-bit
        Differentiated Services Architecture for the Internet", RFC
        2638, July 1999.

   [5]  Seaman, M., Smith, A., Crawley, E. and J. Wroclawski,
        "Integrated Service Mappings on IEEE 802 Networks", RFC 2815,
        May 2000.

   [6]  Guerin, R., Blake, S. and Herzog, S., "Aggregating RSVP based
        QoS Requests", Work in Progress.

   [7]  Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F. and D. Black, "Definition of
        the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and
        IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, December 1998.

   [8]  Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z. and W.
        Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated Services", RFC 2475,
        December 1998.

   [9]  Baker, F., Lindell, B. and M. Talwar, "RSVP Cryptographic
        Authentication", RFC 2747, January 2000.

   [10] Braden, R., Clark, D. and S. Shenker, "Integrated Services in
        the Internet Architecture: an Overview", RFC 1633, June 1994.



Bernet, et al.               Informational                     [Page 27]

RFC 2998       Integrated Services Over Diffserv Networks  November 2000


   [11] Garrett, M. and M. Borden, "Interoperation of Controlled-Load
        Service and Guaranteed Service with ATM", RFC 2381, August 1998.

   [12] Weiss, Walter, Private communication, November 1998.

   [13] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture for the
        Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998.

   [14] Bernet, Y., "Format of the RSVP DCLASS Object", RFC 2996,
        November 2000.

   [15] Baker, F., Iturralde, C., le Faucheur, F., and Davie, B. "RSVP
        Reservation Aggregation", Work in Progress.

   [16] Terzis, A., Krawczyk, J., Wroclawski, J. and L. Zhang, "RSVP
        Operation Over IP Tunnels", RFC 2746, January 2000.

   [17] Boyle, J., Cohen, R., Durham, D., Herzog, S., Rajan, D. and A.
        Sastry, "COPS Usage for RSVP", RFC 2749, January 2000.

   [18] Bernet, Y., "A Framework for Differentiated Services", Work in
        Progress.

   [19] Jacobson Van, "Differentiated Services Architecture", talk in
        the Int-Serv WG at the Munich IETF, August 1997.

   [20] Jacobson, V., Nichols K. and L. Zhang, "A Two-bit Differentiated
        Services Architecture for the Internet", RFC 2638, June 1999.

   [21] First Internet2 bandwidth broker operability event
        http://www.merit.edu/internet/working.groups/i2-qbone-bb/
        inter-op/index.htm



















Bernet, et al.               Informational                     [Page 28]

RFC 2998       Integrated Services Over Diffserv Networks  November 2000


10. Authors' Addresses

   Yoram Bernet
   Microsoft
   One Microsoft Way
   Redmond, WA 98052

   Phone: +1 425-936-9568
   EMail: yoramb@microsoft.com


   Raj Yavatkar
   Intel Corporation
   JF3-206 2111 NE 25th. Avenue
   Hillsboro, OR 97124

   Phone: +1 503-264-9077
   EMail: raj.yavatkar@intel.com


   Peter Ford
   Microsoft
   One Microsoft Way
   Redmond, WA 98052

   Phone: +1 425-703-2032
   EMail: peterf@microsoft.com


   Fred Baker
   Cisco Systems
   519 Lado Drive
   Santa Barbara, CA 93111

   Phone: +1 408-526-4257
   EMail: fred@cisco.com


   Lixia Zhang
   UCLA
   4531G Boelter Hall
   Los Angeles, CA 90095

   Phone: +1 310-825-2695
   EMail: lixia@cs.ucla.edu






Bernet, et al.               Informational                     [Page 29]

RFC 2998       Integrated Services Over Diffserv Networks  November 2000


   Michael Speer
   Sun Microsystems
   901 San Antonio Road, UMPK15-215
   Palo Alto, CA 94303

   Phone: +1 650-786-6368
   EMail: speer@Eng.Sun.COM


   Bob Braden
   USC/Information Sciences Institute
   4676 Admiralty Way
   Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695

   Phone: +1 310-822-1511
   EMail: braden@isi.edu


   Bruce Davie
   Cisco Systems
   250 Apollo Drive
   Chelmsford, MA 01824

   Phone: +1 978-244-8000
   EMail: bsd@cisco.com


   Eyal Felstaine
   SANRAD Inc.
   24 Raul Wallenberg st
   Tel Aviv, Israel

   Phone: +972-50-747672
   Email: eyal@sanrad.com


   John Wroclawski
   MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
   545 Technology Sq.
   Cambridge, MA  02139

   Phone: +1 617-253-7885
   EMail: jtw@lcs.mit.edu








Bernet, et al.               Informational                     [Page 30]

RFC 2998       Integrated Services Over Diffserv Networks  November 2000


11.  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.



















Bernet, et al.               Informational                     [Page 31]

