





Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                      R. Geib, Ed.
Request for Comments: 8100                              Deutsche Telekom
Category: Informational                                         D. Black
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                 Dell EMC
                                                              March 2017


             Diffserv-Interconnection Classes and Practice

Abstract

   This document defines a limited common set of Diffserv Per-Hop
   Behaviors (PHBs) and Diffserv Codepoints (DSCPs) to be applied at
   (inter)connections of two separately administered and operated
   networks, and it explains how this approach can simplify network
   configuration and operation.  Many network providers operate
   Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) using Treatment Aggregates for
   traffic marked with different Diffserv Per-Hop Behaviors and use MPLS
   for interconnection with other networks.  This document offers a
   simple interconnection approach that may simplify operation of
   Diffserv for network interconnection among providers that use MPLS
   and apply the Short Pipe Model.  While motivated by the requirements
   of MPLS network operators that use Short Pipe Model tunnels, this
   document is applicable to other networks, both MPLS and non-MPLS.

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
   approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
   Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8100.











Geib & Black                  Informational                     [Page 1]

RFC 8100                    Diffserv-Intercon                 March 2017


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Related Work  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.2.  Applicability Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     1.3.  Document Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   2.  MPLS and Short Pipe Model Tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.  Relationship to RFC 5127  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.1.  Background of RFC 5127  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.2.  Differences from RFC 5127 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  The Diffserv-Intercon Interconnection Classes . . . . . . . .   8
     4.1.  Diffserv-Intercon Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.2.  End-to-End PHB and DSCP Transparency  . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.3.  Treatment of Network Control Traffic at Carrier
           Interconnection Interfaces  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Appendix A.  The MPLS Short Pipe Model and IP Traffic . . . . . .  18
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21













Geib & Black                  Informational                     [Page 2]

RFC 8100                    Diffserv-Intercon                 March 2017


1.  Introduction

   Diffserv has been deployed in many networks; it provides
   differentiated traffic forwarding based on the Diffserv Codepoint
   (DSCP) field, which is part of the IP header [RFC2474].  This
   document defines a set of common Diffserv classes (Per-Hop Behaviors
   (PHBs)) and codepoints for use at interconnection points to which and
   from which locally used classes and codepoints should be mapped.

   As described by Section 2.3.4.2 of [RFC2475], the re-marking of
   packets at domain boundaries is a Diffserv feature.  If traffic
   marked with unknown or unexpected DSCPs is received, [RFC2474]
   recommends forwarding that traffic with default (best-effort)
   treatment without changing the DSCP markings to better support
   incremental Diffserv deployment in existing networks as well as with
   routers that do not support Diffserv or are not configured to support
   it.  Many networks do not follow this recommendation and instead
   re-mark unknown or unexpected DSCPs to zero upon receipt for default
   (best-effort) forwarding in accordance with the guidance in [RFC2475]
   to ensure that appropriate DSCPs are used within a Diffserv domain.
   This document is based on the latter approach and defines additional
   DSCPs that are known and expected at network interconnection
   interfaces in order to reduce the amount of traffic whose DSCPs are
   re-marked to zero.

   This document is motivated by requirements for IP network
   interconnection with Diffserv support among providers that operate
   Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) in their backbones, but it is
   also applicable to other technologies.  The operational
   simplifications and methods in this document help align IP Diffserv
   functionality with MPLS limitations resulting from the widely
   deployed Short Pipe Model for MPLS tunnel operation [RFC3270].
   Further, limiting Diffserv to a small number of Treatment Aggregates
   can enable network traffic to leave a network with the DSCP value
   with which it was received, even if a different DSCP is used within
   the network, thus providing an opportunity to extend consistent
   Diffserv treatment across network boundaries.

   In isolation, use of a defined set of interconnection PHBs and DSCPs
   may appear to be additional effort for a network operator.  The
   primary offsetting benefit is that mapping from or to the
   interconnection PHBs and DSCPs is specified once for all of the
   interconnections to other networks that can use this approach.
   Absent this approach, the PHBs and DSCPs have to be negotiated and
   configured independently for each network interconnection, which has
   poor administrative and operational scaling properties.  Further,





Geib & Black                  Informational                     [Page 3]

RFC 8100                    Diffserv-Intercon                 March 2017


   consistent end-to-end Diffserv treatment is more likely to result
   when an interconnection codepoint scheme is used because traffic is
   re-marked to the same DSCPs at all network interconnections.

   The interconnection approach described in this document (referred to
   as "Diffserv-Intercon") uses a set of PHBs (mapped to four
   corresponding MPLS Treatment Aggregates) along with a set of
   interconnection DSCPs allowing straightforward rewriting to domain-
   internal DSCPs and defined DSCP markings for traffic forwarded to
   interconnected domains.  The solution described here can be used in
   other contexts benefiting from a defined Diffserv interconnection
   interface.

   The basic idea is that traffic sent with a Diffserv-Intercon PHB and
   DSCP is restored to that PHB and DSCP at each network
   interconnection, even though a different PHB and DSCP may be used
   within each network involved.  The key requirement is that the
   network ingress interconnect DSCP be restored at the network egress,
   and a key observation is that this is only feasible in general for a
   small number of DSCPs.  Traffic sent with other DSCPs can be
   re-marked to an interconnect DSCP or dealt with via an additional
   agreement(s) among the operators of the interconnected networks; use
   of the MPLS Short Pipe Model favors re-marking unexpected DSCPs to
   zero in the absence of an additional agreement(s), as explained
   further in this document.

   In addition to the common interconnecting PHBs and DSCPs,
   interconnecting operators need to further agree on the tunneling
   technology used for interconnection (e.g., MPLS, if used) and control
   or mitigate the impacts of tunneling on reliability and MTU.

1.1.  Related Work

   In addition to the activities that triggered this work, there are
   additional RFCs and Internet-Drafts that may benefit from an
   interconnection PHB and DSCP scheme.  [RFC5160] suggests
   Meta-QoS-Classes to help enable deployment of standardized end-to-end
   QoS classes.  The Diffserv-Intercon class and codepoint scheme is
   intended to complement that work (e.g., by enabling a defined set of
   interconnection DSCPs and PHBs).

   Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) support for signaling Class of Service
   at interconnection interfaces [BGP-INTERCONNECTION] [SLA-EXCHANGE] is
   complementary to Diffserv-Intercon.  These two BGP documents focus on
   exchanging Service Level Agreement (SLA) and traffic conditioning
   parameters and assume that common PHBs identified by the signaled
   DSCPs have been established (e.g., via use of the Diffserv-Intercon
   DSCPs) prior to BGP signaling of PHB id codes.



Geib & Black                  Informational                     [Page 4]

RFC 8100                    Diffserv-Intercon                 March 2017


1.2.  Applicability Statement

   This document is applicable to the use of Differentiated Services for
   interconnection traffic between networks and is particularly suited
   to interconnection of MPLS-based networks that use MPLS Short Pipe
   Model tunnels.  This document is also applicable to other network
   technologies, but it is not intended for use within an individual
   network, where the approach specified in [RFC5127] is among the
   possible alternatives; see Section 3 for further discussion.

   The Diffserv-Intercon approach described in this document simplifies
   IP-based interconnection to domains operating the MPLS Short Pipe
   Model for IP traffic, both terminating within the domain and
   transiting onward to another domain.  Transiting traffic is received
   and sent with the same PHB and DSCP.  Terminating traffic maintains
   the PHB with which it was received; however, the DSCP may change.

   Diffserv-Intercon is also applicable to Pipe Model tunneling
   [RFC2983] [RFC3270], but it is not applicable to Uniform Model
   tunneling [RFC2983] [RFC3270].

   The Diffserv-Intercon approach defines a set of four PHBs for support
   at interconnections (or network boundaries in general).
   Corresponding DSCPs for use at an interconnection interface are also
   defined.  Diffserv-Intercon allows for a simple mapping of PHBs and
   DSCPs to MPLS Treatment Aggregates.  It is extensible by IETF
   standardization, and this allows additional PHBs and DSCPs to be
   specified for the Diffserv-Intercon scheme.  Coding space for private
   interconnection agreements or provider internal services is
   available, as only a single digit number of standard DSCPs are
   applied by the Diffserv-Intercon approach.

1.3.  Document Organization

   This document is organized as follows: Section 2 reviews the MPLS
   Short Pipe Model for Diffserv Tunnels [RFC3270], because effective
   support for that model is a crucial goal of Diffserv-Intercon.
   Section 3 provides background on the approach described in RFC 5127
   to Traffic Class (TC) aggregation within a Diffserv network domain
   and contrasts it with the Diffserv-Intercon approach.  Section 4
   introduces Diffserv-Intercon Treatment Aggregates, along with the
   PHBs and DSCPs that they use, and explains how other PHBs (and
   associated DSCPs) may be mapped to these Treatment Aggregates.
   Section 4 also discusses treatment of IP traffic, MPLS VPN Diffserv
   considerations, and the handling of high-priority network management
   traffic.  Appendix A describes how the MPLS Short Pipe Model
   (Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP)) impacts DSCP marking for IP
   interconnections.



Geib & Black                  Informational                     [Page 5]

RFC 8100                    Diffserv-Intercon                 March 2017


2.  MPLS and Short Pipe Model Tunnels

   This section provides a summary of the implications of MPLS Short
   Pipe Model tunnels and, in particular, their use of PHP (see RFC
   3270) on the Diffserv tunnel framework described in RFC 2983.  The
   Pipe and Uniform Models for Differentiated Services and Tunnels are
   defined in [RFC2983].  RFC 3270 adds the Short Pipe Model to reflect
   the impact of MPLS PHP, primarily for MPLS-based IP tunnels and VPNs.
   The Short Pipe Model and PHP have subsequently become popular with
   network providers that operate MPLS networks and are now widely used
   to transport unencapsulated IP traffic.  This has important
   implications for Diffserv functionality in MPLS networks.

   Per RFC 2474, the recommendation to forward traffic with unrecognized
   DSCPs with default (best-effort) service without rewriting the DSCP
   has not been widely deployed in practice.  Network operation and
   management are simplified when there is a 1-1 match between the DSCP
   marked on the packet and the forwarding treatment (PHB) applied by
   network nodes.  When this is done, CS0 (the all-zero DSCP) is the
   only DSCP used for default forwarding of best-effort traffic, and a
   common practice is to re-mark to CS0 any traffic received with
   unrecognized or unsupported DSCPs at network edges.

   MPLS networks are more subtle in this regard, as it is possible to
   encode the provider's DSCP in the MPLS TC field and allow that to
   differ from the PHB indicated by the DSCP in the MPLS-encapsulated IP
   packet.  If the MPLS label with the provider's TC field is present at
   all hops within the provider network, this approach would allow an
   unrecognized DSCP to be carried edge-to-edge over an MPLS network,
   because the effective DSCP used by the provider's MPLS network would
   be encoded in the MPLS label TC field (and also carried
   edge-to-edge).  Unfortunately, this is only true for Pipe Model
   tunnels.

   Short Pipe Model tunnels and PHP behave differently because PHP
   removes and discards the MPLS provider label carrying the provider's
   TC field before the traffic exits the provider's network.  That
   discard occurs one hop upstream of the MPLS tunnel endpoint (which is
   usually at the network edge), resulting in no provider TC information
   being available at the tunnel egress.  To ensure consistent handling
   of traffic at the tunnel egress, the DSCP field in the MPLS-
   encapsulated IP header has to contain a DSCP that is valid for the
   provider's network, so that the IP header cannot be used to carry a
   different DSCP edge-to-edge.  See Appendix A for a more detailed
   discussion.






Geib & Black                  Informational                     [Page 6]

RFC 8100                    Diffserv-Intercon                 March 2017


3.  Relationship to RFC 5127

   This document draws heavily upon the approach to aggregation of
   Diffserv TCs for use within a network as described in RFC 5127, but
   there are important differences caused by characteristics of network
   interconnects that differ from links within a network.

3.1.  Background of RFC 5127

   Many providers operate MPLS-based backbones that employ backbone
   traffic engineering to ensure that if a major link, switch, or router
   fails, the result will be a routed network that continues to
   function.  Based on that foundation, [RFC5127] introduced the concept
   of Diffserv Treatment Aggregates, which enable traffic marked with
   multiple DSCPs to be forwarded in a single MPLS TC based on robust
   provider backbone traffic engineering.  This enables differentiated
   forwarding behaviors within a domain in a fashion that does not
   consume a large number of MPLS TCs.

   RFC 5127 provides an example aggregation of Diffserv service classes
   into four Treatment Aggregates.  A small number of aggregates are
   used because:

   o  The available coding space for carrying TC information (e.g.,
      Diffserv PHB) in MPLS (and Ethernet) is only 3 bits in size and is
      intended for more than just Diffserv purposes (see, e.g.,
      [RFC5129]).

   o  The common interconnection DSCPs ought not to use all 8 possible
      values.  This leaves space for future standards, private bilateral
      agreements, and local use PHBs and DSCPs.

   o  Migrations from one DSCP scheme to a different one is another
      possible application of otherwise unused DSCPs.

3.2.  Differences from RFC 5127

   Like RFC 5127, this document also uses four Treatment Aggregates, but
   it differs from RFC 5127 in some important ways:

   o  It follows RFC 2475 in allowing the DSCPs used within a network to
      differ from those used to exchange traffic with other networks (at
      network edges), but it provides support to restore ingress DSCP
      values if one of the recommended interconnect DSCPs in this
      document is used.  This results in DSCP re-marking at both network
      ingress and network egress, and this document assumes that such
      re-marking at network edges is possible for all interface types.




Geib & Black                  Informational                     [Page 7]

RFC 8100                    Diffserv-Intercon                 March 2017


   o  Diffserv-Intercon suggests limiting the number of interconnection
      PHBs per Treatment Aggregate to the minimum required.  As further
      discussed below, the number of PHBs per Treatment Aggregate is no
      more than two.  When two PHBs are specified for a Diffserv-
      Intercon Treatment Aggregate, the expectation is that the provider
      network supports DSCPs for both PHBs but uses a single MPLS TC for
      the Treatment Aggregate that contains the two PHBs.

   o  Diffserv-Intercon suggests mapping other PHBs and DSCPs into the
      interconnection Treatment Aggregates as further discussed below.

   o  Diffserv-Intercon treats network control (NC) traffic as a special
      case.  Within a provider's network, the CS6 DSCP is used for local
      network control traffic (routing protocols and Operations,
      Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) traffic that is essential to
      network operation administration, control, and management) that
      may be destined for any node within the network.  In contrast,
      network control traffic exchanged between networks (e.g., BGP)
      usually terminates at or close to a network edge and is not
      forwarded through the network because it is not part of internal
      routing or OAM for the receiving network.  In addition, such
      traffic is unlikely to be covered by standard interconnection
      agreements; rather, it is more likely to be specifically
      configured (e.g., most networks impose restrictions on use of BGP
      with other networks for obvious reasons).  See Section 4.2 for
      further discussion.

   o  Because RFC 5127 used a Treatment Aggregate for network control
      traffic, Diffserv-Intercon can instead define a fourth Treatment
      Aggregate for use at network interconnections instead of the
      Network Control Treatment Aggregate in RFC 5127.  Network control
      traffic may still be exchanged across network interconnections as
      further discussed in Section 4.2.  Diffserv-Intercon uses this
      fourth Treatment Aggregate for Voice over IP (VoIP) traffic, where
      network-provided service differentiation is crucial, as even minor
      glitches are immediately apparent to the humans involved in the
      conversation.

4.  The Diffserv-Intercon Interconnection Classes

   At an interconnection, the networks involved need to agree on the
   PHBs used for interconnection and the specific DSCP for each PHB.
   This document defines a set of four interconnection Treatment
   Aggregates with well-defined DSCPs to be aggregated by them.  A
   sending party re-marks DSCPs from internal usage to the
   interconnection codepoints.  The receiving party re-marks DSCPs to
   their internal usage.  The interconnect SLA defines the set of DSCPs
   and PHBs supported across the two interconnected domains and the



Geib & Black                  Informational                     [Page 8]

RFC 8100                    Diffserv-Intercon                 March 2017


   treatment of PHBs and DSCPs that are not recognized by the receiving
   domain.

   Similar approaches that use a small number of Treatment Aggregates
   (including recognition of the importance of VoIP traffic) have been
   taken in related standards and recommendations from outside the IETF,
   e.g., Y.1566 [Y.1566], Global System for Mobile Communications
   Association (GSMA) IR.34 [IR.34], and MEF23.1 [MEF23.1].

   The list of the four Diffserv-Intercon Treatment Aggregates follows,
   highlighting differences from RFC 5127 and suggesting mappings for
   all RFC 4594 TCs to Diffserv-Intercon Treatment Aggregates:

   Telephony Service Treatment Aggregate:  PHB Expedited Forwarding
           (EF), DSCP 101 110 and PHB VOICE-ADMIT, DSCP 101 100 (see
           [RFC3246], [RFC4594], and [RFC5865]).  This Treatment
           Aggregate corresponds to the Real-Time Treatment Aggregate
           definition regarding the queuing (both delay and jitter
           should be minimized) per RFC 5127, but this aggregate is
           restricted to transport Telephony service class traffic in
           the sense of [RFC4594].

   Bulk Real-Time Treatment Aggregate:  This Treatment Aggregate is
           designed to transport PHB AF41, DSCP 100 010 (the other AF4
           PHB group PHBs and DSCPs may be used for future extension of
           the set of DSCPs carried by this Treatment Aggregate).  This
           Treatment Aggregate is intended to provide Diffserv-Intercon
           network interconnection of a subset of the Real-Time
           Treatment Aggregate defined in RFC 5127, specifically the
           portions that consume significant bandwidth.  This traffic is
           expected to consist of the following classes defined in RFC
           4594: Broadcast Video, Real-Time Interactive, and Multimedia
           Conferencing.  This Treatment Aggregate should be configured
           with a rate-based queue (consistent with the recommendation
           for the transported TCs in RFC 4594).  By comparison to RFC
           5127, the number of DSCPs has been reduced to one
           (initially).  The AF42 and AF43 PHBs could be added if there
           is a need for three-color marked Multimedia Conferencing
           traffic.

   Assured Elastic Treatment Aggregate:  This Treatment Aggregate
           consists of PHBs AF31 and AF32 (i.e., DSCPs 011 010 and 011
           100).  By comparison to RFC 5127, the number of DSCPs has
           been reduced to two.  This document suggests to transport
           signaling marked by AF31 (e.g., as recommended by GSMA IR.34
           [IR.34]).  AF33 is reserved for the extension of PHBs to be
           aggregated by this Treatment Aggregate.  For Diffserv-
           Intercon network interconnection, the following service



Geib & Black                  Informational                     [Page 9]

RFC 8100                    Diffserv-Intercon                 March 2017


           classes (per RFC 4594) should be mapped to the Assured
           Elastic Treatment Aggregate: the Signaling service class
           (being marked for lowest loss probability), the Multimedia
           Streaming service class, the Low-Latency Data service class,
           and the High-Throughput Data service class.

   Default / Elastic Treatment Aggregate:   Transports the Default PHB,
           CS0 with DSCP 000 000.  An example in RFC 5127 refers to this
           Treatment Aggregate as "Elastic Treatment Aggregate".  An
           important difference from RFC 5127 is that any traffic with
           unrecognized or unsupported DSCPs may be re-marked to this
           DSCP.  For Diffserv-Intercon network interconnection, the
           Standard service class and Low-Priority Data service class
           defined in RFC 4594 should be mapped to this Treatment
           Aggregate.  This document does not specify an interconnection
           class for Low-Priority Data (also defined RFC 4594).  This
           traffic may be forwarded with a Lower Effort PHB in one
           domain (e.g., the PHB proposed by Informational [RFC3662]),
           but the methods specified in this document re-mark this
           traffic with DSCP CS0 at a Diffserv-Intercon network
           interconnection.  This has the effect that Low-Priority Data
           is treated the same as data sent using the Standard service
           class.  (Note: In a network that implements RFC 2474, Low-
           Priority traffic marked as CS1 would otherwise receive better
           treatment than Standard traffic using the default PHB.)

   RFC 2475 states that ingress nodes must condition all inbound traffic
   to ensure that the DS codepoints are acceptable; packets found to
   have unacceptable codepoints must either be discarded or have their
   DS codepoints modified to acceptable values before being forwarded.
   For example, an ingress node receiving traffic from a domain with
   which no enhanced service agreement exists may reset the DS codepoint
   to CS0.  As a consequence, an interconnect SLA needs to specify not
   only the treatment of traffic that arrives with a supported
   interconnect DSCP but also the treatment of traffic that arrives with
   unsupported or unexpected DSCPs; re-marking to CS0 is a widely
   deployed behavior.

   During the process of setting up a Diffserv interconnection, both
   networks should define the set of acceptable and unacceptable DSCPs
   and specify the treatment of traffic marked with each DSCP.

   While Diffserv-Intercon allows modification of unacceptable DSCPs, if
   traffic using one or more of the PHBs in a PHB group (e.g., AF3x,
   consisting of AF31, AF32, and AF33) is accepted as part of a
   supported Diffserv-Intercon Treatment Aggregate, then traffic using
   other PHBs from the same PHB group should not be modified to use PHBs
   outside of that PHB group and, in particular, should not be re-marked



Geib & Black                  Informational                    [Page 10]

RFC 8100                    Diffserv-Intercon                 March 2017


   to CS0 unless the entire PHB group is re-marked to CS0.  This avoids
   unexpected forwarding behavior (and potential reordering; see also
   [RFC7657]) when using Assured Forwarding (AF) PHBs [RFC2597].

4.1.  Diffserv-Intercon Example

   The overall approach to DSCP marking at network interconnections is
   illustrated by the following example.  Provider O, provider W, and
   provider F are peered with provider T.  They have agreed upon a
   Diffserv interconnection SLA.

   Traffic of provider O terminates within provider T's network, while
   provider W's traffic transits through the network of provider T to
   provider F.  This example assumes that all providers use their own
   internal PHB and codepoint (DSCP) that correspond to the AF31 PHB in
   the Diffserv-Intercon Assured Elastic Treatment Aggregate (AF21, CS2,
   and AF11 are used in the example).


































Geib & Black                  Informational                    [Page 11]

RFC 8100                    Diffserv-Intercon                 March 2017


    Provider O            Provider W
          |                      |
     +----------+           +----------+
     |   AF21   |           |   CS2    |
     +----------+           +----------+
          V                      V
      +~~~~~~~+              +~~~~~~~+
      |Rtr PrO|              |Rtr PrW|               Rtr:   Router
      +~~~~~~~+              +~~~~~~~+             Pr[L]:   Provider[L]
          |        Diffserv      |
     +----------+           +----------+
     |   AF31   |           |   AF31   |
     +----------+           +----------+
          V        Intercon      V
      +~~~~~~~+                  |
      |RtrPrTI|------------------+            Router Provider T Ingress
      +~~~~~~~+
          |            Provider T Domain
     +------------------+
     | MPLS TC 2, AF21  |
     +------------------+
        |      |    +----------+   +~~~~~~~+
        V      `--->|   AF21   |->-|RtrDstH|    Router Destination Host
    +----------+    +----------+   +~~~~~~~+
    |   AF21   |       Local DSCPs Provider T
    +----------+
        |
     +~~~~~~~+
     |RtrPrTE|                                Router Provider T Egress
     +~~~~~~~+
        |          Diffserv
    +----------+
    |   AF31   |
    +----------+
        |          Intercon
     +~~~~~~~+
     |RtrPrF |                                Router Provider F
     +~~~~~~~+
        |
    +----------+
    |   AF11   |   Provider F
    +----------+

                    Figure 1: Diffserv-Intercon Example







Geib & Black                  Informational                    [Page 12]

RFC 8100                    Diffserv-Intercon                 March 2017


   Providers only need to deploy mappings of internal DSCPs to/from
   Diffserv-Intercon DSCPs, so that they can exchange traffic using the
   desired PHBs.  In the example, provider O has decided that the
   properties of his internal class AF21 are best met by the Diffserv-
   Intercon Assured Elastic Treatment Aggregate, PHB AF31.  At the
   outgoing peering interface connecting provider O with provider T, the
   former's peering router re-marks AF21 traffic to AF31.  The domain
   internal PHB of provider T that meets the requirement of the
   Diffserv-Intercon Assured Elastic Treatment Aggregate is from the
   AF2x PHB group.  Hence, AF31 traffic received at the interconnection
   with provider T is re-marked to AF21 by the peering router of domain
   T, and domain T has chosen to use MPLS TC value 2 for this aggregate.
   At the penultimate MPLS node, the top MPLS label is removed and
   exposes the IP header marked by the DSCP that has been set at the
   network ingress.  The peering router connecting domain T with domain
   F classifies the packet by its domain-T-internal DSCP AF21.  As the
   packet leaves domain T on the interface to domain F, this causes the
   packet's DSCP to be re-marked to AF31.  The peering router of domain
   F classifies the packet for domain-F-internal PHB AF11, as this is
   the PHB with properties matching the Diffserv-Intercon Assured
   Elastic Treatment Aggregate.

   This example can be extended.  The figure shows provider W using CS2
   for traffic that corresponds to Diffserv-Intercon Assured Elastic
   Treatment Aggregate PHB AF31; that traffic is mapped to AF31 at the
   Diffserv-Intercon interconnection to provider T.  In addition,
   suppose that provider O supports a PHB marked by AF22, and this PHB
   is supposed to obtain Diffserv transport within provider T's domain.
   Then provider O will re-mark it with DSCP AF32 for interconnection to
   provider T.

   Finally, suppose that provider W supports CS3 for internal use only.
   Then no Diffserv-Intercon DSCP mapping needs to be configured at the
   peering router.  Traffic, sent by provider W to provider T marked by
   CS3 due to a misconfiguration may be re-marked to CS0 by provider T.

4.2.  End-to-End PHB and DSCP Transparency

   This section briefly discusses end-to-end Diffserv approaches related
   to the Uniform, Pipe, and Short Pipe Model tunnels [RFC2983]
   [RFC3270] when used edge-to-edge in a network.

   o  With the Uniform Model, neither the DSCP nor the PHB change.  This
      implies that a network management packet received with a CS6 DSCP
      would be forwarded with an MPLS TC corresponding to CS6.  The
      Uniform Model is outside the scope of this document.





Geib & Black                  Informational                    [Page 13]

RFC 8100                    Diffserv-Intercon                 March 2017


   o  With the Pipe Model, the inner tunnel DSCP remains unchanged, but
      an outer tunnel DSCP and the PHB could change.  For example, a
      packet received with a (network-specific) CS1 DSCP would be
      transported by a Default PHB and, if MPLS is applicable, forwarded
      with an MPLS TC corresponding to the Default PHB.  The CS1 DSCP is
      not rewritten.  Transport of a large variety (much greater than
      four) DSCPs may be required across an interconnected network
      operating MPLS Short Pipe Model transport for IP traffic.  In that
      case, a tunnel based on the Pipe Model is among the possible
      approaches.  The Pipe Model is outside the scope of this document.

   o  With the Short Pipe Model, the DSCP likely changes, and the PHB
      might change.  This document describes a method to simplify
      Diffserv network interconnection when a DSCP rewrite can't be
      avoided.

4.3.  Treatment of Network Control Traffic at Carrier Interconnection
      Interfaces

   As specified in Section 3.2 of RFC 4594, NC traffic marked by CS6 is
   expected at some interconnection interfaces.  This document does not
   change RFC 4594 but observes that network control traffic received at
   a network ingress is generally different from network control traffic
   within a network that is the primary use of CS6 envisioned by RFC
   4594.  A specific example is that some CS6 traffic exchanged across
   carrier interconnections is terminated at the network ingress node,
   e.g., when BGP is used between the two routers on opposite ends of an
   interconnection link; in this case, the operators would enter into a
   bilateral agreement to use CS6 for that BGP traffic.

   The end-to-end discussion in Section 4.2 is generally inapplicable to
   network control traffic -- network control traffic is generally
   intended to control a network, not be transported between networks.
   One exception is that network control traffic makes sense for a
   purchased transit agreement, and preservation of the CS6 DSCP marking
   for network control traffic that is transited is reasonable in some
   cases, although it is generally inappropriate to use CS6 for
   forwarding that traffic within the network that provides transit.
   Use of an IP tunnel is suggested in order to conceal the CS6 markings
   on transiting network control traffic from the network that provides
   the transit.  In this case, the Pipe Model for Diffserv tunneling is
   used.

   If the MPLS Short Pipe Model is deployed for unencapsulated IPv4
   traffic, an IP network provider should limit access to the CS6 and
   CS7 DSCPs, so that they are only used for network control traffic for
   the provider's own network.




Geib & Black                  Informational                    [Page 14]

RFC 8100                    Diffserv-Intercon                 March 2017


   Interconnecting carriers should specify treatment of CS6-marked
   traffic received at a carrier interconnection that is to be forwarded
   beyond the ingress node.  An SLA covering the following cases is
   recommended when a provider wishes to send CS6-marked traffic across
   an interconnection link and that traffic's destination is beyond the
   interconnected ingress node:

   o  classification of traffic that is network control traffic for both
      domains.  This traffic should be classified and marked for the CS6
      DSCP.

   o  classification of traffic that is network control traffic for the
      sending domain only.  This traffic should be forwarded with a PHB
      that is appropriate for transiting NC service class traffic
      [RFC4594] in the receiving domain, e.g., AF31 as specified by this
      document.  As an example, GSMA IR.34 recommends an Interactive
      class / AF31 to carry SIP and DIAMETER traffic.  While this is
      service control traffic of high importance to interconnected
      Mobile Network Operators, it is certainly not network control
      traffic for a fixed network providing transit among such operators
      and hence should not receive CS6 treatment in such a transit
      network.

   o  any other CS6-marked traffic should be re-marked or dropped.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not require any IANA actions.

6.  Security Considerations

   The DSCP field in the IP header can expose additional traffic
   classification information at network interconnections by comparison
   to the use of a zero DSCP for all interconnect traffic.  If traffic
   classification information is sensitive, the DSCP field could be
   re-marked to zero to hide the classification as a countermeasure, at
   the cost of loss of Diffserv information and differentiated traffic
   handling on the interconnect and subsequent networks.  When AF PHBs
   are used, any such re-marking should respect AF PHB group boundaries
   as further discussed at the end of Section 4.

   This document does not introduce new features; it describes how to
   use existing ones.  The Diffserv security considerations in [RFC2475]
   and [RFC4594] apply.







Geib & Black                  Informational                    [Page 15]

RFC 8100                    Diffserv-Intercon                 March 2017


7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [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,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.

   [RFC2597]  Heinanen, J., Baker, F., Weiss, W., and J. Wroclawski,
              "Assured Forwarding PHB Group", RFC 2597,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2597, June 1999,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2597>.

   [RFC3246]  Davie, B., Charny, A., Bennet, J., Benson, K., Le Boudec,
              J., Courtney, W., Davari, S., Firoiu, V., and D.
              Stiliadis, "An Expedited Forwarding PHB (Per-Hop
              Behavior)", RFC 3246, DOI 10.17487/RFC3246, March 2002,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3246>.

   [RFC3270]  Le Faucheur, F., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S., Vaananen,
              P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and J. Heinanen, "Multi-
              Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated
              Services", RFC 3270, DOI 10.17487/RFC3270, May 2002,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3270>.

   [RFC5129]  Davie, B., Briscoe, B., and J. Tay, "Explicit Congestion
              Marking in MPLS", RFC 5129, DOI 10.17487/RFC5129, January
              2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5129>.

   [RFC5865]  Baker, F., Polk, J., and M. Dolly, "A Differentiated
              Services Code Point (DSCP) for Capacity-Admitted Traffic",
              RFC 5865, DOI 10.17487/RFC5865, May 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5865>.

7.2.  Informative References

   [BGP-INTERCONNECTION]
              Knoll, T., "BGP Class of Service Interconnection", Work in
              Progress, draft-knoll-idr-cos-interconnect-17, November
              2016.

   [IR.34]    GSMA, "Guidelines for IPX Provider networks (Previously
              Inter-Service Provider IP Backbone Guidelines)", Official
              Document IR.34, Version 11.0, November 2014,
              <http://www.gsma.com/newsroom/wp-content/uploads/
              IR.34-v11.0.pdf>.



Geib & Black                  Informational                    [Page 16]

RFC 8100                    Diffserv-Intercon                 March 2017


   [MEF23.1]  MEF, "Implementation Agreement MEF 23.1: Carrier Ethernet
              Class of Service - Phase 2", MEF 23.1, January 2012,
              <http://metroethernetforum.org/PDF_Documents/
              technical-specifications/MEF_23.1.pdf>.

   [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,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2475>.

   [RFC2983]  Black, D., "Differentiated Services and Tunnels",
              RFC 2983, DOI 10.17487/RFC2983, October 2000,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2983>.

   [RFC3662]  Bless, R., Nichols, K., and K. Wehrle, "A Lower Effort
              Per-Domain Behavior (PDB) for Differentiated Services",
              RFC 3662, DOI 10.17487/RFC3662, December 2003,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3662>.

   [RFC4594]  Babiarz, J., Chan, K., and F. Baker, "Configuration
              Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes", RFC 4594,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4594, August 2006,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4594>.

   [RFC5127]  Chan, K., Babiarz, J., and F. Baker, "Aggregation of
              Diffserv Service Classes", RFC 5127, DOI 10.17487/RFC5127,
              February 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5127>.

   [RFC5160]  Levis, P. and M. Boucadair, "Considerations of Provider-
              to-Provider Agreements for Internet-Scale Quality of
              Service (QoS)", RFC 5160, DOI 10.17487/RFC5160, March
              2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5160>.

   [RFC7657]  Black, D., Ed. and P. Jones, "Differentiated Services
              (Diffserv) and Real-Time Communication", RFC 7657,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7657, November 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7657>.

   [SLA-EXCHANGE]
              Shah, S., Patel, K., Bajaj, S., Tomotaki, L., and M.
              Boucadair, "Inter-domain SLA Exchange Attribute", Work in
              Progress, draft-ietf-idr-sla-exchange-10, January 2017.

   [Y.1566]   ITU-T, "Quality of service mapping and interconnection
              between Ethernet, Internet protocol and multiprotocol
              label switching networks", ITU-T Recommendation Y.1566,
              July 2012,
              <http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Y.1566-201207-I/en>.



Geib & Black                  Informational                    [Page 17]

RFC 8100                    Diffserv-Intercon                 March 2017


Appendix A.  The MPLS Short Pipe Model and IP Traffic

   The MPLS Short Pipe Model (or penultimate hop label popping) is
   widely deployed in carrier networks.  If unencapsulated IP traffic is
   transported using MPLS Short Pipe, IP headers appear inside the last
   section of the MPLS domain.  This impacts the number of PHBs and
   DSCPs that a network provider can reasonably support.  See Figure 2
   for an example.

   For encapsulated IP traffic, only the outer tunnel header is relevant
   for forwarding.  If the tunnel does not terminate within the MPLS
   network section, only the outer tunnel DSCP is involved, as the inner
   DSCP does not affect forwarding behavior; in this case, all DSCPs
   could be used in the inner IP header without affecting network
   behavior based on the outer MPLS header.  Here, the Pipe Model
   applies.

   Layer 2 and Layer 3 VPN traffic all use an additional MPLS label; in
   this case, the MPLS tunnel follows the Pipe Model.  Classification
   and queuing within an MPLS network is always based on an MPLS label,
   as opposed to the outer IP header.

   Carriers often select PHBs and DSCPs without regard to
   interconnection.  As a result, PHBs and DSCPs typically differ
   between network carriers.  With the exception of best-effort traffic,
   a DSCP change should be expected at an interconnection at least for
   unencapsulated IP traffic, even if the PHB is suitably mapped by the
   carriers involved.

   Although RFC 3270 suggests that the Short Pipe Model is only
   applicable to VPNs, current networks also use it to transport
   non-tunneled IPv4 traffic.  This is shown in Figure 2 where Diffserv-
   Intercon is not used, resulting in exposure of the internal DSCPs of
   the upstream network to the downstream network across the
   interconnection.
















Geib & Black                  Informational                    [Page 18]

RFC 8100                    Diffserv-Intercon                 March 2017


       |
      \|/           IPv4, DSCP_send
       V
       |
  Peering Router
       |
      \|/           IPv4, DSCP_send
       V
       |
  MPLS Edge Router
       |          Mark MPLS Label, TC_internal
      \|/         Re-mark DSCP to
       V            (Inner: IPv4, DSCP_d)
       |
  MPLS Core Router  (penultimate hop label popping)
       |                        \
       |            IPv4, DSCP_d |  The DSCP needs to be in network-
       |                 ^^^^^^^^|  internal Diffserv context.  The Core
      \|/                         > Router may require or enforce
       V                         |  that.  The Edge Router may wrongly
       |                         |  classify, if the DSCP is not in
       |                        /   network-internal Diffserv context.
  MPLS Edge Router
       |                        \   Traffic leaves the network marked
      \|/           IPv4, DSCP_d |  with the network-internal
       V                          > DSCP_d that must be dealt with
       |                         |  by the next network (downstream).
       |                        /
  Peer Router
       |          Re-mark DSCP to
      \|/           IPv4, DSCP_send
       V
       |

       Figure 2: Short Pipe Model / Penultimate Hop Popping Example

   The packet's IP DSCP must be in a well-understood Diffserv context
   for schedulers and classifiers on the interfaces of the ultimate MPLS
   link (last link traversed before leaving the network).  The necessary
   Diffserv context is network-internal, and a network operating in this
   mode enforces DSCP usage in order to obtain robust differentiated
   forwarding behavior.

   Without Diffserv-Intercon treatment, the traffic is likely to leave
   each network marked with network-internal DSCP.  DSCP_send in the
   figure above has to be re-marked into the first network's Diffserv
   scheme at the ingress MPLS Edge Router, to DSCP_d in the example.




Geib & Black                  Informational                    [Page 19]

RFC 8100                    Diffserv-Intercon                 March 2017


   For that reason, the traffic leaves this domain marked by the
   network-internal DSCP_d.  This structure requires that every carrier
   deploys per-peer PHB and DSCP mapping schemes.

   If Diffserv-Intercon is applied, DSCPs for traffic transiting the
   domain can be mapped from and remapped to an original DSCP.  This is
   shown in Figure 3.  Internal traffic may continue to use internal
   DSCPs (e.g., DSCP_d), and they may also be used between a carrier and
   its direct customers.

   Internal Router
        |
        |   Outer Header
       \|/    IPv4, DSCP_send
        V
        |
   Peering Router
        |  Re-mark DSCP to
       \|/    IPv4, DSCP_ds-int    Diffserv-Intercon DSCP and PHB
        V
        |
   MPLS Edge Router
        |
        |   Mark  MPLS Label, TC_internal
       \|/  Re-mark DSCP to
        V     (Inner: IPv4, DSCP_d)   Domain Internal DSCP for
        |                             the PHB
   MPLS Core Router  (penultimate hop label popping)
        |
        |     IPv4, DSCP_d
        |           ^^^^^^
       \|/
        V
        |
        |
   MPLS Edge Router--------------------+
        |                              |
       \|/  Re-mark DSCP to           \|/  IPv4, DSCP_d
        V     IPv4, DSCP_ds-int        V
        |                              |
        |                              |
   Peer Router              Domain Internal Broadband
        |                        Access Router
       \|/  Re-mark DSCP to           \|/
        V     IPv4, DSCP_send          V  IPv4, DSCP_d
        |                              |

         Figure 3: Short Pipe Model Example with Diffserv-Intercon



Geib & Black                  Informational                    [Page 20]

RFC 8100                    Diffserv-Intercon                 March 2017


Acknowledgements

   Bob Briscoe and Gorry Fairhurst reviewed this specification and
   provided rich feedback.  Brian Carpenter, Fred Baker, Al Morton, and
   Sebastien Jobert discussed the specification and helped improve it.
   Mohamed Boucadair and Thomas Knoll helped by adding awareness of
   related work.  James Polk's discussion during IETF 89 helped to
   improve the text on the relation of this specification to RFCs 4594
   and 5127.

Authors' Addresses

   Ruediger Geib (editor)
   Deutsche Telekom
   Heinrich Hertz Str. 3-7
   Darmstadt  64295
   Germany

   Phone: +49 6151 5812747
   Email: Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de


   David L. Black
   Dell EMC
   176 South Street
   Hopkinton, MA
   United States of America

   Phone: +1 (508) 293-7953
   Email: david.black@dell.com





















Geib & Black                  Informational                    [Page 21]

