Browse Prior Art Database

RSVP Operation Over IP Tunnels (RFC2746)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000003343D
Original Publication Date: 2000-Jan-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2019-Feb-10
Document File: 25 page(s) / 35K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

A. Terzis: AUTHOR [+3]

Related Documents

10.17487/RFC2746: DOI

Abstract

This document describes an approach for providing RSVP protocol services over IP tunnels. [STANDARDS-TRACK]

This text was extracted from a PDF file.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 7% of the total text.

Network Working Group A. Terzis Request for Comments: 2746 UCLA Category: Standards Track J. Krawczyk ArrowPoint Communications J. Wroclawski MIT LCS L. Zhang UCLA January 2000

RSVP Operation Over IP Tunnels

Status of this Memo

This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

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

Abstract

This document describes an approach for providing RSVP protocol services over IP tunnels. We briefly describe the problem, the characteristics of possible solutions, and the design goals of our approach. We then present the details of an implementation which meets our design goals.

1. Introduction

IP-in-IP "tunnels" have become a widespread mechanism to transport datagrams in the Internet. Typically, a tunnel is used to route packets through portions of the network which do not directly implement the desired service (e.g. IPv6), or to augment and modify the behavior of the deployed routing architecture (e.g. multicast routing, mobile IP, Virtual Private Net).

Many IP-in-IP tunneling protocols exist today. [IP4INIP4] details a method of tunneling using an additional IPv4 header. [MINENC] describes a way to reduce the size of the "inner" IP header used in [IP4INIP4] when the original datagram is not fragmented. The generic tunneling method in [IPV6GEN] can be used to tunnel either IPv4 or IPv6 packets within IPv6. [RFC1933] describes how to tunnel IPv6

Terzis, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]

RFC 2746 RSVP Operation Over IP Tunnels January 2000

datagrams through IPv4 networks. [RFC1701] describes a generic routing encapsulation, while [RFC1702] applies this encapsulation to IPv4. Finally, [ESP] describes a mechanism that can be used to tunnel an encrypted IP datagram.

From the perspective of traditional best-effort IP packet delivery, a tunnel behaves as any other link. Packets enter one end of the tunnel, and are delivered to the other end unless resource overload or error causes them to be lost.

The RSVP setup protocol [RFC2205] is one component of a framework designed to extend IP to support multiple, controlled classes of service over a wide variety of link-level technologies. To deploy this technology with maximum flexibility, it is desirable for tunnels to act as RSVP-controllable links within the network.

A tunnel, and in fact any sort of link, may participate in an RSVP- aware network in one of three ways, depending on the capabilities of the equipment from which the tunnel is constructed and the desires of the operator.

1. The (logical) link may not support resource reservation or QoS control at all. This is a best-effort link. We refer to this as a best-effort or type 1 tunnel in this note. 2....

Processing...
Loading...