LinuxDig.com Request For Comments

RFC Number : 3670 Title : Information Model for Describing Network Device QoS Datapath Mechanisms. Network Working Group B. Moore Request for Comments: 3670 IBM Corporation Category: Standards Track D. Durham Intel J. Strassner INTELLIDEN, Inc. A. Westerinen Cisco Systems W. Weiss Ellacoya January 2004 Information Model for Describing Network Device QoS Datapath Mechanisms 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 (2004). All Rights Reserved. Abstract The purpose of this document is to define an information model to describe the quality of service (QoS) mechanisms inherent in different network devices, including hosts. Broadly speaking, these mechanisms describe the properties common to selecting and conditioning traffic through the forwarding path (datapath) of a network device. This selection and conditioning of traffic in the datapath spans both major QoS architectures: Differentiated Services and Integrated Services. This document should be used with the QoS Policy Information Model (QPIM) to model how policies can be defined to manage and configure the QoS mechanisms (i.e., the classification, marking, metering, dropping, queuing, and scheduling functionality) of devices. Together, these two documents describe how to write QoS policy rules to configure and manage the QoS mechanisms present in the datapaths of devices. Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 This document, as well as QPIM, are information models. That is, they represent information independent of a binding to a specific type of repository. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Policy Management Conceptual Model . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.2. Purpose and Relation to Other Policy Work. . . . . . . . 7 1.3. Typical Examples of Policy Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2. Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.1. Common Needs Of DiffServ and IntServ . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.2. Specific Needs Of DiffServ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.3. Specific Needs Of IntServ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3. Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.1. Level of Abstraction for Expressing QoS Policies . . . . 10 3.2. Specifying Policy Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.3. Specifying Policy Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.4. Level of Abstraction for Defining QoS Attributes and Classes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.5. Characterization of QoS Properties . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.6. QoS Information Model Derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.7. Attribute Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.8. Mental Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.8.1. The QoSService Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.8.2. The ConditioningService Class. . . . . . . . . . 18 3.8.3. Preserving QoS Information from Ingress to Egress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.9. Classifiers, FilterLists, and Filter Entries . . . . . . 21 3.10. Modeling of Droppers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.10.1. Configuring Head and Tail Droppers . . . . . . . 23 3.10.2. Configuring RED Droppers . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.11. Modeling of Queues and Schedulers. . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.11.1. Simple Hierarchical Scheduler. . . . . . . . . . 25 3.11.2. Complex Hierarchical Scheduler . . . . . . . . . 27 3.11.3. Excess Capacity Scheduler. . . . . . . . . . . . 29 3.11.4. Hierarchical CBQ Scheduler . . . . . . . . . . . 31 4. The Class Hierarchy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 4.1. Associations and Aggregations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 4.2. The Structure of the Class Hierarchies . . . . . . . . . 34 4.3. Class Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 4.3.1. The Abstract Class ManagedElement. . . . . . . . 38 4.3.2. The Abstract Class ManagedSystemElement. . . . . 39 4.3.3. The Abstract Class LogicalElement. . . . . . . . 39 4.3.4. The Abstract Class Service . . . . . . . . . . . 39 4.3.5. The Class ConditioningService. . . . . . . . . . 39 4.3.6. The Class ClassifierService. . . . . . . . . . . 40 4.3.7. The Class ClassifierElement. . . . . . . . . . . 41 Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 4.3.8. The Class MeterService . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 4.3.9. The Class AverageRateMeterService. . . . . . . . 44 4.3.10. The Class EWMAMeterService . . . . . . . . . . . 44 4.3.11. The Class TokenBucketMeterService. . . . . . . . 46 4.3.12. The Class MarkerService. . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 4.3.13. The Class PreambleMarkerService. . . . . . . . . 47 4.3.14. The Class ToSMarkerService . . . . . . . . . . . 48 4.3.15. The Class DSCPMarkerService. . . . . . . . . . . 49 4.3.16. The Class 8021QMarkerService . . . . . . . . . . 49 4.3.17. The Class DropperService . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 4.3.18. The Class HeadTailDropperService . . . . . . . . 52 4.3.19. The Class REDDropperService. . . . . . . . . . . 52 4.3.20. The Class QueuingService . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 4.3.21. The Class PacketSchedulingService. . . . . . . . 55 4.3.22. The Class NonWorkConservingSchedulingService . . 56 4.3.23. The Class QoSService . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 4.3.24. The Class DiffServService. . . . . . . . . . . . 58 4.3.25. The Class AFService. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 4.3.26. The Class FlowService. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 4.3.27. The Class DropThresholdCalculationService. . . . 60 4.3.28. The Abstract Class FilterEntryBase . . . . . . . 61 4.3.29. The Class IPHeaderFilter . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 4.3.30. The Class 8021Filter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 4.3.31. The Class PreambleFilter . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 4.3.32. The Class FilterList . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 4.3.33. The Abstract Class ServiceAccessPoint. . . . . . 63 4.3.34. The Class ProtocolEndpoint . . . . . . . . . . . 63 4.3.35. The Abstract Class Collection. . . . . . . . . . 65 4.3.36. The Abstract Class CollectionOfMSEs. . . . . . . 65 4.3.37. The Class BufferPool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 4.3.38. The Abstract Class SchedulingElement . . . . . . 65 4.3.39. The Class AllocationSchedulingElement. . . . . . 66 4.3.40. The Class WRRSchedulingElement . . . . . . . . . 67 4.3.41. The Class PrioritySchedulingElement. . . . . . . 69 4.3.42. The Class BoundedPrioritySchedulingElement . . . 70 4.4. Association Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 4.4.1. The Abstract Association Dependency. . . . . . . 71 4.4.2. The Association ServiceSAPDependency . . . . . . 71 4.4.3. The Association IngressConditioningServiceOnEndpoint . . . . . . 71 4.4.4. The Association EgressConditioningServiceOnEndpoint. . . . . . . 72 4.4.5. The Association HeadTailDropQueueBinding . . . . 72 4.4.6. The Association CalculationBasedOnQueue. . . . . 73 4.4.7. The Association ProvidesServiceToElement . . . . 74 4.4.8. The Association ServiceServiceDependency . . . . 74 4.4.9. The Association CalculationServiceForDropper . . 75 4.4.10. The Association QueueAllocation. . . . . . . . . 75 Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 4.4.11. The Association ClassifierElementUsesFilterList. 76 4.4.12. The Association AFRelatedServices. . . . . . . . 77 4.4.13. The Association NextService. . . . . . . . . . . 78 4.4.14. The Association NextServiceAfterClassifierElement. . . . . . . . 79 4.4.15. The Association NextScheduler. . . . . . . . . . 80 4.4.16. The Association FailNextScheduler. . . . . . . . 81 4.4.17. The Association NextServiceAfterMeter. . . . . . 82 4.4.18. The Association QueueToSchedule. . . . . . . . . 83 4.4.19. The Association SchedulingServiceToSchedule. . . 84 4.4.20. The Aggregation MemberOfCollection . . . . . . . 85 4.4.21. The Aggregation CollectedBufferPool. . . . . . . 85 4.4.22. The Abstract Aggregation Component . . . . . . . 86 4.4.23. The Aggregation ServiceComponent . . . . . . . . 86 4.4.24. The Aggregation QoSSubService. . . . . . . . . . 86 4.4.25. The Aggregation QoSConditioningSubService. . . . 87 4.4.26. The Aggregation ClassifierElementInClassifierService . . . . . . 88 4.4.27. The Aggregation EntriesInFilterList. . . . . . . 89 4.4.28. The Aggregation ElementInSchedulingService . . . 90 5. Intellectual Property Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 7. Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 8.1. Normative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 9. Appendix A: Naming Instances in a Native CIM Implementation . 94 9.1. Naming Instances of the Classes Derived from Service. . . 94 9.2. Naming Instances of Subclasses of FilterEntryBase . . . . 94 9.3. Naming Instances of ProtocolEndpoint. . . . . . . . . . . 94 9.4. Naming Instances of BufferPool. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 9.4.1. The Property CollectionID. . . . . . . . . . . . 95 9.4.2. The Property CreationClassName . . . . . . . . . 95 9.5. Naming Instances of SchedulingElement . . . . . . . . . . 95 10. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 11. Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 1. Introduction The purpose of this document is to define an information model to describe the quality of service (QoS) mechanisms inherent in different network devices, including hosts. Broadly speaking, these mechanisms describe the attributes common to selecting and conditioning traffic through the forwarding path (datapath) of a network device. This selection and conditioning of traffic in the datapath spans both major QoS architectures: Differentiated Services (see [R2475]) and Integrated Services (see [R1633]). Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 This document is intended to be used with the QoS Policy Information Model [QPIM] to model how policies can be defined to manage and configure the QoS mechanisms (i.e., the classification, marking, metering, dropping, queuing, and scheduling functionality) of devices. Together, these two documents describe how to write QoS policy rules to configure and manage the QoS mechanisms present in the datapaths of devices. This document, as well as [QPIM], are information models. That is, they represent information independent of a binding to a specific type of repository. A separate document could be written to provide a mapping of the data contained in this document to a form suitable for implementation in a directory that uses (L)DAP as its access protocol. Similarly, a document could be written to provide a mapping of the data in [QPIM] to a directory. Together, these four documents (information models and directory schema mappings) would then describe how to write QoS policy rules that can be used to store information in directories to configure device QoS mechanisms. The approach taken in this document defines a common set of classes that can be used to model QoS in a device datapath. Vendors can then map these classes, either directly or using an intervening format like a COP-PR PIB, to their own device-specific implementations. Note that the admission control element of Integrated Services is not included in the scope of this model. The design of the class, association, and aggregation hierarchies described in this document is influenced by the Network QoS submodel defined by the Distributed Management Task Force (DMTF) - see [CIM]. These hierarchies are not derived from the Policy Core Information Model [PCIM]. This is because the modeling of the QoS mechanisms of a device is separate and distinct from the modeling of policies that manage those mechanisms. Hence, there is a need to separate QoS mechanisms (this document) from their control (specified using the generic policy document [PCIM] augmented by the QoS Policy document [QPIM]). While it is not a policy model per se, this document does have a dependency on the Policy Core Information Model Extensions document [PCIME]. The device-level packet filtering, through which a Classifier splits a traffic stream into multiple streams, is based on the FilterEntryBase and FilterList classes defined in [PCIME]. The key words 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', 'REQUIRED', 'SHALL', 'SHALL NOT', 'SHOULD', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED', 'MAY', and 'OPTIONAL' in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 [R2119]. Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 1.1. Policy Management Conceptual Model The Policy Core Information Model [PCIM] describes a general methodology for constructing policy rules. PCIM Extensions [PCIME] updates and extends the original PCIM. A policy rule aggregates a set of policy conditions and an ordered set of policy actions. The semantics of a policy rule are such that if the set of conditions evaluates to TRUE, then the set of actions are executed. Policy conditions and actions have two principal components: operands and operators. Operands can be constants or variables. To specify a policy, it is necessary to specify: o the operands to be examined (also known as state variables); o the operands to be changed (also known as configuration variables); o the relationships between these two sets of operands. Operands can be specified at a high-level, such as Joe (a user) or Gold (a service). Operands can also be specified at a much finer level of detail, one that is much closer to the operation of the device. Examples of the latter include an IP Address or a queue's bandwidth allocation. Implicit in the use of operands is the binding of legal values or ranges of values to an operand. For example, the value of an IP address cannot be an integer. The concepts of operands and their ranges are defined in [PCIME]. The second component of policy conditions and actions is a set of operators. Operators can express both relationships (greater than, member of a set, Boolean OR, etc.) and assignments. Together, operators and operands can express a variety of conditions and actions, such as: If Bob is an Engineer... If the source IP address is in the Marketing Subnet... Set Joe's IP address to 192.0.2.100 Limit the bandwidth of application x to 10 Mb We recognize that the definition of operator semantics is critical to the definition of policies. However, the definition of these operators is beyond the scope of this document. Rather, this document (with [QPIM]) takes the first steps in identifying and standardizing a set of properties (operands) for use in defining policies for Differentiated and Integrated Services. Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 1.2. Purpose and Relation to Other Policy Work This model establishes a canonical model of the QoS mechanisms of a network device (e.g., a router, switch, or host) that is independent of any specific type of network device. This enables traffic conditioning to be described using a common set of abstractions, modeled as a set of services and sub-services. When the concepts of this document are used in conjunction with the concepts of [QPIM], one is able to define policies that bind the services in a network to the needs of applications using that network. In other words, the business requirements of an organization can be reflected in one set of policies, and those policies can be translated to a lower-level set of policies that control and manage the configuration and operation of network devices. 1.3. Typical Examples of Policy Usage Policies could be implemented as low-level rules using the information model described in this specification. For example, in a low-level policy, a condition could be represented as an evaluation of a specific attribute from this model. Therefore, a condition such as 'If filter = HTTP' would be interpreted as a test determining whether any HTTP filters have been defined for the device. A high- level policy, such as 'If protocol = HTTP, then mark with Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) 24,' would be expressed as a series of actions in a low-level policy using the classes and attributes described below: 1. Create HTTP filter 2. Create DSCP marker with the value of 24 3. Bind the HTTP filter to the DSCP marker Note that unlike 'mark with DSCP 24,' these low-level actions are not performed on a packet as it passes through the device. Rather, they are configuration actions performed on the device itself, to make it ready to perform the correct action(s) on the correct packet(s). The act of moving from a high-level policy rule to the correct set of low-level device configuration actions is an example of what [POLTERM] characterizes as 'policy translation' or 'policy conversion'. Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 2. Approach QoS activities in the IETF have mainly focused in two areas, Integrated Services (IntServ) and Differentiated Services (DiffServ) (see [POLTERM], [R1633] and [R2475]). This document focuses on the specification of QoS properties and classes for modeling the datapath where packet traffic is conditioned. However, the framework defined by the classes in this document has been designed with the needs of the admission control portion of IntServ in mind as well. 2.1. Common Needs Of DiffServ and IntServ First, let us consider IntServ. IntServ has two principal components. One component is embedded in the datapath of the networking device. Its functions include the classification and policing of individual flows, and scheduling admitted packets for the outbound link. The other component of IntServ is admission control, which focuses on the management of the signaling protocol (e.g., the PATH and RESV messages of RSVP). This component processes reservation requests, manages bandwidth, outsources decision making to policy servers, and interacts with the Routing Table manager. We will consider RSVP when defining the structure of this information model. As this document focuses on the datapath, elements of RSVP applicable to the datapath will be considered in the structure of the classes. The complete IntServ device model will, as we have indicated earlier, be addressed in a subsequent document. This document models a small subset of the QoS policy problem, in hopes of constructing a methodology that can be adapted for other aspects of QoS in particular, and of policy construction in general. The focus in this document is on QoS for devices that implement traffic conditioning in the datapath. DiffServ operates exclusively in the datapath. It has all of the same components of the IntServ datapath, with two major differences. First, DiffServ classifies packets based solely on their DSCP field, whereas IntServ examines a subset of a standard flow's addressing 5- tuple. The exception to this rule occurs in a router or host at the boundary of a DiffServ domain. A device in this position may examine a packet's DSCP, its addressing 5-tuple, other fields in the packet, or even information wholly outside the packet, in determining the DSCP value with which to mark the packet prior to its transfer into the DiffServ domain. However, routers in the interior of a DiffServ domain will only need to classify based on the DSCP field. Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 The second difference between IntServ and DiffServ is that the signaling protocol used in IntServ (e.g., RSVP) affects the configuration of the datapath in a more dynamic fashion. This is because each newly admitted RSVP reservation requires a reconfiguration of the datapath. In contrast, DiffServ requires far fewer changes to the datapath after the Per Hop Behaviors (PHBs) have been configured. The approach advocated in this document for the creation of policies that control the various QoS mechanisms of networking devices is to first identify the attributes with which policies are to be constructed. These attributes are the parameters used in expressions that are necessary to construct policies. There is also a parallel desire to define the operators, relations, and precedence constructs necessary to construct the conditions and actions that constitute these policies. However, these efforts are beyond the scope of this document. 2.2. Specific Needs Of DiffServ DiffServ-specific rules focus on two particular areas: the core and the edges of the network. As explained in the DiffServ Architecture document [R2475], devices at the edge of the network classify traffic into different traffic streams. The core of the network then forwards traffic from different streams by using a set of Per Hop Behaviors (PHBs). A DSCP identifies each PHB. The DSCP is part of the IP header of each packet (as described in [R2474]). This enables multiple traffic streams to be aggregated into a small number of aggregated traffic streams, where each aggregate traffic stream is identified by a particular DSCP, and forwarded using a particular PHB. The attributes used to manipulate QoS capabilities in the core of the network primarily address the behavioral characteristics of each supported PHB. At the edges of the DiffServ network, the additional complexities of flow classification, policing, RSVP mappings, remarkings, and other factors have to be considered. Additional modeling will be required in this area. However, first, the standards for edges of the DiffServ network need more detail - to allow the edges to be incorporated into the policy model. 2.3. Specific Needs Of IntServ This document focuses exclusively on the forwarding aspects of network QoS. Therefore, while the forwarding aspects of IntServ are considered, the management of IntServ is not considered. This topic will be addressed in a future document. Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 3. Methodology There is a clear need to define attributes and behavior that together define how traffic should be conditioned. This document defines a set of classes and relationships that represent the QoS mechanisms used to condition traffic; [QPIM] is used to define policies to control the QoS mechanisms defined in this document. However, some very basic issues need to be considered when combining these documents. Considering these issues should help in constructing a schema for managing the operation and configuration of network QoS mechanisms through the use of QoS policies. 3.1. Level of Abstraction for Expressing QoS Policies The first issue requiring consideration is the level of abstraction at which QoS policies should be expressed. If we consider policies as a set of rules used to react to events and manipulate attributes or generate new events, we realize that policy represents a continuum of specifications that relate business goals and rules to the conditioning of traffic done by a device or a set of devices. An example of a business level policy might be: from 1:00 pm PST to 7:00 am EST, sell off 40% of the network capacity on the open market. In contrast, a device-specific policy might be: if the queue depth grows at a geometric rate over a specified duration, trigger a potential link failure event. A general model for this continuum is shown in Figure 1 below. +---------------------+ | High-Level Business | Not directly related to device | Policies | operation and configuration details +---------------------+ | | +---------V-----------+ | Device-Independent | Translate high-level policies to | Policies | generic device operational and +---------------------+ configuration information | | +---------V-----------+ | Device-Dependent | Translate generic device information | Policies | to specify how particular devices +---------------------+ should operate and be configured Figure 1. The Policy Continuum Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 High-level business policies are used to express the requirements of the different applications, and prioritize which applications get 'better' treatment when the network is congested. The goal, then, is to use policies to relate the operational and configuration needs of a device directly to the business rules that the network administrator is trying to implement in the network that the device belongs to. Device-independent policies translate business policies into a set of generalized operational and configuration policies that are independent of any specific device, but dependent on a particular set of QoS mechanisms, such as random early detection (RED) dropping or weighted round robin scheduling. Not only does this enable different types of devices (routers, switches, hosts, etc.) to be controlled by QoS policies, it also enables devices made by different vendors that use the same types of QoS mechanisms to be controlled. This enables these different devices to each supply the correct relative conditioning to the same type of traffic. In contrast, device-dependent policies translate device-independent policies into ones that are specific for a given device. The reason that a distinction is made between device-independent and device- dependent policies is that in a given network, many different devices having many different capabilities need to be controlled together. Device-independent policies provide a common layer of abstraction for managing multiple devices of different capabilities, while device- dependent policies implement the specific conditioning that is required. This document provides a common set of abstractions for representing QoS mechanisms in a device-independent way. This document is focused on the device-independent representation of QoS mechanisms. QoS mechanisms are modeled in sufficient detail to provide a common device-independent representation of QoS policies. They can also be used to provide a basis for specialization, enabling each vendor to derive a set of vendor-specific classes that represent how traffic conditioning is done for that vendor's set of devices. 3.2. Specifying Policy Parameters Policies are a function of parameters (attributes) and operators (boolean, arithmetic, relational, etc.). Therefore, both need to be defined as part of the same policy in order to correctly condition the traffic. If the parameters of the policy are specified too narrowly, they will reflect the individual implementations of QoS in each device. As there is currently little consensus in the industry on what the correct implementation model for QoS is, most defined attributes would only be applicable to the unique characteristics of a few individual devices. Moreover, standardizing all of these Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 potential implementation alternatives would be a never-ending task as new implementations continued to appear on the market. On the other hand, if the parameters of the policy are specified too broadly, it is impossible to develop meaningful policies. For example, if we concentrate on the so-called Olympic set of policies, a business policy like 'Bob gets Gold Service,' is clearly meaningless to the large majority of existing devices. This is because the device has no way of determining who Bob is, or what QoS mechanisms should be configured in what way to provide Gold service. Furthermore, Gold service may represent a single service, or it may identify a set of services that are related to each other. In the latter case, these services may have different conditioning characteristics. This document defines a set of parameters that fit into a canonical model for modeling the elements in the forwarding path of a device implementing QoS traffic conditioning. By defining this model in a device-independent way, the needed parameters can be appropriately abstracted. 3.3. Specifying Policy Services Administrators want the flexibility to be able to define traffic conditioning without having to have a low-level understanding of the different QoS mechanisms that implement that conditioning. Furthermore, administrators want the flexibility to group different services together, describing a higher-level concept such as 'Gold Service'. This higher-level service could be viewed as providing the processing to deliver 'Gold' quality of service. These two goals dictate the need for the following set of abstractions: o a flexible way to describe a service o must be able to group different services that may use different technologies (e.g., DiffServ and IEEE 802.1Q) together o must be able to define a set of sub-services that together make up a higher-level service o must be able to associate a service and the set of QoS mechanisms that are used to condition traffic for that service o must be able to define policies that manage the QoS mechanisms used to implement a service. Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 This document addresses this set of problems by defining a set of classes and associations that can represent abstract concepts like 'Gold Service,' and bind each of these abstract services to a specific set of QoS mechanisms that implement the conditioning that they require. Furthermore, this document defines the concept of 'sub-services,' to enable Gold Service to be defined either as a single service or as a set of services that together should be treated as an atomic entity. Given these abstractions, policies (as defined in [QPIM]) can be written to control the QoS mechanisms and services defined in this document. 3.4. Level of Abstraction for Defining QoS Attributes and Classes This document defines a set of classes and properties to support policies that configure device QoS mechanisms. This document concentrates on the representation of services in the datapath that support both DiffServ (for aggregate traffic conditioning) and IntServ (for flow-based traffic conditioning). Classes and properties for modeling IntServ admission control services may be defined in a future document. The classes and properties in this document are designed to be used in conjunction with the QoS policy classes and properties defined in [QPIM]. For example, to preserve the delay characteristics committed to an end-user, a network administrator may wish to create policies that monitor the queue depths in a device, and adjust resource allocations when delay budgets are at risk (perhaps as a result of a network topology change). The classes and properties in this document define the specific services and mechanisms required to implement those services. The classes and properties defined in [QPIM] provide the overall structure of the policy that manages and configures this service. This combination of low-level specification (using this document) and high-level structuring (using [QPIM]) of network services enables network administrators to define new services required of the network, that are directly related to business goals, while ensuring that such services can be managed. However, this goal (of creating and managing service-oriented policies) can only be realized if policies can be constructed that are capable of supporting diverse implementations of QoS. The solution is to model the QoS capabilities of devices at the behavioral level. This means that for traffic conditioning services realized in the datapath, the model must support the following characteristics: o modeling of a generic network service that has QoS capabilities Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 o modeling of how the traffic conditioning itself is defined o modeling of how statistics are gathered to monitor QoS traffic conditioning services - this facet of the model will be added in a future document. This document models a network service, and associates it with one or more QoS mechanisms that are used to implement that service. It also models in a canonical form the various components that are used to condition traffic, such that standard as well as custom traffic conditioning services may be described. 3.5. Characterization of QoS Properties The QoS properties and classes will be described in more detail in Section 4. However, we should consider the basic characteristics of these properties, to understand the methodology for representing them. There are essentially two types of properties, state and configuration. Configuration properties describe the desired state of a device, and include properties and classes for representing desired or proposed thresholds, bandwidth allocations, and how to classify traffic. State properties describe the actual state of the device. These include properties to represent the current operational values of the attributes in devices configured via the configuration properties, as well as properties that represent state (queue depths, excess capacity consumption, loss rates, and so forth). In order to be correlated and used together, these two types of properties must be modeled using a common information model. The possibility of modeling state properties and their corresponding configuration settings is accomplished using the same classes in this model - although individual instances of the classes would have to be appropriately named or placed in different containers to distinguish current state values from desired configuration settings. State information is addressed in a very limited fashion by QDDIM. Currently, only CurrentQueueDepth is proposed as an attribute on QueuingService. The majority of the model is related to configuration. Given this fact, it is assumed that this model is a direct memory map into a device. All manipulation of model classes and properties directly affects the state of the device. If it is desired to also use these classes to represent desired configuration, that is left to the discretion of the implementor. Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 It is acknowledged that additional properties are needed to completely model current state. However, many of the properties defined in this document represent exactly the state variables that will be configured by the configuration properties. Thus, the definition of the configuration properties has an exact correspondence with the state properties, and can be used in modeling both actual (state) and desired/proposed configuration. 3.6. QoS Information Model Derivation The question of context also leads to another question: how does the information specified in the core and QoS policy models ([PCIM], [PCIME], and [QPIM], respectively) integrate with the information defined in this document? To put it another way, where should device-independent concepts that lead to device-specific QoS attributes be derived from? Past thinking was that QoS was part of the policy model. This view is not completely accurate, and it leads to confusion. QoS is a set of services that can be controlled using policy. These services are represented as device mechanisms. An important point here is that QoS services, as well as other types of services (e.g., security), are provided by the mechanisms inherent in a given device. This means that not all devices are indeed created equal. For example, although two devices may have the same type of mechanism (e.g., a queue), one may be a simple implementation (i.e., a FIFO queue) whereas one may be much more complex and robust (e.g., class-based weighted fair queuing (CBWFQ)). However, both of these devices can be used to deliver QoS services, and both need to be controlled by policy. Thus, a device-independent policy can instruct the devices to queue certain traffic, and a device-specific policy can be used to control the queuing in each device. Furthermore, policy is used to control these mechanisms, not to represent them. For example, QoS services are implemented with classifiers, meters, markers, droppers, queues, and schedulers. Similarly, security is also a characteristic of devices, as authentication and encryption capabilities represent services that networked devices perform (irrespective of interactions with policy servers). These security services may use some of the same mechanisms that are used by QoS services, such as the concepts of filters. However, they will mostly require different mechanisms than the ones used by QoS, even though both sets of services are implemented in the same devices. Thus, the similarity between the QoS model and models for other services is not so much that they contain a few common mechanisms. Rather, they model how a device implements their respective services. Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 As such, the modeling of QoS should be part of a networking device schema rather than a policy schema. This allows the networking device schema to concentrate on modeling device mechanisms, and the policy schema to focus on the semantics of representing the policy itself (conditions, actions, operators, etc.). While this document concentrates on defining an information model to represent QoS services in a device datapath, the ultimate goal is to be able to apply policies that control these services in network devices. Furthermore, these two schemata (device and policy) must be tightly integrated in order to enable policy to control QoS services. 3.7. Attribute Representation The last issue to be considered is the question of how attributes are represented. If QoS attributes are represented as absolute numbers (e.g., Class AF2 gets 2 Mbs of bandwidth), it is more difficult to make them uniform across multiple ports in a device or across multiple devices, because of the broad variation in link capacities. However, expressing attributes in relative or proportional terms (e.g., Class AF2 gets 5% of the total link bandwidth) makes it more difficult to express certain types of conditions and actions, such as: (If ConsumedBandwidth = AssignedBandwidth Then ...) There are really three approaches to addressing this problem: o Multiple properties can be defined to express the same value in various forms. This idea has been rejected because of the difficulty in keeping these different properties synchronized (e.g., when one property changes, the others all have to be updated). o Multi-modal properties can be defined to express the same value, in different terms, based on the access or assignment mode. This option was rejected because it significantly complicates the model and is impossible to express in current directory access protocols (e.g., (L)DAP). o Properties can be expressed as 'absolutes', but the operators in the policy schema would need to be more sophisticated. Thus, to represent a percentage, division and multiplication operators are required (e.g., Class AF2 gets .05 * the total link bandwidth). This is the approach that has been taken in this document. Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 3.8. Mental Model The mental model for constructing this schema is based on the work done in the Differentiated Services working group. This schema is based on information provided in the current versions of the DiffServ Informal Management Model [DSMODEL], the DiffServ MIB [DSMIB], the PIB [PIB], as well as on information in the set of RFCs that constitute the basic definition of DiffServ itself ([R2475], [R2474], [R2597], and [R3246]). In addition, a common set of terminology is available in [POLTERM]. This model is built around two fundamental class hierarchies that are bound together using a set of associations. The two class hierarchies derive from the QoSService and ConditioningService base classes. A set of associations relate lower-level QoSService subclasses to higher-level QoS services, relate different types of conditioning services together in processing a traffic class, and relate a set of conditioning services to a specific QoS service. This combination of associations enables us to view the device as providing a set of services that can be configured, in a modular building block fashion, to construct application-specific services. Thus, this document can be used to model existing and future standard as well as application-specific network QoS services. 3.8.1. The QoSService Class The first of the classes defined here, QoSService, is used to represent higher-level network services that require special conditioning of their traffic. An instance of QoSService (or one of its subclasses) is used to bring together a group of conditioning services that, from the perspective of the system manager, are all used to deliver a common service. Thus, the set of classifiers, markers, and related conditioning services that provide premium service to the 'selected' set of user traffic may be grouped together into a premium QoS service. QoSService has a set of subclasses that represent different approaches to delivering IP services. The currently defined set of subclasses are a FlowService for flow-oriented QoS delivery and a DiffServService for DiffServ aggregate-oriented QoS service delivery. The QoS services can be related to each other as peers, or they can be implemented as subservient services to each other. The QoSSubService aggregation indicates that one or more QoSService objects are subservient to a particular QoSService object. For example, this enables us to define Gold Service as a combination of two DiffServ services, one for high quality traffic treatment, and one for servicing the rest of the traffic. Each of these Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 DiffServService objects would be associated with a set of classifiers, markers, etc, such that the high quality traffic would get EF marking and appropriate queuing. The DiffServService class itself has an AFService subclass. This subclass is used to represent the specific notion that several related markings within the AF PHB Group work together to provide a single service. When other DiffServ PHB Groups are defined that use more than one code point, these will be likely candidates for additional DiffServService subclasses. Technology-specific mappings of these services, representing the specific use of PHB marking or 802.1Q marking, are captured within the ConditioningService hierarchy, rather than in the subclasses of QoSService. These concepts are depicted in Figure 2. Note that both of the associations are aggregations: a QoSService object aggregates both the set of QoSService objects subservient to it, and the set of ConditioningService objects that realize it. See Section 4 for class and association definitions. /\______ 0..1 / | +--------------+ | QoSSubService +---------------+ | |0..n | | | | QoSService |----- | Conditioning | | | | Service | | | | | | |0..n 0..n| | | | /\______________________| | | | / QoSConditioning | | +--------------+ SubService +---------------+ Figure 2. QoSService and its Aggregations 3.8.2. The ConditioningService Class The goal of the ConditioningService classes is to describe the sequence of traffic conditioning that is applied to a given traffic stream on the ingress interface through which it enters a device, and then on the egress interface through which it leaves the device. This is done using a set of classes and relationships. The routing decision in the device core, which selects which egress interface a particular packet will use, is not represented in this model. A single base class, ConditioningService, is the superclass for a set of subclasses representing the mechanisms that condition traffic. Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 These subclasses define device-independent conditioning primitives (including classifiers, meters, markers, droppers, queues, and schedulers) that together implement the conditioning of traffic on an interface. This model abstracts these services into a common set of modular building blocks that can be used, regardless of device implementation, to model the traffic conditioning internal to a device. The different conditioning mechanisms need to be related to each other to describe how traffic is conditioned. Several important variations of how these services are related together exist: o A particular ingress or egress interface may not require all the types of ConditioningServices. o Multiple instances of the same mechanism may be required on an ingress or egress interface. o There is no set order of application for the ConditioningServices on an ingress or egress interface. Therefore, this model does not dictate a fixed ordering among the subclasses of ConditioningService, or identify a subclass of ConditioningService that must appear first or last among the ConditioningServices on an ingress or egress interface. Instead, this model ties together the various ConditioningService instances on an ingress or egress interface using the NextService, NextServiceAfterMeter, and NextServiceAfterConditioningElement associations. There are also separate associations, called IngressConditioningServiceOnEndpoint and EgressConditioningServiceOnEndpoint, which, respectively, tie an ingress interface to its first ConditioningService, and tie an egress interface to its last ConditioningService(s). 3.8.3. Preserving QoS Information from Ingress to Egress There is one important way in which the QDDIM model diverges from the [DSMODEL]. In [DSMODEL], traffic passes through a network device in three stages: o It comes in on an ingress interface, where it may receive QoS conditioning. o It traverses the routing core, where logic outside the scope of QoS determines which egress interface it will use to leave the device. Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 o It may receive further QoS conditioning on the selected egress interface, and then it leaves the device. In this model, no information about the QoS conditioning that a packet receives on the ingress interface is communicated with the packet across the routing core to the egress interface. The QDDIM model relaxes this restriction, to allow information about the treatment that a packet received on an ingress interface to be communicated along with the packet to the egress interface. (This relaxation adds a capability that is present in many network devices.) QDDIM represents this information transfer in terms of a packet preamble, which is how many devices implement it. But implementations are free to use other mechanisms to achieve the same result. +---------+ | Meter-A | a | | b d --->| In-|---PM-1---> | | c e | Out-|---PM-2---> +---------+ Figure 3: Meter Followed by Two Preamble Markers Figure 3 shows an example in which meter results are captured in a packet preamble. The arrows labeled with single letters represent instances of either the NextService association (a, d, and e), or of its peer association NextServiceAfterMeter (b and c). PreambleMarker PM-1 adds to the packet preamble an indication that the packet exited Meter A as conforming traffic. Similarly, PreambleMarker PM-2 adds to the preambles of packets that come through it indications that they exited Meter A as nonconforming traffic. A PreambleMarker appends its information to whatever is already present in a packet preamble, as opposed to overwriting what is already there. To foster interoperability, the basic format of the information captured by a PreambleMarker is specified. (Implementations, of course, are free to represent this information in a different way internally - this is just how it is represented in the model.) The information is represented by an ordered, multi-valued string property FilterItemList, where each individual value of the property is of the form ','. When a PreambleMarker 'appends' its information to the information that was already present in a packet preamble, it does so by adding additional items of the indicated format to the end of the list. Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 QDDIM provides a limited set of 's that a PreambleMarker may use: o ConformingFromMeter: the value is the name of the meter. o PartConformingFromMeter: the value is the name of the meter. o NonConformingFromMeter: the value is the name of the meter. o VlanId: the value is the virtual LAN identifier (VLAN ID). Implementations may recognize other 's in addition to these. If collisions of implementation-specific 's become a problem, it is possible that 's may become an IANA-administered range in a future revision of this document. To make use of the information that a PreambleMarker stores in a packet preamble, a specific subclass PreambleFilter of FilterEntryBase is defined, to match on the ',' strings. To simplify the case where there's just a single level of metering in a device, but different individual meters on each ingress interface, PreambleFilter allows a wildcard 'any' for the part of the three meter-related filters. With this wildcard, an administrator can specify a Classifier to select all packets that were found to be conforming (or partially conforming, or non-conforming) by their respective meters, without having to name each meter individually in a separate ClassifierElement. Once a meter result has been stored in a packet preamble, it is available for any subsequent Classifier to use. So while the motivation for this capability has been described in terms of preserving QoS conditioning information from an ingress interface to an egress interface, a prior meter result may also be used for classifying packets later in the datapath on the same interface where the meter resides. 3.9. Classifiers, FilterLists, and Filter Entries This document uses a number of classes to model the classifiers defined in [DSMODEL]: ClassifierService, ClassifierElement, FilterList, FilterEntryBase, and various subclasses of FilterEntryBase. There are also two associations involved: ClassifierElementUsesFilterList and EntriesInFilterList. The QDDIM model makes no use of CIM's FilterEntry class. In [DSMODEL], a single traffic stream coming into a classifier is split into multiple traffic streams leaving it, based on which of an ordered set of filters each packet in the incoming stream matches. A Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 21]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 filter matches either a field in the packet itself, or possibly other attributes associated with the packet. In the case of a multi-field (MF) classifier, packets are assigned to output streams based on the contents of multiple fields in the packet header. For example, an MF classifier might assign packets to an output stream based on their complete IP-addressing 5-tuple. To optimize the representation of MF classifiers, subclasses of FilterEntryBase are introduced, which allow multiple related packet header fields to be represented in a single object. These subclasses are IPHeaderFilter and 8021Filter. With IPHeaderFilter, for example, criteria for selecting packets based on all five of the IP 5-tuple header fields and the DiffServ DSCP can be represented by a FilterList containing one IPHeaderFilter object. Because these two classes have applications beyond those considered in this document, they, as well as the abstract class FilterEntryBase, are defined in the more general document [PCIME] rather than here. The FilterList object is always needed, even if it contains only one filter entry (that is, one FilterEntryBase subclass) object. This is because a ClassifierElement can only be associated with a Filter List, as opposed to an individual FilterEntry. FilterList is also defined in [PCIME]. The EntriesInFilterList aggregation (also defined in [PCIME]) has a property EntrySequence, which in the past (in CIM) could be used to specify an evaluation order on the filter entries in a FilterList. Now, however, the EntrySequence property supports only a single value: '0'. This value indicates that the FilterEntries are ANDed together to determine whether a packet matches the MF selector that the FilterList represents. A ClassifierElement specifies the starting point for a specific policy or data path. Each ClassifierElement uses the NextServiceAfterClassifierElement association to determine the next conditioning service to apply for packets to. A ClassifierService defines a grouping of ClassifierElements. There are certain instances where a ClassifierService actually specifies an aggregation of ClassifierServices. One practical case would be where each ClassifierService specifies a group of policies associated with a particular application and another ClassifierService groups the application-specific ClassifierService instances. In this particular case, the application-specific ClassifierService instances are specified once, but unique combinations of these ClassifierServices are specified, as needed, using other ClassifierService instances. ClassifierService instances grouping other ClassifierService instances may not specify a FilterList using the Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 22]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 ClassifierElementUsesFilterList association. This special use of ClassifierService serves just as a Classifier collecting function. 3.10. Modeling of Droppers In [DSMODEL], a distinction is made between absolute droppers and algorithmic droppers. In QDDIM, both of these types of droppers are modeled with the DropperService class, or with one of its subclasses. In both cases, the queue from which the dropper drops packets is tied to the dropper by an instance of the NextService association. The dropper always plays the PrecedingService role in these associations, and the queue always plays the FollowingService role. There is always exactly one queue from which a dropper drops packets. Since an absolute dropper drops all packets in its queue, it needs no configuration beyond a NextService tie to that queue. For an algorithmic dropper, however, further configuration is needed: o a specific drop algorithm; o parameters for the algorithm (for example, token bucket size); o the source(s) of input(s) to the algorithm; o possibly per-input parameters for the algorithm. The first two of these items are represented by properties of the DropperService class, or properties of one of its subclasses. The last two, however, involve additional classes and associations. 3.10.1. Configuring Head and Tail Droppers The HeadTailDropQueueBinding is the association that identifies the inputs for the algorithm executed by a tail dropper. This association is not used for a head dropper, because a head dropper always has exactly one input to its drop algorithm, and this input is always the queue from which it drops packets. For a tail dropper, this association is defined to have a many-to-many cardinality. There are, however, two distinct cases: One dropper bound to many queues: This represents the case where the drop algorithm for the dropper involves inputs from more than one queue. The dropper still drops from only one queue, the one to which it is tied by a NextService association. But the drop decision may be influenced by the state of several queues. For the classes HeadTailDropper and HeadTailDropQueueBinding, the rule for combining the multiple inputs is simple addition: if the sum of the lengths of the monitored queues exceeds the dropper's QueueThreshold value, then Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 23]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 packets are dropped. This rule for combining inputs may, however, be overridden by a different rule in subclasses of one or both of these classes. One queue bound to many droppers: This represents the case where the state of one queue (which is typically also the queue from which packets are dropped) provides an input to multiple droppers' drop algorithms. A use case here is a classifier that splits a traffic stream into, say, four parts, representing four classes of traffic. Each of the parts goes through a separate HeadTailDropper, then they're re-merged onto the same queue. The net is a single queue containing packets of four traffic types, with, say, the following drop thresholds: o Class 1 - 90% full o Class 2 - 80% full o Class 3 - 70% full o Class 4 - 50% full Here the percentages represent the overall state of the queue. With this configuration, when the queue in question becomes 50% full, Class 4 packets will be dropped rather than joining the queue, when it becomes 70% full, Class 3 and 4 packets will be dropped, etc. The two cases described here can also occur together, if a dropper receives inputs from multiple queues, one or more of which are also providing inputs to other droppers. 3.10.2. Configuring RED Droppers Like a tail dropper, a RED dropper, represented by an instance of the REDDropperService class, may take as its inputs the states of multiple queues. In this case, however, there is an additional step: each of these inputs may be smoothed before the RED dropper uses it, and the smoothing process itself must be parameterized. Consequently, in addition to REDDropperService and QueuingService, a third class, DropThresholdCalculationService, is introduced, to represent the per-queue parameterization of this smoothing process. Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 24]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 The following instance diagram illustrates how these classes work with each other: RDSvc-A | | | +-----+ | +-----+ | | | DTCS-1 DTCS-2 DTCS-3 | | | Q-1 Q-2 Q-3 Figure 4. Inputs for a RED Dropper So REDDropperService-A (RDSvc-A) is using inputs from three queues to make its drop decision. (As always, RDSvc-A is linked to the queue from which it drops packets via the NextService association.) For each of these three queues, there is a (DropThresholdCalculationService) DTCS instance that represents the smoothing weight and time interval to use when looking at that queue. Thus each DTCS instance is tied to exactly one queue, although a single queue may be examined (with different weight and time values) by multiple DTCS instances. Also, a DTCS instance and the queue behind it can be thought of as a 'unit of reusability'. So a single DTCS can be referred to by multiple RDSvc's. Unless it is overridden by a different rule in a subclass of REDDropperService, the rule that a RED dropper uses to combine the smoothed inputs from the DTCS's to create a value to use in making its drop decision is simple addition. 3.11. Modeling of Queues and Schedulers In order to appreciate the rationale behind this rather complex model for scheduling, we must consider the rather complex nature of schedulers, as well as the extreme variations in algorithms and implementations. Although these variations are broad, we have identified four examples that serve to test the model and justify its complexity. 3.11.1. Simple Hierarchical Scheduler A simple, hierarchical scheduler has the following properties. First, when a scheduling opportunity is given to a set of queues, a single, viable queue is determined based on some scheduling criteria, such as bandwidth or priority. The output of the scheduler is the input to another scheduler that treats the first scheduler (and its queues) as a single logical queue. Hence, if the first scheduler determined the appropriate packet to release based on a priority assigned to each Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 25]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 queue, the second scheduler might specify a bandwidth limit/allocation for the entire set of queues aggregated by the first scheduler. +----------+ NextService |QueuingSvc+----------------------------------------------+ | Name=EF1 | | | | QueueTo +--------------+ ElementSched | | +------------+PrioritySched +---------------+ | +----------+ Schedule |Element | Service | | | Name=EF1-Pri | | v | Priority=1 | +-----------+-+-+ +--------------+ |SchedulingSvc + | Name=PriSched1+ +--------------+ +----------+--+-+ |PrioritySched | ElementSched | ^ +----------+ |Element +---------------+ | |QueuingSvc| QueueTo | Name=AF1x-Pri| Service | | Name=AF1x+------------+ Priority=2 | | | | Schedule +--------------+ | | | NextService | | +----------------------------------------------+ +----------+ : +---------------+ NextScheduler |SchedulingSvc +--------------------------------------------+ | Name=PriSched1| | +-------+-------+ +--------------------+ElementSchedSvc| | SchedToSched |AllocationScheduling+--------+ | +---------------+Element | | | | Name=PriSched1-Band| | | | Units=Bytes | | v | Bandwidth=100 | +------+------+--+ +--------------------+ |SchedulingSvc | | Name=BandSched1| +--------------------+ +------+------+--+ |AllocationScheduling| | ^ +---------------+ |Element +--------+ | |QueuingService | | Name=BE-Band |ElementSchedSvc| | Name=BE |QueueTo+ Units=Bytes | | | |-------+ Bandwidth=50 | | | |Sched +--------------------+ | | | NextService | | +--------------------------------------------+ +---------------+ Figure 5. Example 1: Simple Hierarchical Scheduler Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 26]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 Figure 5 illustrates the example and how it would be instantiated using the model. In the figure, NextService determines the first scheduler after the queue. NextScheduler determines the subsequent ordering of schedulers. In addition, the ElementSchedulingService association determines the set of scheduling parameters used by a specific scheduler. Scheduling parameters can be bound either to queues or to schedulers. In the case of the SchedulingElement EF1-Pri, the binding is to a queue, so the QueueToSchedule association is used. In the case of the SchedulingElement PriSched1-Band, the binding is to another scheduler, so the SchedulerToSchedule association is used. Note that due to space constraints of the document, the SchedulingService PRISched1 is represented twice, to show how it is connected to all the other objects. 3.11.2. Complex Hierarchical Scheduler A complex, hierarchical scheduler has the same characteristics as a simple scheduler, except that the criteria for the second scheduler are determined on a per queue basis rather than on an aggregate basis. One scenario might be a set of bounded priority schedulers. In this case, each queue is assigned a relative priority. However, each queue is also not allowed to exceed a bandwidth allocation that is unique to that queue. In order to support this scenario, the queue must be bound to two separate schedulers. Figure 6 illustrates this situation, by describing an EF queue and a best effort (BE) queue both pointing to a priority scheduler via the NextService association. The NextScheduler association between the priority scheduler and the bandwidth scheduler in turn defines the ordering of the scheduling hierarchy. Also note that each scheduler has a distinct set of scheduling parameters that are bound back to each queue. This demonstrates the need to support two or more parameter sets on a per queue basis. Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 27]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 +----------------+ |QueuingService | | Name=EF | | |QueueTo +----------------+ElementSchedSvc | +----------+AllocationSched +--------+ ++---+-----------+Schedule |Element | | | | | Name=BandEF | | | |QueueTo | Units=Bytes | | | |Schedule | Bandwidth=100 | | | | +----------------+ +------+---------+ | | |SchedulingSvc | | | +------------------+ | Name=BandSched | | +------+PriorityScheduling| +------------+--++ | |Element | ^ | | | Name=PriEF |ElementSchedSvc | | | | Priority=1 +---------------------+ | | | +------------------+ | | | |NextService | | | +-------------------------------------------------+ | | | | | | | NextService | | | | +-----------------------------------------------+ | | | | | | | | | | | +------------------+ElementSchedSvc | | | | | | |PriorityScheduling+--------+ | | | | | | |Element | | | | | | | | | Name=PriBE | | v v | | | | +------+ Priority=2 | +---+--------+-+-+-+Next| | | | +------------------+ |SchedulingService +----+ | | | | Name=PriSched |Sched | | | +------------------+ | | |QueueTo | | |Schedule +----------------+ | | | |AllocationSched |ElementSchedSvc | +----+---------+ |Element +-----------------+ |QueuingService|QueueTo | Name=BandBE | | Name=BE +------------+ Units=Bytes | | |Schedule | Bandwidth=50 | | | +----------------+ +--------------+ Figure 6. Example 2: Complex Hierarchical Scheduler Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 28]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 3.11.3. Excess Capacity Scheduler An excess capacity scheduler offers a similar requirement to support two scheduling parameter sets per queue. However, in this scenario the reasons are a little different. Suppose a set of queues have each been assigned bandwidth limits to ensure that no traffic class starves out another traffic class. The result may be that one or more queues have exceeded their allocation while the queues that deserve scheduling opportunities are empty. The question then is how is the excess (idle) bandwidth allocated. Conceivably, the scheduling criteria for excess capacity are completely different from the criteria that determine allocations under uniform load. This could be supported with a scheduling hierarchy. However, the problem is that the criteria for using the subsequent scheduler are different from those in the last two cases. Specifically, the next scheduler should only be used if a scheduling opportunity exists that was passed over by the prior scheduler. When a scheduler chooses to forgo a scheduling decision, it is behaving as a non-work conserving scheduler. Work conserving schedulers, by definition, will always take advantage of a scheduling opportunity, irrespective of which queue is being serviced and how much bandwidth it has consumed in the past. This point leads to an interesting insight. The semantics of a non-work conserving scheduler are equivalent to those of a meter, in that if a packet is in profile it is given the scheduling opportunity, and if it is out of profile it does not get a scheduling opportunity. However, with meters there are semantics that determine the next action behavior when the packet is in profile and when the packet is out of profile. Similarly, with the non-work conserving scheduler, there needs to be a means for determining the next scheduler when a scheduler chooses not to utilize a scheduling opportunity. Figure 7 illustrates this last scenario. It appears very similar to Figure 6, except that the binding between the allocation scheduler and the WRR scheduler is using a FailNextScheduler association. This association is explicitly indicating the fact that the only time the WRR scheduler would be used is when there are non-empty queues that the allocation scheduler rejected for scheduling consideration. Note that Figure 7 is incomplete, in that typically there would be several more queues that are bound to an allocation scheduler and a WRR scheduler. Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 29]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 +------------+ |QueuingSvc | | Name=EF | | | | | ++-+---------+ | | | |QueueTo | |Schedule +--------------+ | | |SchedulingSvc | | | +------------------+ | Name=WRRSched| | +------+AllocationSched | +----------+-+-+ | |Element | ^ | | | Name=BandEF |ElementSchedSvc | | | | Units=Bytes +--------------------+ | | | | Bandwidth=100 | | | | | +------------------+ | | | |NextService | | | +----------------------------------------------+ | | | | | | | NextService | | | | +--------------------------------------------+ | | | | | | | | | | | +------------------+ElementSchedSvc | | | | | | |AllocationSched +--------+ | | | | | | |Element | | | | | | | | | Name=BandwidthAF1| | | | | | | | | Units=Bytes | | v v | | | | +------+ Bandwidth=50 | +--+----------+-+-++FailNext| | | | +------------------+ |SchedulingService +--------+ | | |QueueTo | Name=BandSched |Scheduler | | |Schedule +------------------+ | | | | | | +---------------------+ | ++-+-----------+ | WRRSchedulingElement| | |QueuingService|QueueTo | Name=WRRBE +------------+ | Name=BE +-----------+ Weight=30 |ElementSchedSvc +--------------+Schedule +---------------------+ Figure 7. Example 3: Excess Capacity Scheduler Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 30]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 3.11.4. Hierarchical CBQ Scheduler A hierarchical class-based queuing (CBQ) scheduler is the fourth scenario to be considered. In hierarchical CBQ, each queue is allocated a specific bandwidth allocation. Queues are grouped together into a logical scheduler. This logical scheduler in turn has an aggregate bandwidth allocation that equals the sum of the queues it is scheduling. In turn, logical schedulers can be aggregated into higher-level logical schedulers. Changing perspectives and looking top down, the top-most logical scheduler has 100% of the link capacity. This allocation is parceled out to logical schedulers below it such that the sum of the allocations is equal to 100%. These second tier schedulers may in turn parcel out their allocation across a third tier of schedulers and so forth until the lowest tier that parcels out their allocations to specific queues representing relatively fine-grained classes of traffic. The unique aspect of hierarchical CBQ is that when there is insufficient bandwidth for a specific allocation, schedulers higher in the tree are tested to see if another portion of the tree has capacity to spare. Figure 8 demonstrates this example with two tiers. The example is split in half because of space constraints, resulting in the CBQTier1 scheduling service instance being represented twice. Note that the total allocation at the top tier is 50 Mb. The voice allocation is 22 Mb. The remaining 23 Mb is split between FTP and Web. Hence, if Web traffic is actually consuming 20 Mb (5 Mb in excess of the allocation). If FTP is consuming 5 Mb, then it is possible for the CBQTier1 scheduler to offer 3Mb of its allocation to Web traffic. However, this is not enough, so the FailNextScheduler association needs to be traversed to determine if there is any excess capacity available from the voice class. If the voice class is only consuming 15 Mb of its 22 Mb allocation, there are sufficient resources to allow the web traffic through. Note that FailNextScheduler is used as the association. The reason is because the CBQTier1 scheduler in fact failed to schedule a packet because of insufficient resources. It is conceivable that a variant of hierarchical CBQ allows a hierarchy for successful scheduling as well. Hence, both associations are necessary. Note that due to space constraints of the document, the SchedulingService CBQTier1 is represented twice, to show how it is connected to all the other objects. Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 31]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 +-----------+ NextService |QueuingSvc +-------------------------------------------+ | Name=Web | | | |QueueTo+----------------+ ElementSchedSvc | | +-------+AllocationSched +----------------+ | +-----------+Sched |Element | | | | Name=Web-Alloc | | v | Bandwidth=15 | +-----------+-+-+ +----------------+ |SchedulingSvc + | Name=CBQTier1 + +----------------+ +-----------+-+-+ |AllocationSched | ElementSchedSvc| ^ +-----------+ |Element +----------------+ | |QueuingSvc |QueueTo| Name=FTP-Alloc | | | Name=FTP +-------+ Bandwidth=8 | | | |Sched +----------------+ | | | NextService | | +-------------------------------------------+ +-----------+ : +---------------+ FailNextScheduler |SchedulingSvc +---------------------------------------------+ | Name=CBQTier1 | | +-------+-------+ +---------------------+ElementSchedSvc| | SchedToSched |AllocationScheduling +--------+ | +---------------+Element | | | | Name=LowPri-Alloc | | | | Bandwidth=23 | | v +---------------------+ +-----+------+-+ |SchedulingSvc | | Name=CBQTop | +---------------------+ +----------+-+-+ |AllocationScheduling |ElementSchedSvc | ^ +------------+ |Element +----------------+ | |QueuingSvc |QueueTo| Name=BE-Band | | | Name=Voice +-------+ Bandwidth=22 | | | |Sched +---------------------+ | | | NextService | | +------------------------------------------------+ +------------+ Figure 8. Example 4: Hierarchical CBQ Scheduler Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 32]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 4. The Class Hierarchy The following sections present the class and association hierarchies that together comprise the information model for modeling QoS capabilities at the device level. 4.1. Associations and Aggregations Associations and aggregations are a means of representing relationships between two (or theoretically more) objects. Dependency, aggregation, and other relationships are modeled as classes containing two (or more) object references. It should be noted that aggregations represent either 'whole-part' or 'collection' relationships. For example, aggregation can be used to represent the containment relationship between a system and the components that constitute the system. Since associations and aggregations are classes, they can benefit from all of the object-oriented features that other non-relationship classes have. For example, they can contain properties and methods, and inheritance can be used to refine their semantics such that they represent more specialized types of their superclasses. Note that an association (or an aggregation) object is treated as an atomic unit (individual instance), even though it relates/collects/is comprised of multiple objects. This is a defining feature of an association (or an aggregation) - although the individual elements that are related to other objects have their own identities, the association (or aggregation) object that is constructed using these objects has its own identity and name as well. It is important to note that associations and aggregations form an inheritance hierarchy that is separate from the class inheritance hierarchy. Although associations and aggregations are typically bi- directional, there is nothing that prevents higher order associations or aggregations from being defined. However, such associations and aggregations are inherently more complex to define, understand, and use. In practice, associations and aggregations of orders higher than binary are rarely used, because of their greatly increased complexity and lack of generality. All of the associations and aggregations defined in this model are binary. Note also that by definition, associations and aggregations cannot be unary. Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 33]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 Finally, note that associations and aggregations that are defined between two classes do not affect the classes themselves. That is, the addition or deletion of an association or an aggregation does not affect the interfaces of the classes that it is connecting. 4.2. The Structure of the Class Hierarchies The structure of the class, association, and aggregation class inheritance hierarchies for managing the datapaths of QoS devices is shown, respectively, in Figure 9, Figure 10, and Figure 11. The notation (CIMCORE) identifies a class defined in the CIM Core model. Please refer to [CIM] for the definitions of these classes. Similarly, the notation [PCIME] identifies a class defined in the Policy Core Information Model Extensions document. This model has been influenced by [CIM], and is compatible with the Directory Enabled Networks (DEN) effort. +--ManagedElement (CIMCORE) | +--ManagedSystemElement (CIMCORE) | | | +--LogicalElement (CIMCORE) | | | +--Service (CIMCORE) | | | | | +--ConditioningService | | | | | | | +--ClassifierService | | | | | | | | | +--ClassifierElement | | | | | | | +--MeterService | | | | | | | | | +--AverageRateMeterService | | | | | | | | | +--EWMAMeterService | | | | | | | | | +--TokenBucketMeterService | | | | | | | +--MarkerService | | | | | | | | | +--PreambleMarkerService | | | | | | | | | +--TOSMarkerService | | | | | | | | | +--DSCPMarkerService | | | | | Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 34]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 (continued from previous page; the first four elements are repeated for convenience) +--ManagedElement (CIMCORE) | +--ManagedSystemElement (CIMCORE) | | | +--LogicalElement (CIMCORE) | | | +--Service (CIMCORE) | | | | +--8021QMarkerService | | | | | | | +--DropperService | | | | | | | | | +--HeadTailDropperService | | | | | | | | | +--RedDropperService | | | | | | | +--QueuingService | | | | | | | +--PacketSchedulingService | | | | | | | +--NonWorkConservingSchedulingService | | | | | +--QoSService | | | | | | | +--DiffServService | | | | | | | | | +--AFService | | | | | | | +--FlowService | | | | | +--DropThresholdCalculationService | | | +--FilterEntryBase [PCIME] | | | | | +--IPHeaderFilter [PCIME] | | | | | +--8021Filter [PCIME] | | | | | +--PreambleFilter | | | +--FilterList [PCIME] | | | +--ServiceAccessPoint (CIMCORE) | | | +--ProtocolEndpoint Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 35]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 (continued from previous page; the first four elements are repeated for convenience) +--ManagedElement (CIMCORE) | +--ManagedSystemElement (CIMCORE) | | | +--LogicalElement (CIMCORE) | | | +--Service (CIMCORE) | +--Collection (CIMCORE) | | | +--CollectionOfMSEs (CIMCORE) | | | +--BufferPool | +--SchedulingElement | +--AllocationSchedulingElement | +--WRRSchedulingElement | +--PrioritySchedulingElement | +--BoundedPrioritySchedulingElement Figure 9. Class Inheritance Hierarchy Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 36]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 The inheritance hierarchy for the associations defined in this document is shown in Figure 10. +--Dependency (CIMCORE) | | | +--ServiceSAPDependency (CIMCORE) | | | | | +--IngressConditioningServiceOnEndpoint | | | | | +--EgressConditioningServiceOnEndpoint | | | +--HeadTailDropQueueBinding | | | +--CalculationBasedOnQueue | | | +--ProvidesServiceToElement (CIMCORE) | | | | | +--ServiceServiceDependency (CIMCORE) | | | | | +--CalculationServiceForDropper | | | +--QueueAllocation | | | +--ClassifierElementUsesFilterList | +--AFRelatedServices | +--NextService | | | +--NextServiceAfterClassifierElement | | | +--NextScheduler | | | +--FailNextScheduler | +--NextServiceAfterMeter | +--QueueToSchedule | +--SchedulingServiceToSchedule Figure 10. Association Class Inheritance Hierarchy Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 37]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 The inheritance hierarchy for the aggregations defined in this document is shown in Figure 11. +--MemberOfCollection (CIMCORE) | | | +--CollectedBufferPool | +--Component (CIMCORE) | | | +--ServiceComponent (CIMCORE) | | | | | +--QoSSubService | | | | | +--QoSConditioningSubService | | | | | +--ClassifierElementInClassifierService | | | +--EntriesInFilterList [PCIME] | +--ElementInSchedulingService Figure 11. Aggregation Class Inheritance Hierarchy 4.3. Class Definitions This section presents the classes and properties that make up the Information Model for describing QoS-related functionality in network devices, including hosts. These definitions are derived from definitions in the CIM Core model [CIM]. Only the QoS-related classes are defined in this document. However, other classes drawn from the CIM Core model, as well as from [PCIME], are described briefly. The reader is encouraged to look at [CIM] and at [PCIME] for further information. Associations and aggregations are defined in Section 4.4. 4.3.1. The Abstract Class ManagedElement This is an abstract class defined in the Core Model of CIM. It is the root of the entire class inheritance hierarchy in CIM. Among the associations that refer to it are two that are subclassed in this document: Dependency and MemberOfCollection, which is an aggregation. ManagedElement's properties are Caption and Description. Both are free-form strings to describe an instantiated object. Please refer to [CIM] for the full definition of this class. Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 38]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 4.3.2. The Abstract Class ManagedSystemElement This is an abstract class defined in the Core Model of CIM; it is a subclass of ManagedElement. ManagedSystemElement serves as the base class for the PhysicalElement and LogicalElement class hierarchies. LogicalElement, in turn, is the base class for a number of important CIM hierarchies, including System. Any distinguishable component of a System is a candidate for inclusion in this class hierarchy, including physical components (e.g., chips and cards) and logical components (e.g., software components, services, and other objects). None of the associations in which this class participates is used directly in the QoS device state model. However, the aggregation Component, which relates one ManagedSystemElement to another, is the base class for the two aggregations that form the core of the QoS device state model: QoSSubService and QoSConditioningSubService. Similarly, the association ProvidesServiceToElement, which relates a ManagedSystemElement to a Service, is the base class for the model's CalculationServiceForDropper association. Please refer to [CIM] for the full definition of this class. 4.3.3. The Abstract Class LogicalElement This is an abstract class defined in the Core Model of CIM. It is a subclass of the ManagedSystemElement class, and is the base class for all logical components of a managed System, such as Files, Processes, or system capabilities in the form of Logical Devices and Services. None of the associations in which this class participates is relevant to the QoS device state model. Please refer to [CIM] for the full definition of this class. 4.3.4. The Abstract Class Service This is an abstract class defined in the Core Model of CIM. It is a subclass of the LogicalElement class, and is the base class for all objects that represent a 'service' or functionality in a System. A Service is a general-purpose object that is used to configure and manage the implementation of functionality. As noted above in section 4.3.2, this class participates in the ProvidesServiceToElement association. Please refer to [CIM] for the full definition of this class. 4.3.5. The Class ConditioningService This is a concrete subclass of the CIM Core class Service; it represents the ability to define how traffic is conditioned in the data-forwarding path of a device. The subclasses of Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 39]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 ConditioningService define the particular types of conditioning that are done. Six fundamental types of conditioning are defined in this document. These are the services performed by a classifier, a meter, a marker, a dropper, a queue, and a scheduler. Other, more sophisticated types of conditioning may be defined in future documents. ConditioningService is a concrete class because at the time it was defined in CIM, its superclass was concrete. While this class can be instantiated, an instance of it would not accomplish anything, because the nature of the conditioning, and the parameters that control it, are specified only in the subclasses of ConditioningService. Two associations in which ConditioningService participates are critical to its usage in QoS - QoSConditioningSubService and NextService. QoSConditioningSubService aggregates ConditioningServices into a particular QoS service (such as AF), to describe the specific conditioning functionality that underlies that QoS service in a particular device. NextService indicates the subsequent conditioning service(s) for different traffic streams. The class definition is as follows: NAME ConditioningService DESCRIPTION A concrete class to define how traffic is conditioned in the data forwarding path of a host or network device. DERIVED FROM Service TYPE Concrete PROPERTIES (none) 4.3.6. The Class ClassifierService The concept of a Classifier comes from [DSMODEL]. ClassifierService is a concrete class that represents a logical entity in an ingress or egress interface of a device, that takes a single input stream, and sorts it into one or more output streams. The sorting is done by a set of filters that select packets based on the packet contents, or possibly based on other attributes associated with the packet. Each output stream is the result of matching a particular filter. The representation of classifiers in QDDIM is closely related to that presented in [DSMIB] and [DSMODEL]. Rather than being linked directly to its FilterLists, a classifier is modeled here as an aggregation of ClassifierElements. Each of these ClassifierElements is then linked to a single FilterList, by the association ClassifierElementUsesFilterList. Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 40]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 A Classifier is modeled as a subclass of ConditioningService so that it can be aggregated into a QoSService (using the QoSConditioningSubService aggregation), and can use the NextService association to identify the subsequent ConditioningService objects for the different traffic streams. ClassifierService is designed to allow hierarchical classification. When hierarchical classification is used, a ClassifierElement may point to another ClassifierService. When used for this purpose, the ClassifierElement must not use the ClassifierElementUsesFilterList association. The class definition is as follows: NAME ClassifierService DESCRIPTION A concrete class describing how an input traffic stream is sorted into multiple output streams using one or more filters. DERIVED FROM ConditioningService TYPE Concrete PROPERTIES (none) 4.3.7. The Class ClassifierElement The concept of a ClassifierElement comes from [DSMIB]. This concrete class represents the linkage, within a single ClassifierService, between a FilterList that specifies a set of criteria for selecting packets from the stream of packets coming into the ClassifierService, and the next ConditioningService to which the selected packets go after they leave the ClassifierService. ClassifierElement has no properties of its own. It is present to serve as the anchor for an aggregation with its classifier, and for associations with its FilterList and its next ConditioningService. When a ClassifierElement is associated with a ClassifierService through the NextServiceAfterClassifierElement association, the ClassifierElement may not use the ClassifierElementUsesFilterList association. Further, when a ClassifierElement is associated with a ClassifierService as described above, the order of processing of the associated ClassifierService is a function of the ClassifierOrder property of the ClassifierElementInClassifierService aggregation. For example, lets assume the following: 1. ClassifierService (C1) aggregates ClassifierElements (E1), (E2) and (E3), with relative ClassifierOrder values of 1, 2, and 3. Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 41]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 2. ClassifierElements (E1) and (E3) associations to FilterLists (F1) and (F3) respectively using the ClassifierElementUsesFilterList association. 3. (E1) & (E3) are associated with Meters (M1) and (M3) through their respective NextServiceAfterClassifierElement associations. 4. (E2) is associated with ClassifierService (C2) through its NextServiceAfterClassifierElement association. 5. ClassifierService (C2) aggregates ClassifierElements (E4) and (E5) with relative ClassifierOrder values of 1 and 2. 6. ClassifierElements (E4) and (E5) have associations to FilterLists (F4) and (F5) respectively using the ClassifierElementUsesFilterList association. In this example, packet processing would match FilterLists in the order of (F1), (F4), (F5), and (F3). The class definition is as follows: NAME ClassifierElement DESCRIPTION A concrete class representing the process by which a classifier uses a filter to select packets to forward to a specific next conditioning service. DERIVED FROM ClassifierService TYPE Concrete PROPERTIES (none) 4.3.8. The Class MeterService This is a concrete class that represents the metering of network traffic. Metering is the function of monitoring the arrival times of packets of a traffic stream, and determining the level of conformance of each packet with respect to a pre-established traffic profile. A meter has the ability to invoke different ConditioningServices for conforming and non-conforming traffic. Traffic leaving a meter may be further conditioned (e.g., dropped or queued) by routing the packet to another conditioning element. Please see [DSMODEL] for more information on metering. This class is the base class for defining different types of meters. As such, it contains common properties that all meter subclasses share. It is modeled as a ConditioningService so that it can be aggregated into a QoSService (using the QoSConditioningSubService Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 42]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 association), to indicate that its functionality underlies that QoS service. MeterService also participates in the NextServiceAfterMeter association, to identify the subsequent ConditioningService objects for conforming and non-conforming traffic. The class definition is as follows: NAME MeterService DESCRIPTION A concrete class describing the monitoring of traffic with respect to a pre-established traffic profile. DERIVED FROM ConditioningService TYPE Concrete PROPERTIES MeterType, OtherMeterType, ConformanceLevels Note: The MeterType property and the MeterService subclasses provide similar information. The MeterType property is defined for query purposes and for future expansion. It is possible that not all MeterServices will require a subclass to define them. In these cases, MeterService will be instantiated directly, and the MeterType property will provide the only way of identifying the type of the meter. 4.3.8.1. The Property MeterType This property is an enumerated 16-bit unsigned integer that is used to specify the particular type of meter represented by an instance of MeterService. The following enumeration values are defined: 1 - Other 2 - Average Rate Meter 3 - Exponentially Weighted Moving Average Meter 4 - Token Bucket Meter Note: if the value of MeterType is not one of these four values, it SHOULD be interpreted as if it had the value '1' (Other). 4.3.8.2. The Property OtherMeterType This is a string property that defines a vendor-specific description of a type of meter. It is used when the value of the MeterType property in the instance is equal to 1. Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 43]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 4.3.8.3. The Property ConformanceLevels This property is a 16-bit unsigned integer. It indicates the number of conformance levels supported by the meter. For example, when only 'in profile' versus 'out of profile' metering is supported, ConformanceLevels is equal to 2. 4.3.9. The Class AverageRateMeterService This is a concrete subclass of MeterService that represents a simple meter, called an Average Rate Meter. This type of meter measures the average rate at which packets are submitted to it over a specified time. Packets are defined as conformant if their average arrival rate does not exceed the specified measuring rate of the meter. Any packet that causes the specified measuring rate to be exceeded is defined to be non-conforming. For more information, please see [DSMODEL]. The class definition is as follows: NAME AverageRateMeterService DESCRIPTION A concrete class classifying traffic as either conforming or non-conforming, depending on whether the arrival of a packet causes the average arrival rate to exceed a pre-determined value. DERIVED FROM MeterService TYPE Concrete PROPERTIES AverageRate, DeltaInterval 4.3.9.1. The Property AverageRate This is an unsigned 32-bit integer that defines the rate used to determine whether admitted packets are in conformance or not. The value is specified in kilobits per second. 4.3.9.2. The Property DeltaInterval This is an unsigned 64-bit integer that defines the time period over which the average measurement should be taken. The value is specified in microseconds. 4.3.10. The Class EWMAMeterService This is a concrete subclass of the MeterService class that represents an exponentially weighted moving average meter. This meter is a simple low-pass filter that measures the rate of incoming packets Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 44]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 over a small, fixed sampling interval. Any admitted packet that pushes the average rate over a pre-defined limit is defined to be non-conforming. Please see [DSMODEL] for more information. The class definition is as follows: NAME EWMAMeterService DESCRIPTION A concrete class classifying admitted traffic as either conforming or non- conforming, depending on whether the arrival of a packet causes the average arrival rate in a small fixed sampling interval to exceed a pre-determined value or not. DERIVED FROM MeterService TYPE Concrete PROPERTIES AverageRate, DeltaInterval, Gain 4.3.10.1. The Property AverageRate This property is an unsigned 32-bit integer that defines the average rate against which the sampled arrival rate of packets should be measured. Any packet that causes the sampled rate to exceed this rate is deemed non-conforming. The value is specified in kilobits per second. 4.3.10.2. The Property DeltaInterval This property is an unsigned 64-bit integer that defines the sampling interval used to measure the arrival rate. The calculated rate is averaged over this interval and checked against the AverageRate property. All packets whose computed average arrival rate is less than the AverageRate are deemed conforming. The value is specified in microseconds. 4.3.10.3. The Property Gain This property is an unsigned 32-bit integer representing the reciprocal of the time constant (e.g., frequency response) of what is essentially a simple low-pass filter. For example, the value 64 for this property represents a time constant value of 1/64. Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 45]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 4.3.11. The Class TokenBucketMeterService This is a concrete subclass of the MeterService class that represents the metering of network traffic using a token bucket meter. Two types of token bucket meters are defined using this class - a simple, two-parameter bucket meter, and a multi-stage meter. A simple token bucket usually has two parameters, an average token rate and a burst size, and has two conformance levels: 'conforming' and 'non-conforming'. This class also defines an excess burst size, which enables the meter to have three conformance levels ('conforming', 'partially conforming', and 'non-conforming'). In this case, packets that exceed the excess burst size are deemed non- conforming, while packets that exceed the smaller burst size but are less than the excess burst size are deemed partially conforming. Operation of these meters is described in [DSMODEL]. The class definition is as follows: NAME TokenBucketMeterService DESCRIPTION A concrete class classifying admitted traffic with respect to a token bucket. Either two or three levels of conformance can be defined. DERIVED FROM MeterService TYPE Concrete PROPERTIES AverageRate, PeakRate, BurstSize, ExcessBurstSize 4.3.11.1. The Property AverageRate This property is an unsigned 32-bit integer that specifies the committed rate of the meter. The value is expressed in kilobits per second. 4.3.11.2. The Property PeakRate This property is an unsigned 32-bit integer that specifies the peak rate of the meter. The value is expressed in kilobits per second. 4.3.11.3. The Property BurstSize This property is an unsigned 32-bit integer that specifies the maximum number of tokens available for the committed rate (specified by the AverageRate property). The value is expressed in kilobytes. Moore, et al. Standards Track [Page 46]  RFC 3670 QoS Device Datapath Info Model January 2004 4.3.11.4. The Property ExcessBurstSize This property is an unsigned 32-bit integer that specifies the maximum number of tokens available for the peak rate (specified by the PeakRate property). The value is expressed in kilobytes. 4.3.12. The Class MarkerService This is a concrete class that represents the general process of marking some field in a network packet with some value. Subclasses of MarkerService identify particular fields to be marked, and introduce properties to represent the values to be used in marking these fields. Markers are usually invoked as a result of a preceding classifier match. Operation of markers of various types is described in [DSMODEL]. MarkerService is a concrete class because at the time it was defined in CIM, its superclass was concrete. While this class can be instantiate