WDIFF

draft-ietf-ospf-scalability-09.txt --> rfc4222.txt

Internet Engineering Task Force Gagan L.

Network Working Group G. Choudhury, Editor
Internet Draft Ed.
Request for Comments: 4222 AT&T
Expires in June,
BCP: 112 October 2005
Category: Best Current Practice December, 2004
draft-ietf-ospf-scalability-09.txt

Prioritized Treatment of Specific OSPF Version 2
Packets and Congestion Avoidance

Status of this This Memo

By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of RFC 3668.

This document is specifies an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance
with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of Internet Best Current Practices for the
Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, Community, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months requests discussion and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. suggestions for
improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

This document recommends methods that are intended to improve the
scalability and stability of large networks using OSPF (Open Open Shortest Path First)
First (OSPF) Version 2 protocol. The methods include processing OSPF
Hellos and LSA (Link Link State Advertisement) Advertisement (LSA) Acknowledgments at a higher
priority compared to other OSPF packets, and other congestion
avoidance procedures.

Choudhury et. al. Best Current Practice [Page 1]

Internet Draft Prioritized Treatment Expires - June, 2005

Table of Contents

1. Introduction...................................................2
2. Recommendations................................................3
3. Security Considerations........................................6
4. Acknowledgments................................................6
5. Normative Reference............................................6 References...........................................6
6. Informative References.........................................7
7. Contributing Authors and their Addresses.......................8
Appendix A. LSA Storm: Causes and Impact..........................8
Appendix B. List of Variables and Values.........................10
Appendix C. Other Recommendations and Suggestions................11

Choudhury, Ed. Best Current Practice [Page 1]

RFC 4222 Prioritized Treatment October 2005

1. Introduction

In this document as we refer to document, OSPF we mean refers to OSPFv2 [Ref1]. The scalability and
stability improvement techniques described here may also apply to
OSPFv3 [Ref2] [Ref2], but that will require further study and operational
experience.

A large network running OSPF protocol may occasionally experience the
simultaneous or near-simultaneous update of a large number of link-state-advertisements, link
state advertisements, or LSAs. This is particularly true if OSPF
traffic engineering extension [Ref3] is used which that may significantly
increase the number of LSAs in the network. We call this event, event an
LSA storm and it may be initiated by an unscheduled failure or a
scheduled maintenance event. The failure may be hardware, software,
or procedural in nature.

The LSA storm causes high CPU and memory utilization at the router
causing incoming packets to be delayed or dropped. Delayed
acknowledgments (beyond the retransmission timer value) result in
retransmissions, and delayed Hello packets (beyond the router-dead
interval) result in neighbor adjacencies being declared down. The
retransmissions and additional LSA originations result in further CPU
and memory usage, essentially causing a positive feedback loop,
which, in the extreme case, may drive the network to an unstable
state.

The default value of the retransmission timer is 5 seconds and that
of the router-dead interval is 40 seconds. However, recently there
has been a lot of interest in significantly reducing OSPF convergence
time. As part of that plan plan, much shorter (sub-second) Hello and
router-dead intervals have been proposed [Ref4]. In such a scenario scenario,
it will be more likely for Hello packets to be delayed beyond the
router-dead interval during network congestion caused by an LSA
storm.

In order to improve the scalability and stability of networks networks, we
recommend steps for prioritizing critical OSPF packets and avoiding

Choudhury et. al. Best Current Practice [Page 2]

Internet Draft Prioritized Treatment Expires - June, 2005
congestion. The details of the recommendations are given in Section
2. A simulation study is reported in [Ref14] [Ref13] that quantifies the
congestion phenomenon and its impact. It also studies several of the
recommendations and shows that they indeed improve the scalability
and stability of networks using OSPF protocol. [Ref14] [Ref13] is available
on request by contacting the editor or one of the authors.

Choudhury, Ed. Best Current Practice [Page 2]

RFC 4222 Prioritized Treatment October 2005

Appendix A explains in more detail LSA storm scenarios, their impact,
and points out a few real-life examples of control-
message control-message storms.
Appendix B provides a list of variables used in the recommendations
and their example values. Appendix C provides some further
recommendations and suggestions with similar goals.

2. Recommendations

The Recommendations recommendations below are intended to improve the scalability and
stability of large networks using OSPF protocol. During periods of
network congestion congestion, they would reduce retransmissions, avoid an
adjacency to be declared down due to Hello packets being delayed
beyond the RouterDeadInterval, and take other congestion avoidance
steps. The recommendations are unordered except that Recommendation
2 is to be implemented only if Recommendation 1 is not implemented.

(1) Classify all OSPF packets in two classes: a "high priority" class
comprising of OSPF Hello packets and Link State
Acknowledgment Acknowledgement
packets, and a "low priority" class comprising of all other packets.
The classification is accomplished by examining the OSPF packet
header. While receiving a packet from a neighbor and while
transmitting a packet to a neighbor, try to process a "high
priority" packet ahead of a "low priority" packet.

The prioritized processing while transmitting may cause OSPF
packets from a neighbor to be received out of sequence. If
Cryptographic Authentication (AuType = 2) is used (as specified
in [Ref1]) [Ref1]), then successive received valid OSPF packets from a
neighbor need to have a non-decreasing "Cryptographic sequence
number". To comply with this requirement requirement, we recommend that in
case Cryptographic Authentication (AuType = 2) is used [Ref1],
prioritized processing be not be done at the transmitter. This will
avoid packets arriving at the receiver out of sequence. However,
after security processing at the receiver (including sequence
number checking) is complete, the OSPF packets may be kept in a "high-priority"
"high priority" queue or a "low-priority" "low priority" queue based on their
class and processed accordingly. The benefit of prioritized
processing is clearly higher in the absence of Cryptographic
Authentication since in that case prioritization can be
implemented both at the transmitter and at the receiver.
However, even with Cryptographic Authentication it will be
beneficial to have prioritization only at the receiver (following

Choudhury et. al. Best Current Practice [Page 3]

Internet Draft Prioritized Treatment Expires - June, 2005
security processing).

(2) If the Recommendation 1 cannot be implemented implemented, then reset the
inactivity timer for an adjacency whenever any OSPF unicast
packet or any OSPF packet sent to AllSPFRouters over a
point-to-point point-to-
point link is received over that adjacency instead of resetting

Choudhury, Ed. Best Current Practice [Page 3]

RFC 4222 Prioritized Treatment October 2005

the inactivity timer only on receipt of the Hello packet. So
OSPF would declare the adjacency to be down only if no OSPF
unicast packets or no OSPF packets sent to AllSPFRouters over a
point-to-point link are received over that adjacency for a period
equaling or exceeding the RouterDeadInterval. The reason for not
recommending this proposal in conjunction with Recommendation 1
is to avoid potential undesirable side effects. One such effect
is the delay in discovering the down status of an adjacency in a
case where no high priority Hello packets are being received but
the inactivity timer is being reset by other stale packets in the
low priority queue.

(3) Use an exponential backoff algorithm for determining the value of
the LSA retransmission interval (RxmtInterval). Let R(i)
represent the RxmtInterval value used during the i-th
retransmission of an LSA. Use the following algorithm to compute R(i)
R(i).

R(1) = Rmin
R(i+1) = Min(KR(i),Rmax) for i>=1

where K, Rmin Rmin, and Rmax are constants and the function Min(.,.)
represents the minimum value of its two arguments. Example
values for K, Rmin Rmin, and Rmax may be 2, 5 seconds 5, and 40 seconds seconds,
respectively. Note that the example value for Rmin, the initial
retransmission interval, is the same as the sample value of
RxmtInterval in [Ref1].

This recommendation is motivated by the observation that during a
network congestion event caused by control messages, a major
source for sustaining the congestion is the repeated
retransmission of LSAs. The use of an exponential backoff
algorithm for the LSA retransmission interval reduces the rate of
LSA retransmissions while the network experiences congestion
(during which it is more likely that multiple retransmissions of
the same LSA would happen). This in turn helps the network get
out of the congested state.

(4) Implicit Congestion Detection and Action Based on That: If there
is control message congestion at a router, its neighbors do not
know about that explicitly. However, they can implicitly detect
it based on the number of unacknowledged LSAs to this router. If
this number exceeds a certain "high
water mark" "high-water mark", then the rate at
which LSAs are sent to this router

Choudhury et. al. Best Current Practice [Page 4]

Internet Draft Prioritized Treatment Expires - June, 2005 should be reduced
progressively using an exponential backoff mechanism but not
below a certain minimum rate. At a future time, if the number of
unacknowledged LSAs to this router falls below a certain "low "low-
water mark" mark", then the rate of sending LSAs to this router should

Choudhury, Ed. Best Current Practice [Page 4]

RFC 4222 Prioritized Treatment October 2005

be increased progressively, again using an exponential backoff
mechanism but not above a certain maximum rate. The whole
algorithm is given below. It is to be
noted Note that this algorithm is to be
applied independently to each neighbor and only for unicast LSAs
sent to a neighbor or LSAs sent to AllSPFRouters over a point-to-point point-
to-point link.

Let,
U(t) = Number of unacknowledged LSAs to neighbor at time t.
H = A high water high-water mark (in units of number of unacknowledged LSAs)
LSAs).
L = A low water low-water mark (in units of number of unacknowledged LSAs) LSAs).
G(t) = Gap between sending successive LSAs to neighbor at time t.
F = The factor by which the above gap is to be increased during
congestion and decreased after coming out of congestion.
T = Minimum time that has to elapse before the existing gap
is considered for change.
Gmin = Minimum allowed value of gap.
Gmax = Maximum allowed value of gap.

Min(.,.) and Max(.,.) represent the minimum and maximum values of
the two arguments arguments, respectively.

Example values for the various parameters of the algorithm are as
follows: H = 20, L = 10, F = 2, T = 1 second, Gmin = 20 ms, Gmax
= 1 second.

Recommendations 3 and 4 both slow down LSAs to congested
neighbors based on implicitly detecting the congestion congestion, but they
have important differences. Recommendation 3 progressively slows
down successive retransmissions of the same LSA LSA, whereas
Recommendation 3 4 progressively slows down all LSAs (new or
retransmission) to a congested neighbor.

(5) Throttling Adjacencies to be Be Brought Up Simultaneously: If a
router tries to bring up a large number of adjacencies to its
neighbors simultaneously simultaneously, then that may cause severe congestion
due to database synchronization and LSA flooding

Choudhury et. al. Best Current Practice [Page 5]

Internet Draft Prioritized Treatment Expires - June, 2005 activities. It
is recommended that during such a situation no more than "n"

Choudhury, Ed. Best Current Practice [Page 5]

RFC 4222 Prioritized Treatment October 2005

adjacencies should be brought up simultaneously. Once a subset
of adjacencies have has been brought up successfully, newer
adjacencies may be brought up as long as the number of
simultaneous adjacencies being brought up does not exceed "n".
The appropriate value of "n" would depend on the router
processing power, total bandwidth available for control plane traffic
traffic, and propagation delay. The value of "n" should be
configurable.

In the presence of throttling, an important issue is the order in
which adjacencies are to be formed. We recommend a First Come
First Served (FCFS) policy based on the order in which the
request for adjacency formation arrives. Requests may either be
from neighbors or self-generated. Among the self-generated
requests
requests, a priority list may be used to decide the order in
which the requests are to be made. However, once an adjacency
formation process starts it is not to be preempted except for
unusual circumstances such as errors or time-outs.

In some of the Recommendations above recommendations above, we refer to point-to-point
links. Those references should also include cases where a broadcast
network is to be treated as a point-to-point connection from the
standpoint of IP routing [Ref5]

3. Security Considerations

This memo does not create any new security issues for the OSPF
protocol.

4. Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the support and helpful comments from
OSPF WG chairs Rohit Dube, Acee Lindem, and John Moy, Moy; Routing Area
directors Alex Zinin and Bill Fenner, Fenner; and IESG reviewers. We
acknowledge Vivek Dube, Mitchell Erblich, Mike Fox, Tony Przygienda,
and Krishna Rao for comments on previous versions of the draft. document.
We also acknowledge Margaret Chiosi, Elie Francis, Jeff Han, Beth
Munson, Roshan Rao, Moshe Segal, Mike Wardlow, and Pat Wirth for
collaboration and encouragement in our scalability improvement
efforts for Link-State-Protocol based Link State Protocol-based networks.

5. Normative Reference References

[Ref1] J. Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April, April 1998.

[Ref2] R. Coltun, D. Ferguson R., Ferguson, D., and J. Moy, "OSPF For IPV6", for IPv6", RFC
2740, December, December 1999.

Choudhury et. al.

Choudhury, Ed. Best Current Practice [Page 6]

Internet Draft

RFC 4222 Prioritized Treatment Expires - June, October 2005

6. Informative References

[Ref3] D. Katz, K. D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2," 2", RFC 3630, September, September 2003.

[Ref4] C. Alaettinoglu, V. Jacobson and H. Yu, "Towards Milli-
second Millisecond
IGP Convergence," Convergence", Work in Progress.

[Ref5] N. Shen, A. Lindem, J. Yuan, A. Zinin, R. White and S.
Previdi, "Point-to-point operation over LAN in link-state
routing protocols," protocols", Work in Progress.

[Ref6] Pappalardo, D., "AT&T, customers grapple with ATM net
outage,"
outage", Network World, February 26, 2001.

[Ref7] "AT&T announces cause of frame-relay network outage," AT&T
Press Release, April 22, 1998.

[Ref8] Cholewka, K., "MCI Outage Has Domino Effect," Effect", Inter@ctive
Week, August 20, 1999.

[Ref9] Jander, M., "In Qwest Outage, ATM Takes Some Heat," Heat", Light
Reading, April 6, 2001.

[Ref10] A. Zinin and M. Shand, "Flooding Optimizations in Link-State
Routing Protocols," Protocols", Work in Progress.

[Ref11] P. Pillay-Esnault, P., "OSPF Refresh and flooding reduction in
stable topologies," Work Flooding Reduction in progress.
Stable Topologies", RFC 4136, July 2005.

[Ref12] G. Ash, G. Choudhury, V. Sapozhnikova, M. Sherif, A. Maunder,
V. Manral, "Congestion Avoidance & Control for OSPF
Networks", Work in Progress.

[Ref13] B. M. Waxman, "Routing of Multipoint Connections," IEEE
Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 6(9):1617-1622, 1988.

[Ref14] G. Choudhury, G. Ash, V. Manral, A. Maunder and V.
Sapozhnikova, "Prioritized Treatment of Specific OSPF Packets
and Congestion Avoidance: Algorithms and Simulations," Simulations", AT&T
Technical Report, August, August 2003.

[Ref15] K.

[Ref14] Nichols, S. K., Blake, F. Baker S., Baker, F., and D. Black, "Definition
of the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPV4 IPv4
and IPV6 IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, December, December 1998.

Choudhury et. al.

Choudhury, Ed. Best Current Practice [Page 7]

Internet Draft

RFC 4222 Prioritized Treatment Expires - June, October 2005

7. Contributing Authors and their Addresses

In addition to the Editor, several people contributed to this
document. The names and contact information of all authors
are given below.

Gagan L. Choudhury Anurag S. Maunder
AT&T Erlang Technology
Room D5-3C21 2880 Scott Boulevard
200 Laurel Avenue Santa Clara, CA 95052
Middletown, NJ, 07748 USA
USA Phone: (408)420-7617
Phone: (732)420-3721 email: anuragm@erlangtech.com
email: gchoudhury@att.com

Gerald R. Ash Vera D. Sapozhnikova
AT&T AT&T
Room D5-2A01 Room C5-2C29
200 Laurel Avenue 200 Laurel Avenue
Middletown, NJ, 07748 Middletown, NJ, 07748
USA USA
Phone: (732)420-4578 Phone: (732)420-2653
email: gash@att.com email: sapozhnikova@att.com

Vishwas Manral
Sinett Semiconductors,
Infantry Road,
Bangalore 500 081
India
email: vishwas@sinett.com

Appendix A. LSA Storm: Causes and Impact

An LSA storm may be initiated due to many reasons. Here are some
examples:

(a) one or more link failures due to fiber cuts,

(b) one or more router failures for some reason, e.g., software crash
or some type of disaster (including power outage) in an office
complex hosting many routers,

(d) requirement of taking down and later bringing back many routers
during a software/hardware upgrade,

Choudhury et. al. Best Current Practice [Page 8]

Internet Draft Prioritized Treatment Expires - June, 2005

(e) near-synchronization near synchronization of the periodic 1800 second 1800-second LSA refreshes of
a subset of LSAs,

(f) refresh of all LSAs in the system during a change in software
version,

(g) injecting a large number of external routes to OSPF due to a
procedural error,

(h) Router ID changes causing a large number of LSA re-originations
(possibly LSA purges as well depending on the implementation).

In addition to the LSAs originated as a direct result of link/router
failures, there may be other indirect LSAs as well. One example in
MPLS networks is traffic engineering LSAs [Ref3] originated at other
links as a result of significant change changes in reserved bandwidth
resulting bandwidth.
These result from rerouting of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) that went
down during the link/router failure. The LSA storm causes high CPU
and memory utilization at the router processor causing incoming
packets to be delayed or dropped. Delayed acknowledgments (beyond
the retransmission timer value) results in retransmissions, and
delayed Hello packets (beyond the Router-Dead interval) results in
links being declared down. A trunk-down event causes Router router LSA
origination by its end-point routers. If traffic engineering LSAs
are used for each link link, then that type of LSAs LSA would also be
originated by the end-point routers and potentially elsewhere as well
due to significant changes in reserved bandwidths at other links
caused by the failure and reroute of LSPs originally using the failed
trunk. Eventually, when the link recovers that would also trigger
additional Router router LSAs and traffic engineering LSAs.

Choudhury, Ed. Best Current Practice [Page 8]

RFC 4222 Prioritized Treatment October 2005

The retransmissions and additional LSA originations result in further
CPU and memory usage, essentially causing a positive feedback loop.
We define the LSA storm size as the number of LSAs in the original
storm and
storm, not counting any additional LSAs resulting from the feedback
loop described above. If the LSA storm is too large large, then the
positive feedback loop mentioned above may be large enough to
indefinitely sustain a large CPU and memory utilization at many
routers in the network, thereby driving the network to an unstable
state. In the past, network outage events have been reported in IP
and ATM networks using link-state protocols such as OSPF, IS-IS, PNNI
Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS), Private Network-
Network Interface (PNNI), or some proprietary variants. See for
example [Ref6-Ref9]. In many of these examples,
large scale large-scale flooding
of LSAs or other similar control messages (either naturally or
triggered by some bug or inappropriate procedure) have been partly or
fully responsible for network instability and outage.

In [Ref14] [Ref13], a simulation model is used to show that there

Choudhury et. al. Best Current Practice [Page 9]

Internet Draft Prioritized Treatment Expires - June, 2005 is a
certain LSA storm size threshold above which the network may show
unstable behavior caused by a large number of retransmissions, link
failures due to missed Hello packets packets, and subsequent link recoveries.
It is also shown that the LSA storm size causing instability may be
substantially increased by providing prioritized treatment to Hello
and LSA Acknowledgment packets and by using an exponential backoff
algorithm for determining the LSA retransmission interval. If it is
not possible to prioritize Hello packets packets, then resetting the
inactivity timer on receiving any valid OSPF packets can also provide
the same benefit. Furthermore, if we prioritize Hello
packets packets, then
even when the network operates somewhat above the stability
threshold, links are not declared down due to missed Hellos. This
implies that even though there is control plane congestion due to
many retransmissions, the data plane stays up and no new LSAs are
originated (besides the ones in the original storm and the
refreshes). These observations support the first three
recommendations in Section 2. The authors of this
draft document have also
done simulations to verify that the other recommendations in Section
2 helps help avoid congestion and allows allow a graceful exit from a congested
state.

One might argue that the scalability issue of large networks should
be solved solely by dividing the network hierarchically into multiple
areas so that flooding of LSAs remains localized within areas.
However, this approach increases the network management and design
complexity and may result in less optimal routing between areas.
Also, ASE Autonomous System External (ASE) LSAs are flooded throughout
the AS AS, and it may be a problem if there are large numbers of them.
Furthermore, a large number of summary LSAs may need to be flooded
across
Areas areas, and their numbers would increase significantly if

Choudhury, Ed. Best Current Practice [Page 9]

RFC 4222 Prioritized Treatment October 2005

multiple Area Border Routers are employed for the purpose of
reliability. Thus Thus, it is important to allow the network to grow
towards as large a size as possible under a single area.

The recommendations in the draft document are synergistic with a broader
set of scalability and stability improvement proposals. [Ref10]
proposes flooding overhead reduction in case more than one interface
goes to the same neighbor. [Ref11] proposes a mechanism for greatly
reducing LSA refreshes in stable topologies.

[Ref12] proposes a wide range of congestion control and failure
recovery mechanisms (some of those ideas are covered in this
draft
document, but [Ref12] has other ideas not covered here).

Appendix B. List of Variables and Values

F = The factor by which the gap between sending successive LSAs to
a neighbor is to be increased during congestion and decreased
after coming out of congestion (used in Recommendation 4).
Example value is 2.

Choudhury et. al. Best Current Practice [Page 10]

Internet Draft Prioritized Treatment Expires - June, 2005

G(t) = Gap between sending successive LSAs to a neighbor at time t
(used in Recommendation 4).

Gmax = Maximum allowed value of gap between sending successive LSAs
to a neighbor (used in Recommendation 4). Example value is 1
second.

Gmin = Minimum allowed value of gap between sending successive LSAs
to a neighbor (used in Recommendation 4). Example value is 20
ms.

H = A high water high-water mark (in units of number of unacknowledged LSAs).
Exceeding this mark would trigger a potential increase in the
gap between sending successive LSAs to a neighbor. (used in
Recommendation 4). Example value is 20.

K = A multiplicative constant used in increasing the RxmtInterval
value used during successive retransmissions of the same LSA
(used in Recommendation 3). Example value is 2.

L = A low water low-water mark (in units of number of unacknowledged LSAs)
Dropping below this mark would trigger a potential decrease in
the gap between sending successive LSAs to a neighbor. (used
in Recommendation 4). Example value is 10.

n = Upper limit on the number of adjacencies to be brought up
simultaneously (used in Recommendation 5).

Choudhury, Ed. Best Current Practice [Page 10]

RFC 4222 Prioritized Treatment October 2005

R(i) = RxmtInterval value used during the i-th retransmission of an
LSA (used in Recommendation 3).

Rmax = The maximum allowed value of RxmtInterval (used in
Recommendation 3). Example value is 40 seconds.

Rmin = The minimum allowed value of RxmtInterval (used in
Recommendation 3). Example value is 5 seconds.

T = Minimum time that has to elapse before the existing gap
between sending successive LSAs to a neighbor is considered
for change (used in Recommendation 4). Example value is 1
second.

U(t) = Number of unacknowledged LSAs to a neighbor at time t (used in
Recommendation 4).

Appendix C. Other Recommendations and Suggestions

(1) Explicit Marking: In Section 2 2, we recommended that OSPF packets
be classified to "high" and "low" priority classes based on
examining the OSPF packet header. In some cases (particularly

Choudhury et. al. Best Current Practice [Page 11]

Internet Draft Prioritized Treatment Expires - June, 2005 in
the receiver) receiver), this examination may be computationally costly.
An alternative would be the use of different TOS/Precedence field
settings for the two priority classes. [Ref1] recommends setting
the TOS field to 0 and the Precedence field to 6 for all OSPF
packets. We recommend this same setting for the "low" priority
OSPF packets and a different setting for the "high" priority OSPF
packets in order to be able to classify them separately without
having to examine the OSPF packet header. Two examples are given
below:

Example 1: For "low" priority packets packets, set TOS field to 0 and
Precedence field to 6, and for "high" priority packets
set TOS field to 4 and Precedence field to 6.

Example 2: For "low" priority packets packets, set TOS field to 0 and
Precedence field to 6, and for "high" priority packets
set TOS field to 0 and Precedence field to 7.

It is to be noted

Note that the TOS/Precedence bits have been redefined by Diffserv
(RFC 2474, [Ref15]). It is also to be
noted [Ref14]). Also note that the different TOS/Precedence
field settings suggested above only need to be agreed among the
systems on the link. This recommendation is not needed to be
followed if it is easy to examine the OSPF packet header and
thereby separately classify "high" and "low" priority packets.

Choudhury, Ed. Best Current Practice [Page 11]

RFC 4222 Prioritized Treatment October 2005

(2) Further Prioritization of OSPF Packets: Besides the packets
designated as "high" priority in Recommendation 1 of Section 2 2,
there may be a need for further priority separation among the
"low" priority OSPF packets. We recommend the use of three
priority classes: "high", "medium" and "low". While receiving a
packet from a neighbor and while transmitting a packet to a
neighbor, try to process a "high priority" packet ahead of
"medium" and "low" priority packets and a "medium" priority
packet ahead of "low priority" packets. The "high" priority
packets are as designated in Recommendation 1 of Section 2. We
provide below two candidate examples for "medium" priority
packets. All OSPF packets not designated as "high" or "medium"
priority are "low" priority. If Cryptographic Authentication
(AuType = 2) is used (as specified in [Ref1]) [Ref1]), then prioritized
treatment is to be provided only at the receiver and after
security processing, but not at the transmitter since that may
cause packets to arrive out of sequence and violate the
requirements of "Autype = 2".

One example of "medium" priority packet is the Database
Description (DBD) packet from a slave (during the database
synchronization process) that is used as an acknowledgment.

Choudhury et. al. Best Current Practice [Page 12]

Internet Draft Prioritized Treatment Expires - June, 2005

A second example is an LSA carrying intra-area topology change
information (this may trigger SPF calculation and rerouting of
Label Switched paths and Paths, so fast processing of this packet may
improve OSPF/LDP OSPF/Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) convergence
times). However, if the processing cost of identifying and
separately queueing the LSA in this example is deemed to be high high,
then the implementer may decide not to do it.

(3) Processing large number a Large Number of LSA Purges: Occasionally Occasionally, some
events in the network, such as Router router ID changes, may result in a
large number of LSA re-originations and LSA purges. In such a scenario
scenario, one may consider processing LSAs in different order,
e.g., processing LSA purges ahead of LSA originations. We,
however, do not recommend out-of-order LSA processing for several
reasons.
Firstly, First, detecting the LSA type ahead of queueing may be
computationally expensive. Out-of-order processing may also
cause subtle bugs. We do not want to recommend a major change in
the LSA processing paradigm for a relatively rare event such as
Router
router ID change. However, a Router router with a changing ID may flush
the old LSAs gradually without causing a storm.

Choudhury, Ed. Best Current Practice [Page 12]

RFC 4222 Prioritized Treatment October 2005

Contributing Authors and Their Addresses

In addition to the editor, several people contributed to this
document. The names and contact information of all authors are given
below.

Anurag S. Maunder
Erlang Technology
2880 Scott Boulevard
Santa Clara, CA 95052
USA

Phone: (408) 420-7617
EMail: anuragm@erlangtech.com

Gerald R. Ash
AT&T
Room D5-2A01
200 Laurel Avenue
Middletown, NJ, 07748
USA

Phone: (732) 420-4578
EMail: gash@att.com

Vishwas Manral
Sinett Corp,
2/1 Embassy Icon Annex,
Infantry Road,
Bangalore 560 001
India

Phone: +91-(805)-137-7023
EMail: vishwas@sinett.com

Vera D. Sapozhnikova
AT&T
Room C5-2C29
200 Laurel Avenue
Middletown, NJ, 07748
USA

Phone: (732) 420-2653
EMail: sapozhnikova@att.com

Choudhury, Ed. Best Current Practice [Page 13]

RFC 4222 Prioritized Treatment October 2005

Editor's Address

Gagan L. Choudhury
AT&T
Room D5-3C21
200 Laurel Avenue
Middletown, NJ, 07748
USA

Phone: (732) 420-3721
EMail: gchoudhury@att.com

Choudhury, Ed. Best Current Practice [Page 14]

RFC 4222 Prioritized Treatment October 2005

Full copyright statement Copyright Statement

This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.

This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property Considerations

The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an

Choudhury et. al. Best Current Practice [Page 13]

Internet Draft Prioritized Treatment Expires - June, 2005
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

Choudhury et. al. ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement

Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.

Choudhury, Ed. Best Current Practice [Page 14] 15]

----