RFC 5670: Metering and Marking Behaviour of PCN-Nodes
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
The objective of Pre-Congestion Notification (PCN) is to protect the quality of service (QoS) of inelastic flows within a Diffserv domain in a simple, scalable, and robust fashion. This document defines the two metering and marking behaviours of PCN-nodes. Threshold-metering and -marking marks all PCN-packets if the rate of PCN-traffic is greater than a configured rate ("PCN-threshold-rate"). Excess- traffic-metering and -marking marks a proportion of PCN-packets, such that the amount marked equals the rate of PCN-traffic in excess of a configured rate ("PCN-excess-rate"). The level of marking allows PCN-boundary-nodes to make decisions about whether to admit or terminate PCN-flows. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC5670
- Published
- November 2009
- Authors
- P. Eardley
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- tsv
- Pages
- 20
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 5651Layered Coding Transport (LCT) Building BlockCurrent
October 2009
- RFC 5696Baseline Encoding and Transport of Pre-Congestion InformationObsoleted
November 2009
- RFC 5634Quick-Start for the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)Current
August 2009
- RFC 5622Profile for Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) Congestion ID 4: TCP-Friendly Rate Control for Small Packets (TFRC-SP)Updated
August 2009
- RFC 5740NACK-Oriented Reliable Multicast (NORM) Transport ProtocolCurrent
November 2009
- RFC 5597Network Address Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for the Datagram Congestion Control ProtocolCurrent
September 2009
- RFC 5596Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) Simultaneous-Open Technique to Facilitate NAT/Middlebox TraversalCurrent
September 2009
- RFC 5595The Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) Service CodesUpdated
September 2009
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?