RFC 9894 PROPOSED STANDARD DLEP · FLOW CONTROL · DIFFSERV

DLEP Diffserv credits: Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Diffserv Aware Credit Window Extension

How a modem tells a router which queue to send to, matched by destination and Diffserv class.

On rfc-editor.org ↗
PUBLISHED
January 2026
AUTHORS
B. Cheng, D. Wiggins, L. Berger, D. Eastlake 3rd
STREAM
IETF
DLEP EXTENSION TYPE VALUE
6
CREDIT WINDOWS
One or more, each typically with a virtual or physical queue
WINDOW SCOPE
Shared across destinations and DSCPs, or dedicated to one
DSCP WILDCARD
Supported, matches any DSCP
DIFFSERV AND ETHERNET BOTH SET
The Ethernet information takes precedence
NO CREDIT AVAILABLE
The router MUST NOT send that traffic to the modem
DOI
10.17487/RFC9894

RFC text

Contents
Original text · RFC Editor View on rfc-editor.org ↗
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                          B. Cheng
Request for Comments: 9894                        MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Category: Standards Track                                     D. Wiggins
ISSN: 2070-1721
                                                               L. Berger
                                                 LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
                                                    D. Eastlake 3rd, Ed.
                                                             Independent
                                                            January 2026


   Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Diffserv Aware Credit Window
                               Extension

Abstract

   This document defines an extension to the Dynamic Link Exchange
   Protocol (DLEP) that enables a Diffserv aware credit window scheme
   for destination-specific and shared flow control.

Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9894.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
   Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
   in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction
     1.1.  Key Words
   2.  Extension Usage and Identification
   3.  Management Considerations
   4.  Security Considerations
   5.  IANA Considerations
   6.  References
     6.1.  Normative References
     6.2.  Informative References
   Acknowledgments
   Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

   The Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) is defined in [RFC8175].
   The protocol provides the exchange of link-related control
   information between DLEP peers.  DLEP peers consist of a modem and a
   router.  DLEP defines a base set of mechanisms as well as support for
   possible extensions.  This document defines one such extension.

   The DLEP specification does not include any flow control capability.
   Various flow control techniques are theoretically possible with DLEP.
   This document defines a DLEP extension that provides a Diffserv-based
   flow control mechanism for traffic sent from a router to a modem.
   Flow control is provided using one or more logical "credit windows",
   each of which will typically be supported by an associated virtual or
   physical queue.  A router will use traffic flow classification
   information provided by the modem to identify which traffic is
   associated with each credit window.  Credit windows may be shared or
   dedicated on a per-flow basis.  See [RFC9895] for an Ethernet-based
   version of credit window flow control.  As specified in Section 2.3.1
   of [RFC9892], when both Diffserv and Ethernet traffic classification
   are specified for a flow, the Ethernet information takes precedence.

   This document uses the traffic classification and credit window flow
   control mechanisms defined in [RFC9892] and [RFC9893] to provide
   credit-window-based flow control based on DLEP destinations and
   Differentiated Services Code Points (DSCPs) [RFC2475].  The defined
   mechanism allows for credit windows to be shared across traffic sent
   to multiple DLEP destinations and DSCPs, or used exclusively for
   traffic sent to a particular destination and/or DSCP.  The extension
   also supports the "wildcard" matching of any DSCP.

   The extension defined in this document is referred to as the
   "Diffserv Aware Credit Window" or, more simply, the "DA Credit"
   extension.  The reader should be familiar with both the traffic
   classification and credit window flow control mechanisms defined in
   [RFC9892] and [RFC9893].

   This document defines a new DLEP Extension Type value that is used to
   indicate support for the extension.  See Section 2.

1.1.  Key Words

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

2.  Extension Usage and Identification

   The extension defined in this document is built on the mechanisms and
   processing defined in [RFC9892] and [RFC9893].  To indicate that the
   Diffserv Aware Credit Window Extension is to be used, an
   implementation MUST include the Diffserv Aware Credit Window
   Extension Type value in the Extensions Supported Data Item (see
   Section 13.6 of [RFC8175]).  The Extensions Supported Data Item is
   sent and processed according to [RFC8175].  Any implementation that
   indicates the use of the Diffserv Aware Credit Window Extension MUST
   support all message types, Data Items, the Diffserv Traffic
   Classification Sub-Data Item, and all related processing defined in
   [RFC9892] and [RFC9893].

   The Diffserv Aware Credit Window Extension Type value is 6.  See
   Section 5.

3.  Management Considerations

   This section provides several network management guidelines for
   implementations supporting the Diffserv Aware Credit Window
   Extension.

   If this extension is supported, that support MUST be declared using
   the Extensions Supported Data Item (see Section 13.6 of [RFC8175]).
   Diffserv Aware Credit Window Extension Data Items MUST NOT be emitted
   by a DLEP participant unless such support was specified in the
   initialization message received from its peer.  The use of the
   extension defined in this document SHOULD be configurable on both
   modems and routers.  That configuration can be implemented using a
   proprietary Command-Line Interface or by implementing a YANG module.
   The definition of the YANG module is out of scope for this document.

   Modems SHOULD support the configuration of mapping a DSCP to a credit
   window (queue).

   Modems MAY support the configuration of the number of credit windows
   (queues) to advertise to a router.

   Routers may have limits on the number of queues that they can support
   and limits on supported credit window combinations.  Per-destination
   queues might not be supported at all.  When credit window information
   provided by a modem exceeds the capabilities of a router, the router
   SHOULD use a subset of the provided credit windows.  Alternatively, a
   router MAY reset the session and indicate that the extension is not
   supported.  In either case, any mismatch in capabilities SHOULD be
   reported to the user via normal network management mechanisms, such
   as user interface messages or error logging.

   In all cases, if credit windows are in use, traffic for which credits
   are not available MUST NOT be sent to the modem by the router.

4.  Security Considerations

   This document defines a DLEP extension that uses DLEP mechanisms and
   the credit window flow control mechanisms defined in [RFC9892] and
   [RFC9893].  See also the Security Considerations sections of those
   documents.

   The defined extension is exposed to vulnerabilities similar to
   existing DLEP messages and discussed in the Security Considerations
   section of [RFC8175], such as an injected message resizing a credit
   window to a value that results in a denial of service.  The security
   mechanisms documented in [RFC8175] can be applied equally to the
   mechanism defined in this document.

   Wildcards for matching Priority Code Point (PCP) and VLAN Identifier
   (VID) fields (see [RFC9895]) are provided.  Note that wildcards may
   be convenient for matching a number of packet flows but could
   inadvertently match unexpected flows or new flows that appear after
   the wildcard matching has been set up.  It is therefore RECOMMENDED
   that wildcards not be used unless needed.

5.  IANA Considerations

   IANA has assigned the following code point in the "Extension Type
   Values" registry in the "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)
   Parameters" registry group:

                  +======+==============================+
                  | Code | Description                  |
                  +======+==============================+
                  | 6    | Diffserv Aware Credit Window |
                  +------+------------------------------+

                       Table 1: Extension Type Value


6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8175]  Ratliff, S., Jury, S., Satterwhite, D., Taylor, R., and B.
              Berry, "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)", RFC 8175,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8175, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8175>.

   [RFC9892]  Cheng, B., Wiggins, D., Berger, L., and D. Fedyk, Ed.,
              "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Traffic
              Classification Data Item", RFC 9892, DOI 10.17487/RFC9892,
              January 2026, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9892>.

   [RFC9893]  Cheng, B., Wiggins, D., Ratliff, S., Berger, L., and E.
              Kinzie, Ed., "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)
              Credit-Based Flow Control Messages and Data Items",
              RFC 9893, DOI 10.17487/RFC9893, January 2026,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9893>.

6.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2475]  Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
              and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
              Services", RFC 2475, DOI 10.17487/RFC2475, December 1998,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2475>.

   [RFC9895]  Wiggins, D., Berger, L., and D. Eastlake 3rd, Ed.,
              "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) IEEE 802.1Q Aware
              Credit Window Extension", RFC 9895, DOI 10.17487/RFC9895,
              January 2026, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9895>.

Acknowledgments

   Many useful comments were received from contributors to the MANET
   Working Group, notably Ronald in 't Velt.

   We had the honor of working too briefly with David Wiggins on this
   and related DLEP work.  His contribution to the IETF and publication
   of the first and definitive open-source DLEP implementation have been
   critical to the acceptance of DLEP.  We mourn his passing on November
   26, 2023.  We wish to recognize his guidance, leadership, and
   professional excellence.  We were fortunate to benefit from his
   leadership and friendship.  He shall be missed.

Authors' Addresses

   Bow-Nan Cheng
   MIT Lincoln Laboratory
   Massachusetts Institute of Technology
   244 Wood Street
   Lexington, MA 02421-6426
   United States of America
   Email: bcheng@ll.mit.edu


   David Wiggins


   Lou Berger
   LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
   Email: lberger@labn.net


   Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (editor)
   Independent
   2386 Panoramic Circle
   Apopka, FL 32703
   United States of America
   Phone: +1-508-333-2270
   Email: d3e3e3@gmail.com

ISO Plain Language

On this page
PROBLEMDLEP exchanges link control information between a router and a modem, but the base specification has no way to slow the router down when the modem's queues fill up.
MECHANISMThe document adds the Diffserv Aware Credit Window extension. The modem advertises credit windows, the router classifies each packet by DLEP destination and DSCP to find the matching window, and sends the packet only while that window has credit.
WHAT IT ADDSCredit windows can be shared across destinations and DSCP values or reserved for one of them, and a router MUST NOT send traffic whose window has no credit. IANA has assigned the extension Extension Type value 6.

§1Introduction

The Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP), defined in RFC 8175, lets two peers exchange control information about a link. A DLEP session runs between a modem and a router. DLEP defines a base set of mechanisms and a way to add extensions, and this document defines one such extension.

The base DLEP specification includes no flow control at all, and that is the gap this document fills. The extension provides flow control for the traffic a router sends to a modem, using one or more logical credit windows. Each window is typically supported by an associated virtual or physical queue. A credit is permission to send: the router uses the traffic classification information supplied by the modem to work out which window a packet belongs to, and sends that packet only while the window has credits left.

The mechanism reuses the traffic classification and credit window flow control mechanisms defined in RFC 9892 and RFC 9893, and adds the Diffserv dimension on top. The result is called the Diffserv Aware Credit Window extension, or more simply the DA Credit extension. Where both Diffserv and Ethernet traffic classification are specified for a flow, as in Section 2.3.1 of RFC 9892, the Ethernet information takes precedence.

DLEP is how a router and a modem exchange link information. It has no built-in way to slow the router down when the modem's queues fill. This document adds credit windows: the modem lists them, and the router checks that the window a packet belongs to still has credit before sending it.

HOW A CREDIT WINDOW CAN BE SCOPED
Credit windowWhat it covers
SharedTraffic sent to multiple DLEP destinations and DSCPs.
DedicatedTraffic sent to a particular destination and/or DSCP.
Wildcard DSCPAny DSCP.
Diffserv and Ethernet both setThe Ethernet information takes precedence.

§2Extension Usage and Identification

An implementation signals that it uses the extension by including the Diffserv Aware Credit Window Extension Type value in the Extensions Supported Data Item, which is described in Section 13.6 of RFC 8175. That data item is sent and processed according to RFC 8175.

Support is all or nothing in a specific sense. An implementation that indicates use of the Diffserv Aware Credit Window extension MUST support all message types, data items, the Diffserv Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item and all related processing defined in RFC 9892 and RFC 9893. The Extension Type value assigned to the extension is 6.

A router and a modem say they support the extension by listing it in the data item that carries supported extensions. Once listed, the implementation has to handle everything the two supporting documents define, not just the Diffserv matching.

§3Management Considerations

Support for the extension MUST be declared using the Extensions Supported Data Item, and Diffserv Aware Credit Window data items MUST NOT be emitted by a DLEP participant unless that support was specified in the initialization message received from its peer. The use of the extension SHOULD be configurable on both modems and routers. That configuration can be implemented with a proprietary command-line interface or by implementing a YANG module, whose definition is out of scope for this document.

On the modem side, the document says modems SHOULD support configuring the mapping of a DSCP to a credit window, that is, to a queue. Modems MAY support configuring the number of credit windows to advertise to a router.

Routers have limits of their own. A router may support only a few queues, may not support per-destination queues at all, and may not support every combination of credit windows. When the credit window information a modem provides exceeds the capabilities of a router, the router SHOULD use a subset of the provided credit windows. Alternatively, a router MAY reset the session and indicate that the extension is not supported. In either case, any mismatch in capabilities SHOULD be reported to the user through normal network management mechanisms, such as user interface messages or error logging.

One rule holds in all cases: while credit windows are in use, traffic for which credits are not available MUST NOT be sent to the modem by the router.

Both ends should let an operator turn the feature on or off, and a modem should let an operator map each Diffserv class to a queue. If a modem advertises more windows than a router can handle, the router uses the ones it can and tells the operator about the mismatch. The rule that never bends: a router does not send traffic that has no credit left.

§4Security Considerations

The extension uses DLEP mechanisms and the credit window flow control mechanisms defined in RFC 9892 and RFC 9893, so the Security Considerations sections of those documents apply, as do the ones in RFC 8175.

The document names one inherited weakness: an injected message could resize a credit window to a value that results in a denial of service. The security mechanisms documented in RFC 8175 can be applied equally to the mechanism defined here.

It also warns about wildcards. Wildcards for matching the Priority Code Point (PCP) and VLAN Identifier (VID) fields, which come with the Ethernet-based credit window extension in RFC 9895, are convenient, because one rule can match a number of packet flows. They can also inadvertently match unexpected flows, or flows that appear only after the wildcard matching has been set up. The document therefore RECOMMENDS that wildcards not be used unless they are needed.

An attacker who can inject DLEP messages could resize a credit window in a way that stops traffic, and the protections in the base DLEP document are the ones to use. The document also warns that a wildcard rule can match more traffic than you meant, including traffic that starts later, so it recommends using wildcards only when there is no alternative.

§5IANA Considerations

IANA has assigned one code point in the Extension Type Values registry, in the Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Parameters registry group. Code point 6 is the Diffserv Aware Credit Window extension.

The extension is registered with IANA as number 6 in the registry of DLEP extension types, so peers can recognise it from the number alone.

THE REGISTRY ENTRY THIS DOCUMENT ADDS
  • 6DLEP Extension Type — Diffserv Aware Credit Window.

§6References