[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-korhonen-dime-qos-parameters) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 RFC 5624

Diameter Maintenance and                                J. Korhonen, Ed.
Extensions (DIME)                                          H. Tschofenig
Internet-Draft                                    Nokia Siemens Networks
Intended status: Standards Track                               E. Davies
Expires: November 26, 2009                              Folly Consulting
                                                            May 25, 2009


         Quality of Service Parameters for Usage with Diameter
                 draft-ietf-dime-qos-parameters-11.txt

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, 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
   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.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 26, 2009.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.

Abstract

   This document defines a number of Quality of Service (QoS) parameters



Korhonen, et al.        Expires November 26, 2009               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft               QoS Parameters                     May 2009


   that can be reused for conveying QoS information within Diameter.

   The defined QoS information includes data traffic parameters for
   describing a token bucket filter, a bandwidth parameter, and a per-
   hop behavior class object.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology and Abbreviations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  QoS Parameter Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.1.  TMOD-1 AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
       3.1.1.  Token-Rate AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
       3.1.2.  Bucket-Depth AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
       3.1.3.  Peak-Traffic-Rate AVP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
       3.1.4.  Minimum-Policed-Unit AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       3.1.5.  Maximum-Packet-Size AVP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.2.  TMOD-2 AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.3.  Bandwidth AVP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.4.  PHB-Class AVP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       3.4.1.  Case 1: Single PHB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       3.4.2.  Case 2: Set of PHBs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       3.4.3.  Case 3: Experimental or Local Use PHBs . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  Extensibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   7.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10



















Korhonen, et al.        Expires November 26, 2009               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft               QoS Parameters                     May 2009


1.  Introduction

   This document defines a number of Quality of Service (QoS) parameters
   that can be reused for conveying QoS information within the Diameter
   protocol [RFC3588].  The current set of QoS parameters defined in
   this document are a core subset determined to be useful for a wide
   range of applications.  Additional parameters may be defined in
   future documents as the need arises and are for future study.  The
   parameters are defined as Diameter encoded Attribute Value Pairs
   (AVPs) described using a modified version of the Augmented Backus-
   Naur Form (ABNF), see [RFC3588].  The datatypes are also taken from
   [RFC3588].

   The traffic model (TMOD) AVPs are containers consisting of four AVPs
   and is a way to describe the traffic source.

   o  token rate (r)
   o  bucket depth (b)
   o  peak traffic rate (p)
   o  minimum policed unit (m)
   o  maximum packet size (M)

   The encoding of the <TMOD-1> and the <TMOD-2> AVP can be found in
   Section 3.1 and Section 3.2.  The semantics of these two AVPs are
   described in Section 3.1 of [RFC2210] and in Section 3.6 of
   [RFC2215].

   The <TMOD-2> AVP is, for example, needed by some DiffServ
   applications.
      It is typically assumed that DiffServ EF traffic is shaped at the
      ingress by a single rate token bucket.  Therefore, a single TMOD
      parameter is sufficient to signal DiffServ EF traffic.  However,
      for DiffServ AF traffic two sets of token bucket parameters are
      needed, one token bucket for the average traffic and one token
      bucket for the burst traffic.  [RFC2697] defines a Single Rate
      Three Color Marker (srTCM), which meters a traffic stream and
      marks its packets according to three traffic parameters, Committed
      Information Rate (CIR), Committed Burst Size (CBS), and Excess
      Burst Size (EBS), to be either green, yellow, or red.  A packet is
      marked green if it does not exceed the CBS, yellow if it does
      exceed the CBS, but not the EBS, and red otherwise.  [RFC2697]
      defines specific procedures using two token buckets that run at
      the same rate.  Therefore, two TMOD AVPs are sufficient to
      distinguish among three levels of drop precedence.  An example is
      also described in the appendix of [RFC2597].

   Resource reservations might refer to a packet processing with a
   particular DiffServ per-hop behavior (PHB) (using the <PHB-Class>



Korhonen, et al.        Expires November 26, 2009               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft               QoS Parameters                     May 2009


   AVP).  A generic description of the DiffServ architecture can be
   found in [RFC2475] and the Differentiated Services Field is described
   in Section 3 of [RFC2474].  Updated terminology can be found in
   [RFC3260].  Standardized Per-Hop Behavior is, for example, described
   in [RFC2597] (Assured Forwarding Per-Hop Behavior) and in [RFC3246]
   (An Expedited Forwarding Per-Hop Behavior).

   The above-mentioned parameters are intended to support basic
   integrated and differentiated services functionality in the network.
   Additional parameters can be defined and standardized if required to
   support specific services in future.


2.  Terminology and Abbreviations

   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 RFC2119 [RFC2119].


3.  QoS Parameter Encoding

3.1.  TMOD-1 AVP

   The TMOD-1 AVP is obtained from [RFC2210] and [RFC2215].  The
   structure of the AVP is as follows:

     TMOD-1  ::= < AVP Header: TBD >
                 { Token-Rate }
                 { Bucket-Depth }
                 { Peak-Traffic-Rate }
                 { Minimum-Policed-Unit }
                 { Maximum-Packet-Size }

3.1.1.  Token-Rate AVP

   The Token-Rate AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Float32.

3.1.2.  Bucket-Depth AVP

   The Bucket-Depth AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Float32.

3.1.3.  Peak-Traffic-Rate AVP

   The Peak-Traffic-Rate AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Float32.






Korhonen, et al.        Expires November 26, 2009               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft               QoS Parameters                     May 2009


3.1.4.  Minimum-Policed-Unit AVP

   The Minimum-Policed-Unit AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32.

3.1.5.  Maximum-Packet-Size AVP

   The Maximum-Packet-Size AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32.

3.2.  TMOD-2 AVP

   A description of the semantic of the parameter values can be found in
   [RFC2215].  The coding for the TMOD-2 AVP is as follows:

     TMOD-2  ::= < AVP Header: TBD >
                 { Token-Rate }
                 { Bucket-Depth }
                 { Peak-Traffic-Rate }
                 { Minimum-Policed-Unit }
                 { Maximum-Packet-Size }

3.3.  Bandwidth AVP

   The Bandwidth AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Float32 and is measured
   in octets of IP datagrams per second.  The Bandwidth AVP represents a
   simplified description of the following TMOD setting whereby the
   token rate (r) = peak traffic rate (p), the bucket depth (b) = large,
   minimum policed unit (m) = large when only bandwidth has to be
   expressed.

3.4.  PHB-Class AVP

   The PHB-Class AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32.

   A description of the semantic of the parameter values can be found in
   [RFC3140].  The registries needed for usage with [RFC3140] already
   exist and hence no new registry needs to be created by this document.
   The encoding requires three cases need to be differentiated.  All
   bits indicated as "reserved" MUST be set to zero (0).

3.4.1.  Case 1: Single PHB

   As prescribed in [RFC3140], the encoding for a single PHB is the
   recommended DSCP value for that PHB, left-justified in the 16 bit
   field, with bits 6 through 15 set to zero.







Korhonen, et al.        Expires November 26, 2009               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft               QoS Parameters                     May 2009


    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | DSCP      |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|            (Reserved)         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

3.4.2.  Case 2: Set of PHBs

   The encoding for a set of PHBs is the numerically smallest of the set
   of encodings for the various PHBs in the set, with bit 14 set to 1.
   (Thus for the AF1x PHBs, the encoding is that of the AF11 PHB, with
   bit 14 set to 1.)


    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | DSCP      |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0|            (Reserved)         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

3.4.3.  Case 3: Experimental or Local Use PHBs

   PHBs not defined by standards action, i.e., experimental or local use
   PHBs as allowed by [RFC2474].  In this case an arbitrary 12 bit PHB
   identification code, assigned by the IANA, is placed left-justified
   in the 16 bit field.  Bit 15 is set to 1, and bit 14 is zero for a
   single PHB or 1 for a set of PHBs.  Bits 12 and 13 are zero.

   Bits 12 and 13 are reserved either for expansion of the PHB
   identification code, or for other use, at some point in the future.

   In both cases, when a single PHBID is used to identify a set of PHBs
   (i.e., bit 14 is set to 1), that set of PHBs MUST constitute a PHB
   Scheduling Class (i.e., use of PHBs from the set MUST NOT cause
   intra-microflow traffic reordering when different PHBs from the set
   are applied to traffic in the same microflow).  The set of AF1x PHBs
   [RFC2597] is an example of a PHB Scheduling Class.  Sets of PHBs that
   do not constitute a PHB Scheduling Class can be identified by using
   more than one PHBID.


    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |      PHD ID CODE      |0 0 1 0|            (Reserved)         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+





Korhonen, et al.        Expires November 26, 2009               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft               QoS Parameters                     May 2009


4.  Extensibility

   This document is designed with extensibility in mind given that
   different organizations and groups are used to defining their own
   Quality of Service parameters.  This document provides an initial QoS
   profile with common set of parameters.  Ideally, these parameters
   should be used whenever possible but there are cases where additional
   parameters might be needed, or where the parameters specified in this
   document are used with a different semantic.  In that case it is
   advisable to define a new QoS profile that may consist of new
   parameters in addition to parameters defined in this document or an
   entirely different set of parameters.  Finally, it is also possible
   to register a specific QoS profile that defines a specific set of QoS
   values rather than parameters that need to be filled with values in
   order to be used.

   To enable the definition of new QoS profiles a 8 octet registry is
   defined field that is represented by a 4-octet vendor and 4-octet
   specifier field.  The vendor field contains an Enterprise Number as
   defined in [RFC2578] taken from the values maintained in the IANA
   Enterprise Numbers registry.  If the four octets of the vendor field
   are 0x00000000 (reserved value for IANA), then the value in the
   specifier field MUST be registered with IANA (see Section 5.2).  If
   the vendor field is other than 0x00000000, the value of the specifier
   field represents a vendor-specific value, where allocation is the
   responsibility of the enterprise indicated in the vendor field.


5.  IANA Considerations

5.1.  AVP Codes

   IANA is requested to allocate AVP codes in the IETF IANA controlled
   namespace registry specified in Section 11.1.1 of [RFC3588] for the
   following AVPs that are defined in this document.
















Korhonen, et al.        Expires November 26, 2009               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft               QoS Parameters                     May 2009


   +------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                                       AVP  Section               |
   |AVP Name                               Code Defined   Data Type   |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |TMOD-1                                 TBD  3.1       Grouped     |
   |Token-Rate                             TBD  3.1.1     Float32     |
   |Bucket-Depth                           TBD  3.1.2     Float32     |
   |Peak-Traffic-Rate                      TBD  3.1.3     Float32     |
   |Minimum-Policed-Unit                   TBD  3.1.4     Unsigned32  |
   |Maximum-Packet-Size                    TBD  3.1.5     Unsigned32  |
   |TMOD-2                                 TBD  3.2       Grouped     |
   |Bandwidth                              TBD  3.3       Float32     |
   |PHB-Class                              TBD  3.7       Unsigned32  |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------+

5.2.  QoS Profile

   The QoS Profile refers to a 64 bit long field that is represented by
   a 4-octet vendor and 4-octet specifier field.  The vendor field
   indicates the type as either standards-specified or vendor-specific.

   If the four octets of the vendor field are 0x00000000, then the value
   is standards-specified and a registry will be created to maintain the
   QoS profile specifier values.  The specifier field indicates the
   actual QoS profile.  Depending on the value requested, the action
   needed to request a new value is:
      0 to 511: Standards Action
      512 to 32767: Specification Required
      32768 to 4294967295: Reserved

   Standards action is required to add, depreciate, delete, or modify
   QoS profile values in the range of 0-511 and a specification is
   required to add, depreciate, delete, or modify existing QoS profile
   values in the range of 512-32767.

   This document requests IANA to create such a registry and to allocate
   the value zero (0) for the QoS profile defined in this document.

   Alternative vendor-specific QoS profiles can be created and
   identified with a Enterprise Number taken from the IANA registry
   created by [RFC2578] in the vendor field combined with a vendor-
   specific value in the specifier field.  Allocation of the specifier
   values is the responsibility of the vendor.


6.  Security Considerations

   This document does not raise any security concerns as it only defines



Korhonen, et al.        Expires November 26, 2009               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft               QoS Parameters                     May 2009


   QoS parameters and does not yet describe how they are exchanged in a
   AAA protocol.  Security considerations are described in documents
   using this specification.


7.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank the NSIS working group members
   Cornelia Kappler, Jerry Ash, Attila Bader, and Dave Oran, the former
   NSIS working group chairs (John Loughney and Martin Stiemerling) and
   the former Transport Area Directors (Allison Mankin, Jon Peterson)
   for their help.

   We would like to thank Ken Carlberg, Lars Eggert, Jan Engelhardt,
   Francois Le Faucheur, John Loughney, An Nguyen, Dave Oran, James
   Polk, Martin Dolly, Martin Stiemerling, and Magnus Westerlund for
   their feedback regarding some of the parameters in this documents.

   Jerry Ash, Al Morton, Mayutan Arumaithurai and Xiaoming Fu provided
   help with the semantic of some QSPEC parameters.

   We would like to thank Dan Romascanu for his detailed Area Director
   review comments and Scott Bradner for his Transport Area Directorate
   review.  Chris Newman, Adrian Farrel and Pasi Eronen provided
   feedback during the IESG review.


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2210]  Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated
              Services", RFC 2210, September 1997.

   [RFC2215]  Shenker, S. and J. Wroclawski, "General Characterization
              Parameters for Integrated Service Network Elements",
              RFC 2215, September 1997.

   [RFC2474]  Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
              "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
              Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
              December 1998.

   [RFC2578]  McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J.
              Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Structure of Management Information



Korhonen, et al.        Expires November 26, 2009               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft               QoS Parameters                     May 2009


              Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578, April 1999.

   [RFC3140]  Black, D., Brim, S., Carpenter, B., and F. Le Faucheur,
              "Per Hop Behavior Identification Codes", RFC 3140,
              June 2001.

   [RFC3588]  Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J.
              Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, September 2003.

8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2475]  Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
              and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
              Services", RFC 2475, December 1998.

   [RFC2597]  Heinanen, J., Baker, F., Weiss, W., and J. Wroclawski,
              "Assured Forwarding PHB Group", RFC 2597, June 1999.

   [RFC2697]  Heinanen, J. and R. Guerin, "A Single Rate Three Color
              Marker", RFC 2697, September 1999.

   [RFC3246]  Davie, B., Charny, A., Bennet, J., Benson, K., Le Boudec,
              J., Courtney, W., Davari, S., Firoiu, V., and D.
              Stiliadis, "An Expedited Forwarding PHB (Per-Hop
              Behavior)", RFC 3246, March 2002.

   [RFC3260]  Grossman, D., "New Terminology and Clarifications for
              Diffserv", RFC 3260, April 2002.


Authors' Addresses

   Jouni Korhonen (editor)
   Nokia Siemens Networks
   Linnoitustie 6
   Espoo  02600
   Finland

   Email: jouni.korhonen@nsn.com












Korhonen, et al.        Expires November 26, 2009              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft               QoS Parameters                     May 2009


   Hannes Tschofenig
   Nokia Siemens Networks
   Linnoitustie 6
   Espoo  02600
   Finland

   Phone: +358 (50) 4871445
   Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net
   URI:   http://www.tschofenig.priv.at


   Elwyn Davies
   Folly Consulting
   Soham
   UK

   Phone: +44 7889 488 335
   Email: elwynd@dial.pipex.com

































Korhonen, et al.        Expires November 26, 2009              [Page 11]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/