[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05

Network Working Group                                        F. Dressler
Internet-Draft                                    University of Erlangen
Expires: June 4, 2005                                           G. Carle
                                                 University of Tuebingen
                                                              J. Quittek
                                                              C. Kappler
                                                           H. Tschofenig
                                                              Siemens AG
                                                           December 2004

               NSLP for Metering Configuration Signaling

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
   of Section 3 of RFC 3667.  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 become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
   RFC 3668.

   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 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

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on June 4, 2005.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).


Dressler, et al.    draft-dressler-nsis-metering-nslp-01.txt    [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                Metering NSLP                December 2004

   Monitoring, metering and accounting of packets are increasingly
   important functionality that needs to be provided in the Internet.
   This document proposes the definition of a new NSIS Signaling Layer
   Protocol (NSLP), named Metering NSLP, which allows the dynamic
   configuration of Metering Entities on the data path.  An accompanying
   document [I-D.ietf-fessi-nsis-m-nslp-framework] makes a problem
   statement, describes scenarios for charging, Quality of Service
   monitoring, and monitoring for network security issues such as
   intrusion detection, elaborates requirements and discusses the
   applicability of NSIS to the problem.  This document suggests a
   Metering NSIS protocol design, outlines protocol operation, discusses
   commonalities and differences to other NSLPs, and defines Metering
   NSLP messages.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

   3.  Basic Protocol Design  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1   Model of operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.2   Protocol overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.2.1   Message types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.2.2   Design Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.3   Examples of operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     3.4   Implications for GIMPS API . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     3.5   Mapping onto M-NSLP Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

   4.  M-SPEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

   5.  Security considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

   6.  Open issues  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

   7.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     8.1   Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     8.2   Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

       Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

       Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 17

Dressler, et al.    draft-dressler-nsis-metering-nslp-01.txt    [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                Metering NSLP                December 2004

1.  Introduction

   Monitoring, metering and accounting of packets is an important
   functionality in many networks today.  Several working groups have
   described mechanisms to collect and report usage data for resource
   consumption in a network by a particular entity.  For example, the
   IPFIX WG defines a protocol to collect such data.  RADIUS (see
   [RFC2865] and [RFC2866]) and DIAMETER (see [RFC3588] and
   [I-D.ietf-aaa-diameter-cc]) are also protocols which provide
   information about consumed resources.  The Meter MIB [RFC2720] is a
   MIB for collecting flow information.  However, it is also necessary
   to configure and coordinate the entities doing the metering.  In more
   complex network topologies and architectures these entities are not
   only located at the edges of a network.  Instead, these Metering
   Entities are distributed along the data path.  While it is possible
   to configure these entities with protocols such as RADIUS or DIAMETER
   (or SNMP for the Meter MIB), it is also cumbersome.

   Scenarios and requirements for Metering NSLP are described in

   This draft introduces a new NSLP protocol, the Metering NSLP, for
   configuration and coordination of Metering Entities in a path-coupled

2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

   Furthermore, this document uses the following terms:

   Metering Data

      Metering Data describe utilized resources concerning a particular
      flow or service for a later charging process.  Examples for such
      data are packet counter, time information, and information
      describing users or hosts.

   Metering Record

      A Metering Record represents aggregated and/or correlated Metering

Dressler, et al.    draft-dressler-nsis-metering-nslp-01.txt    [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                Metering NSLP                December 2004

   Monitoring Probe

      A monitoring probe is an entity that examines the data flow in
      order to gather Metering Data.  This Metering Data is exported to
      an Metering Entity.

   Metering Entity

      An Metering Entity produces Metering Data describing the resource
      utilization of a particular flow or service.  Typically, this
      information is collected from accociated monitoring probes.


      A collector receives Metering Data from one or multiple Metering
      Entities.  This Metering Data is aggregated, correlated, and
      stored in form of Metering Records.

   Metering Configuration State

      State used/kept by the Metering Manager to configure the Metering
      Entity and Monitoring Probes.

   Metering Manager

      A unit in the Metering Entity that communicates with M-NSLP
      processing.  It holds Metering Configuration State which is used
      to Configure Monitoring Probes and the Metering Entity.


      An NSIS Entity (NE) which supports the Metering NSLP.


      The first node in the sequence of MNEs that issues a configuration
      message for a flow or aggregate.


      The last node in the sequence of MNEs that receives a
      configuration message for a flow or aggregate.


      A MNE that is neither MNI nor MNR.

Dressler, et al.    draft-dressler-nsis-metering-nslp-01.txt    [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                Metering NSLP                December 2004

3.  Basic Protocol Design

   The basic design of a Metering NSLP and the processing of Metering
   NSLP messages is quite similar to QoS NSLP.  In fact much of the
   subsequent text is modeled after the corresponding text in
   [I-D.ietf-nsis-qos-nslp].  The main difference compared to QoS NSLP
   is that Metering NSLP allows individual Metering NEs (MNEs) to pull
   out of a signaling session.

3.1  Model of operation

   Figure 1 shows an example logical model of the operation of Metering
   NSLP and the associated metering mechanism in a MNE.

Dressler, et al.    draft-dressler-nsis-metering-nslp-01.txt    [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                Metering NSLP                December 2004

                                     +---------------+               ^
                                     |     Local     |               *
                                     | Management    |               *
                                     +---------------+               *
                                             ^                       *
                                             V                       *
                  +----------+         +----------+    +---------+   *
                  |  M-NSLP  |         | Metering |    | Policy  |   *
                  |Processing|<<<<>>>>>|Management|<<>>| Control |   *
                  +----------+         +----------+    +---------+   *
                    .  ^   |                 V  V                    *
                    |  ^   .                 V  V      ................
                    |  V   .                 V   >>>>>>.  Metering    .
                    |  V   .                 V         .  Entity      .
                  +----------+               V         . +---------+  .
                  |   GIMPS  |               V         . | Metering|  .
                  |Processing|               V      *> . |  Data   |  .
                  +----------+               V     *   . +---------+  .
                    |      |                 V     *   ................
                    .      .                 V     *
          +----------+    +-----------+   +------------+
      <-.-|  Input   |    | Outgoing  |-.-| Monitoring |-.-.-.-.-.-.-.->
          |  Packet  |    | Interface |   |   Probe    |
      ===>|Processing|====|           |===|            |===============>
          +----------+    +-----------+   +------------+

              <.-.-> = signalling flow
              =====> = data flow (sender --> receiver)
              <<<>>> = control and configuration operations
              *****> = Measurement resp. Metering Data

              Figure 1: Metering-NSLP in a Metering Entity

   In this example, the MNE is collocated on a single node with a
   Metering Entity and one Monitoring Probe (MP, cf.
   [I-D.ietf-fessi-nsis-m-nslp-framework]).  The MP collects Measurement
   Data which is handed to the Metering Entity where it is processed to
   become Metering Data.  From the Metering Entity, Metering Data is
   sent to a Collector.

   A M-NSLP message transports metering configuration information.  This
   information is extracted by M-NSLP Processing and passed to the
   Metering Manager, where it is interpreted and used to install
   Metering Configuration State.  The Metering Manager uses this state
   to configure the Metering Entity and the Monitoring Probe.  The
   Policy Control determines whether the sender of the M-NSLP message
   has administrative rights to configure the Metering Entity.

Dressler, et al.    draft-dressler-nsis-metering-nslp-01.txt    [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                Metering NSLP                December 2004

   From the perspective of a single node, the request for configuration
   of Metering Entities may result from processing a local management
   request, or from processing an incoming M-NSLP message.  The local
   management may in turn be triggered by a local application, e.g.  a
   video being requested from a video server, or by a physically
   separate knowledgeable network node.

3.2  Protocol overview

3.2.1  Message types

   The Metering NSLP uses four message types:

      The CONFIGURE message is the only message that manipulates M-NSLP
      configuration state.  It is used to create, refresh, modify and
      remove such state.  The CONFIGURE message is idempotent; the
      resultant effect is the same whether a message is received once or
      many times.  In fact this message is equivalent to the QoS NSLP
      RESERVE message.


      A QUERY message is used to request information about the current
      configuration without changing it.  The QUERY message is impotent,
      because it does not cause any state to be installed or modified.
      It is equivalent to the QoS NSLP QUERY message.


      The RESPONSE message is used to provide information about the
      result of a previous M-NSLP message.  This includes explicit
      confirmation of the state manipulation signaled in the CONFIGURE
      message, the response to a QUERY message or an error code if a MNE
      is unable to provide the requested information or if the response
      is negative.  The RESPONSE message is impotent, and equivalent to
      the QoS NSLP RESPONSE message.


      NOTIFY messages are used to convey information to a MNE.  They
      differ from RESPONSE messages in that they are sent asynchronously
      and need not refer to any particular state or previously received
      message.  The information conveyed by a NOTIFY message is
      typically related to error conditions.  An example would be
      notification to an upstream peer about state being torn.
      Obviously it is equivalent to the QoS NSLP NOTIFY message.

Dressler, et al.    draft-dressler-nsis-metering-nslp-01.txt    [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                Metering NSLP                December 2004

   Each protocol message has a common header which indicates the message
   type and contains flags.  Metering NSLP messages contain three types
   of objects:
   Control Information

      Control information objects carry general information for the
      M-NSLP Processing, such as sequence numbers or whether a response
      is required.

   Metering specification (MSpecs)

      MSpec objects describe the actual Configuration information.  They
      are interpreted in the Metering Manager and opaque to M-NSLP

   Policy objects

      Policy objects contain data used to authorize the configuration of
      the MNEs.  They are interpreted by Policy Control.

3.2.2  Design Decisions  Soft State

   NSIS State is always soft state and needs to be refreshed.  The
   Control Information carries an object that determines the life time
   of M-NSLP state.  It is for further study whether life time of M-NSLP
   state for a particular flow must be the same for all MNEs along the
   signaling path as in NATFW-NSLP [I-D.ietf-nsis-nslp-natfw], or
   whether it is a decision local to pairs of MNEs as in QoS-NSLP.  In
   fact the refreshment mechanism depends on the authorization model.
   Currently, it is expected that the the authorization model follows
   that in QoS NSLP ('New Jersey Turnpike', i.e.  a chain-of-trust is
   established by peering relationships between neighboring networks /
   entities).  Therefore, the refreshing model probably will be similar
   to that of QoS NSLP.  Message Sequencing

   The order in which CONFIGURE messages arrive influences the eventual
   reservation state that will be stored at a MNE.  Therefore M-NSLP
   supports the detection of CONFIGURE message duplication by means of a
   Configuration Sequence Number (CSN), which corresponds to the
   Reservation Sequence Number (RSN) of QoS-NSLP.

Dressler, et al.    draft-dressler-nsis-metering-nslp-01.txt    [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                Metering NSLP                December 2004  Message Scoping

   In order to realize the requirement of scoping of M-NSLP messages up
   to certain types of Metering Entities, it is necessary to have an
   abstract language that can name Metering Entity types.  This
   information travels in the MSpec and is hence interpreted in the
   Metering Management.  When the Metering Management recognizes it is
   responsible for a Metering Entity of the type specified, it informs
   M-NSLP processing to terminate the signaling.  Rerouting

   M-NSLP automatically adapts to rerouting events because state along
   the old path times out, and a refreshing CONFIGURE message will
   install state along the new path.  In QoS NSLP it is necessary to
   detect a rerouting event in order establish state on the new path,
   and to tear down reservations on the old path.  To this end, QoS NSLP
   introduces an additional object, the SII.  When the SII received by a
   QNE changes, a rerouting event has occurred.

   For M-NSLP it is generally not important to quickly tear down
   configuration state along the old path, however for some
   applications, e.g.  charging, it is vital to quickly configure MNEs
   on the new path.  Therefore an object equivalent to the SII is
   needed.  Selection of MNEs

   An interesting feature of M-NSLP is that only a subset of MNEs on the
   data path might take part in the actual metering.  Metering Entities
   taking part in the metering process are determined based, for
   example, on their type or number.  This feature is the most striking
   difference to QoS NSLP with a number of implications.

   When the first CONFIGURE message is sent, each MNE on the data path
   needs to determine whether it should take part in the metering
   process or not by inspecting the MSpec object.  Here we can reuse the
   ability from above to abstractly name types of Metering Entities.
   When the MNE finds out it is not involved in the metering it should
   remove itself from the signaling session for this flow.  This however
   implies it is difficult to later update this signaling session to
   again include the MNE, simply because it is not going to read the
   updating CONFIGURE message.  See the discussion on implications for
   the GIMPS API in Section 3.4.  Aggregation

   The metering configuration should allow aggregation of Metering Data

Dressler, et al.    draft-dressler-nsis-metering-nslp-01.txt    [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                Metering NSLP                December 2004

   belonging to the same user or application.  Such aggregation can be
   done in two ways.
   o  A Metering Entity separately collects and reports data for each
      micro flow (e.g., given for all different combinations of port
      numbers) contained in the macro flow that is signalled by the
   o  A Metering Entity separately collects microflows but reports all
      flows in a single record.

3.3  Examples of operation

   The basic signaling sequences are very similar to QoS NSLP: To start
   a configuration, the MNI constructs a CONFIGURE message with a MSpec
   object, and sends it to the MNR.  The message is interpreted by MNEs
   on the data path.  The MNR replies with a RESPONSE message.

       +---+  CONFIGURE  +---+  CONFIGURE  +---+  CONFIGURE  +---+
       |   |------------>|   |------------>|   |------------>|   |
       |MNI|             |MNF|             |MNF|             |MNR|
       |   |<------------|   |<------------|   |<------------|   |
       +---+   RESPONSE  +---+   RESPONSE  +---+   RESPONSE  +---+

   Similarly, a QUERY message can be initiated by MNI or MNR, travels to
   the MNR resp.  MNI where a RESPONSE is issued and sent back.  It
   needs to be investigated whether there is a use case for enabling any
   MNE to issue a QUERY which in this case would need to be sent both
   upstream and downstream.

       +---+    QUERY    +---+    QUERY    +---+    QUERY    +---+
       |   |------------>|   |------------>|   |------------>|   |
       |MNI|             |MNF|             |MNF|             |MNR|
       |   |<------------|   |<------------|   |<------------|   |
       +---+   RESPONSE  +---+   RESPONSE  +---+   RESPONSE  +---+

3.4  Implications for GIMPS API

   In [I-D.ietf-nsis-ntlp], an API is defined between GIMPS and NSLPs.
   The requirement to flexibly select what Metering Entities become part
   of a given signaling session implies requirements on the API that may
   currently not be covered.

   1.  When a given MNE x discovers it is not part of a signaling
       session it needs to be able to tell GIMPS to not install message
       routing state.  This needs to imply that the next MNE downstream
       (which wants to participate in the signaling session) does not

Dressler, et al.    draft-dressler-nsis-metering-nslp-01.txt    [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                Metering NSLP                December 2004

       invoke a Messaging Association with MNE_x but rather with the
       next MNE upstream that participates in the session.  In fact
       something similar is also necessary for supporting stateless /
       reduced state NSIS Entities.  Therefore the API already defines a
       message that asks GIMPS to not retain state.  Whether this is
       sufficient to cover M-NSLP requirements still needs to be worked
       out in more detail.
   2.  The list of MNEs participating in a particular metering session
       may be changed, particularly more, or other, types of Metering
       Entities may have to be included.  These entities however do not
       participate currently in the ongoing signaling session.
       Therefore means must be provided to include them at a later
       point.  One possibility is for M-NSLP to tell GIMPS a rerouting
       event occurred, and message routing state needs to be updated.
       This would prompt GIMPS to rediscover peers.  However care needs
       to be taken that GIMPS doesn't use this information to warn other
       NSLPs about the assumed rerouting.  Also here the problem and
       possible solutions still need to be analyzed in more detail.

3.5  Mapping onto M-NSLP Requirements

   With the design described above, the requirements from
   [I-D.ietf-fessi-nsis-m-nslp-framework] are at this point satisfied as
   o  Extensibility.  The actual configuration information is
      encapsulated in the MSpec.  Depending on how flexible the MSpec is
      designed this requirement can be satisfied.  Furthermore, M-NSLP
      needs to be flexible regarding the message sequencing that is
      possible.  The current design is still open in that respect.
   o  Interoperability.  Again, whether different accounting solutions
      can interwork depends on how the MSpec is designed.  In QoS NSLP,
      the QSpec template design [I-D.ietf-nsis-qspec] aims at similar
      extensibility and interoperability.  It needs to be studied
      whether or not the solutions chosen by the QSpec can also be
      applied to the MSpec.
   o  Flexible metering models.  As above, this is an issue of MSpec
      design, and flexibility of message sequencing.
   o  Distinguishing flows.  The aggregation feature detailed in this
      requirement can be realized as described in Section
   o  Flexible data collection.  Another issue that needs to be fixed in
      the MSpec.
   o  Location of Metering Entities.  Location of Metering Entities.
      MNEs, including MNI and MNR can be located anywhere on the data
   o  Access parameters of the Collector Information.  Access parameters
      of the Collector Information on how to deliver flow records to the
      Collector is coded in the MSpec.

Dressler, et al.    draft-dressler-nsis-metering-nslp-01.txt    [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                Metering NSLP                December 2004

   o  Configuration of Metering Entities.  The protocol can configure
      Metering Entities that are MNEs, or that are controlled by MNEs.
   o  Selection of Metering Entities.  As described in Section,
      a MNE should be able to decide to pull out of the metering
      process.  How this is realized regarding the interaction between
      M-NSLP and GIMPS is not yet clarified in detail.  Furthermore, an
      MSpec template must provide a language to abstractly describe
      types of Metering Entities that are (not) to become part of the
      metering process.
   o  Metering Configuration State installation and removal.  By means
      of the CONFIGURE message, the protocol can install, refresh and
      remove Metering Configuration State.
   o  Initiation and maintenance of metering tasks.  Triggers and
      correlation identifier are transported in the MSpec.  The protocol
      implicitly reacts to rerouting because a refreshing CONFIGURE
      message installs state along the new route, as described in
   o  Collection of information on available Metering Entities.  This
      can be achieved by means of the QUERY message
   o  Scoping of configuration.  The MSpec needs to provide sufficient
      means for flexible scoping signaling messages.

   Requirements not mentioned in this list are not yet addressed.

4.  M-SPEC

   compilation of M-SPEC parameters analyzed in the Metering NSLP
   Scenarios Draft

5.  Security considerations

   The process of configuring entities to start and stop metering and to
   transmit collected resource records to a third party introduces
   security challenges.

   First, the application domain needs to be considered.  If a malicious
   user is capable of stop metering of requested services then fraud is
   possible.  It must not be possible to configure Metering Entities in
   such a way that other users are charged for the usage of a service
   which they have not used.

   Second, interworking between multiple domains causes authorization
   problems.  For example, network domain A might want to collect
   resource records in network domain B to offer the user with a more
   consistent bill covering both the price of the network resource
   consumption and the application usage.  A high degree of trust is
   required to allow other domains to configure Metering Entities and to
   collect the resource usage of particular users.  In any case it needs

Dressler, et al.    draft-dressler-nsis-metering-nslp-01.txt    [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                Metering NSLP                December 2004

   to be prevented that arbitrary resource records associated with users
   are collected by other domains.  It has to be noted that the process
   of charging involves other states than only the collection of usage

   Third, it must be avoided that a denial of service attack is mounted
   on either Collectors or Metering Entities.  Metering Entities can be
   subject to DoS attacks if a large number of resource have to be
   collected or 'unlimited' per-flow states are created.  Collectors can
   be subject to DoS attacks if they are flooded with Metering Records.

   The introduced mechanisms allow a number of entities to configure
   metering entities.  This might introduce some weaknesses compared to
   a centralized approach where a single entity (or a few selected
   entities) are authorized to perform this action.  The authorization
   configuration of a decentralized approach is more difficult to secure
   since a single malicious entity is able to start/stop/modify the
   process of Metering Record collection within a single domain or even
   beyond this domain.

6.  Open issues

   Details need to be worked out how the configuration information in
   the MSpec is expressed, and how it is interpreted.

   For example, the the MSpec could specify exactly one Metering Entity
   of a particular type X, e.g.  one that is able to measure bandwidth
   received, should participate in the metering.  This implies
   1.  the first MNE (MNE_X) on the signaling path being of type X
       should volunteer to take on this task
   2.  MNE_X needs to modify the MSpec to signal to subsequent MNEs that
       a Metering Entity of type X has already been found.

   However, appropriate action needs to be taken if the signaling
   arrives at the MNR and no Metering Entity of type X was found.
   Furthermore, when a rerouting event occurs, and MNE_X is no longer on
   the signaling path, this needs to be detected, and a replacement must
   be found.  Support of such functionality is not necessary in QoS
   NSLP.  It is possible that on this basis more design differences
   between QoS NSLP and M-NSLP will be detected in the future.

   Additional open issues appear in the main body of the text.

7.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Robert Hancock for valuable input.

Dressler, et al.    draft-dressler-nsis-metering-nslp-01.txt    [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                Metering NSLP                December 2004

8.  References

8.1  Normative References

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

8.2  Informative References

   [RFC2629]  Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
              June 1999.

   [RFC2720]  Brownlee, N., "Traffic Flow Measurement: Meter MIB",
              October 1999.

   [RFC2865]  Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A. and W. Simpson,
              "Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)",
              RFC 2865, June 2000.

   [RFC2866]  Rigney, C., "RADIUS Accounting", RFC 2866, June 2000.

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

              Claise, B., "IPFIX Protocol Specifications",
              Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-05, August 2004.

              Meyer, J., Quittek, J. and S. Bryant, "Information Model
              for IP Flow Information Export",
              Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ipfix-info-05, October 2004.

   [RFC3917]  Quittek, J., Zseby, T., Claise, B. and S. Zander,
              "Requirements for IP Flow Information Export", RFC 3917,
              October 2004.

              Van den Bosch, S., Karagiannis, G. and A. McDonald, "NSLP
              for Quality-of-Service signaling",
              Internet-Draft draft-ietf-nsis-qos-nslp-04, July 2004.

              Hancock, R., Karagiannis, G., Loughney, J. and S. Van den
              Bosch, "Next Steps in Signaling: Framework",
              Internet-Draft draft-ietf-nsis-fw-06, July 2004.


Dressler, et al.    draft-dressler-nsis-metering-nslp-01.txt    [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                Metering NSLP                December 2004

              Stiemerling, M., Tschofenig, H., Martin, M. and C. Aoun,
              "NAT/Firewall NSIS Signaling Layer Protocol (NSLP)",
              Internet-Draft draft-ietf-nsis-nslp-natfw-03, July 2004.

              Ash, J., Bader, A. and C. Kappler, "QoS-NSLP QSpec
              Template", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-01,
              October 2004.

              Schulzrinne, H. and R. Hancock, "GIMPS: General Internet
              Messaging Protocol for Signaling",
              Internet-Draft draft-ietf-nsis-ntlp-03, July 2004.

              Fessi, A., Kappler, C., Fan, C., Dressler, F. and A.
              Klenk, "Metering NSLP Framework",
              Internet-Draft draft-ietf-fessi-nsis-m-nslp-framework-00,
              February 2005.

              Hakala, H., Mattila, L., Koskinen, J., Stura, M. and J.
              Loughney, "Diameter Credit-control Application",
              Internet-Draft draft-ietf-aaa-diameter-cc-06, August 2004.

              3GPP, "Charging Architecture and Principles", 3GPP
              Technical Specification TS32.240, December 2003.

Authors' Addresses

   Falko Dressler
   University of Erlangen
   Department of Computer Science 7
   Martensstr. 3
   Erlangen  91058

   Phone: +49 9131 85-27914
   Email: dressler@informatik.uni-erlangen.de
   URI:   http://www7.informatik.uni-erlangen.de/

Dressler, et al.    draft-dressler-nsis-metering-nslp-01.txt    [Page 15]

Internet-Draft                Metering NSLP                December 2004

   Georg Carle
   University of Tuebingen
   Wilhelm-Schickard-Institute for Computer Science
   Auf der Morgenstelle 10C
   Tuebingen  71076

   Phone: +49 7071 29-70505
   Email: carle@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de
   URI:   http://net.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/

   Juergen Quittek
   Kurfuersten-Anlage 36
   Heidelberg  69115

   Phone: +49 6221 90511-15
   Email: quittek@netlab.nec.de
   URI:   http://www.netlab.nec.de/

   Cornelia Kappler
   Siemens AG
   Siemensdamm 62
   Berlin  13627

   Phone: +49 30 386-32894
   Email: cornelia.kappler@siemens.com

   Hannes Tschofenig
   Siemens AG
   Otto-Hahn-Ring 6
   Munich, Bayern  81739

   Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@siemens.com

Dressler, et al.    draft-dressler-nsis-metering-nslp-01.txt    [Page 16]

Internet-Draft                Metering NSLP                December 2004

Intellectual Property Statement

   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
   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

   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

Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an

Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.


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

Dressler, et al.    draft-dressler-nsis-metering-nslp-01.txt    [Page 17]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/