[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: September 10, 2009 Folly Consulting
March 9, 2009
Quality of Service Parameters for Usage with Diameter
draft-ietf-dime-qos-parameters-10.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 September 10, 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 September 10, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft QoS Parameters March 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Korhonen, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft QoS Parameters March 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]. It defines an initial QoS profile containing a
set of 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>
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
Korhonen, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft QoS Parameters March 2009
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.
3.1.4. Minimum-Policed-Unit AVP
The Minimum-Policed-Unit AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32.
Korhonen, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft QoS Parameters March 2009
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.
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.
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) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Korhonen, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft QoS Parameters March 2009
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) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
Korhonen, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft QoS Parameters March 2009
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.
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
Korhonen, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft QoS Parameters March 2009
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
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
Korhonen, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft QoS Parameters March 2009
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 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
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.
Korhonen, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft QoS Parameters March 2009
[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
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 September 10, 2009 [Page 10]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/