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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 RFC 6401

TSVWG                                                     F. Le Faucheur
Internet-Draft                                                   J. Polk
Intended status: Standards Track                                   Cisco
Expires: November 14, 2008                                   K. Carlberg
                                                                     G11
                                                            May 13, 2008


 Resource ReSerVation Protovol (RSVP) Extensions for Emergency Services
                 draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp-08.txt

Status of this Memo

   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 becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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 14, 2008.

Abstract

   An Emergency Telecommunications Service (ETS) requires the ability to
   provide an elevated probability of session establishment to an
   authorized user in times of network congestion (typically, during a
   crisis).  When supported over the Internet Protocol suite, this may
   be facilitated through a network layer admission control solution,
   which supports prioritized access to resources (e.g., bandwidth).
   These resources may be explicitly set aside for emergency services,
   or they may be shared with other sessions.

   This document specifies RSVP extensions that can be used to support



Le Faucheur, et al.     Expires November 14, 2008               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft   RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services         May 2008


   such an admission priority capability at the network layer.  Note
   that these extensions represent one possible solution component in
   satisfying ETS requirements.  Other solution components, or other
   solutions, are outside the scope of this document.

Requirements Language

   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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Related Technical Documents  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Overview of RSVP extensions and Operations . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.1.  Operations of Admission Priority . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   3.  New Policy Elements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.1.  Admission Priority Policy Element  . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       3.1.1.  Admission Priority Merging Rules . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     3.2.  Application-Level Resource Priority Policy Element . . . . 10
       3.2.1.  Application-Level Resource Priority Modifying and
               Merging Rules  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     3.3.  Default Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   4.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     4.1.  Use of RSVP Authentication between RSVP nighbors . . . . . 13
     4.2.  Use of INTEGRITY object within the POLICY_DATA object  . . 13
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   6.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     7.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     7.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   Appendix A.  Examples of Bandwidth Allocation Model for
                Admission Priority  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     A.1.  Admission Priority with Maximum Allocation Model (MAM) . . 19
     A.2.  Admission Priority with Russian Dolls Model (RDM)  . . . . 23
     A.3.  Admission Priority with Priority Bypass Model (PrBM) . . . 26
   Appendix B.  Example Usages of RSVP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . 29
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 33









Le Faucheur, et al.     Expires November 14, 2008               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft   RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services         May 2008


1.  Introduction

   [RFC3689] and [RFC3690] detail requirements for an Emergency
   Telecommunications Service (ETS), which is an umbrella term
   identifying those networks and specific services used to support
   emergency communications.  An underlying goal of these documents is
   to present requirements that elevate the probability of session
   establishment from an authorized user in times of network congestion
   (presumably because of a crisis condition).  In some extreme cases,
   the requirement for this probability may reach 100%, but that is a
   topic subject to policy and most likely local regulation (the latter
   being outside the scope of this document).

   Solutions to meet this requirement for elevated session establishment
   probability may involve session layer capabilities prioritizing
   access to resources controlled by the session control function.  As
   an example, entities involved in session control (such as SIP user
   agents, when the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261], is the
   session control protocol in use) can influence their treatment of
   session establishment requests (such as SIP requests).  This may
   include the ability to "queue" session establishment requests when
   those can not be immediately honored (in some cases with the notion
   of "bumping", or "displacement", of less important session
   establishment requests from that queue).  It may include additional
   mechanisms such as exemption from certain network management
   controls, and alternate routing.

   Solutions to meet the requirement for elevated session establishment
   probability may also take advantage of network layer admission
   control mechanisms supporting admission priority.  Networks usually
   have engineered capacity limits that characterize the maximum load
   that can be handled (say, on any given link) for a class of traffic
   while satisfying the quality of service requirements of that traffic
   class.  Admission priority may involve setting aside some network
   resources (e.g. bandwidth) out of the engineered capacity limits for
   the emergency services only.  Or alternatively, it may involve
   allowing the emergency related sessions to seize additional resources
   beyond the engineered capacity limits applied to normal sessions.

   IP telephony "calls" are one form of "sessions" that can benefit from
   the elevated session establishment probability discussed in this
   document.  Video over IP and Instant Messaging are other examples.
   For the sake of generality, we use the term "session" throughout this
   document to refer to any type of session.







Le Faucheur, et al.     Expires November 14, 2008               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft   RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services         May 2008


1.1.  Related Technical Documents

   [RFC4542] is patterned after [ITU.I.225] and describes an example of
   one type of prioritized network layer admission control procedure
   that may be used for emergency services operating over an IP network
   infrastructure.  It discusses initial session set up, as well as
   operations after session establishment through maintenance of a
   continuing call model of the status of all sessions.  [RFC4542] also
   describes how these network layer admission control procedures can be
   realized using the Resource reSerVation Protocol [RFC2205] along with
   its associated protocol suite and extensions, including those for
   policy based admission control ([RFC2753], [RFC2750]), for user
   authentication and authorization ([RFC3182]) and for integrity and
   authentication of RSVP messages ([RFC2747], [RFC3097]).  The Diameter
   QoS Application ([I-D.ietf-dime-diameter-qos]) allows network
   elements to interact with Diameter servers when allocating QoS
   resources in the network and thus, is also a possible method for
   authentication and authorization of RSVP reservations in the context
   of emergency services.

   [RFC4542] describes how the RSVP Signaled Preemption Priority Policy
   Element specified in [RFC3181] can be used to enforce the session
   preemption that may be needed by some emergency services.  In
   contrast to [RFC4542], this document specifies new RSVP extensions to
   increase the probability of session establishment without preemption.
   Engineered capacity techniques in the form of bandwidth allocation
   models are used to satisfy the "admission priority" required by an
   RSVP capable ETS network.  In particular this document specifies two
   new RSVP Policy Elements allowing the admission priority to be
   conveyed inside RSVP signaling messages so that RSVP nodes can
   enforce selective bandwidth admission control decision based on the
   session admission priority.  Appendix A of this document also
   provides examples of bandwidth allocation models which can be used by
   RSVP-routers to enforce such admission priority on every link.

1.2.  Terminology

   This document assumes the terminology defined in [RFC2753].  For
   convenience, the definition of a few key terms is repeated here:

   o  Policy Decision Point (PDP): The point where policy decisions are
      made.

   o  Local Policy Decision Point (LPDP): PDP local to the network
      element.

   o  Policy Enforcement Point (PEP): The point where the policy
      decisions are actually enforced.



Le Faucheur, et al.     Expires November 14, 2008               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft   RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services         May 2008


   o  Policy Ignorant Node (PIN): A network element that does not
      explicitly support policy control using the mechanisms defined in
      [RFC2753].


2.  Overview of RSVP extensions and Operations

   Let us consider the case where a session requiring ETS type service
   is to be established, and more specifically that the preference to be
   granted to this session is in terms of network layer "admission
   priority" (as opposed to preference granted through preemption of
   existing sessions).  By "admission priority" we mean allowing that
   priority session to seize network layer resources from the engineered
   capacity that have been set-aside and not made available to normal
   sessions, or alternatively by allowing that session to seize
   additional resources beyond the engineered capacity limits applied to
   normal sessions.

   As described in [RFC4542], the session establishment can be
   conditioned to resource-based and policy-based network layer
   admission control achieved via RSVP signaling.  In the case where the
   session control protocol is SIP, the use of RSVP-based admission
   control by SIP is specified in [RFC3312].

   Devices involved in the session establishment are expected to be
   aware of the application-level priority requirements of emergency
   sessions.  Again considering the case where the session control
   protocol is SIP, the SIP user agents can be made aware of the
   resource priority requirements in the case of an emergency session
   using the Resource-Priority Header mechanism specified in [RFC4412].
   The end-devices involved in the upper-layer session establishment
   simply need to copy the application-level resource priority
   requirements (e.g. as communicated in SIP Resource-Priority Header)
   inside the new RSVP Application-Level Resource-Priority Policy
   Element defined in this document.

   Conveying the application-level resource priority requirements inside
   the RSVP message allows this application level requirement to be
   mapped/remapped into a different RSVP "admission priority" at every
   administrative domain boundary based on the policy applicable in that
   domain.  In a typical model (see [RFC2753]) where PDPs control PEPs
   at the periphery of the policy domain (e.g., in border routers), PDPs
   would interpret the RSVP Application-Level Resource-Priority Policy
   Element and map the requirement of the emergency session into an RSVP
   "admission priority" level.  Then, PDPs would convey this information
   inside the new Admission Priority Policy Element defined in this
   document.  This way, the RSVP admission priority can be communicated
   to downstream PEPs (ie RSVP Routers) of the same policy domain, which



Le Faucheur, et al.     Expires November 14, 2008               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft   RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services         May 2008


   have LPDPs but no controlling PDP.  In turn, this means the necessary
   RSVP Admission priority can be enforced at every RSVP hop, including
   all the (many) hops which do not have any understanding of
   Application-Level Resource-Priority semantics.

   As an example of operation across multiple administrative domains, a
   first domain might decide to provide network layer admission priority
   to sessions of a given Application Level Resource Priority and map it
   into a high RSVP admission control priority inside the Admission
   Priority Policy Element; while a second domain may decide to not
   provide admission priority to sessions of this same Application Level
   Resource Priority and hence map it into a low RSVP admission control
   priority.

   As another example of operation across multiple administrative
   domains, we can consider the case where the resource priority header
   enumerates several namespaces, as explicitly allowed by [RFC4412],
   for support of scenarios where sessions traverse multiple
   administrative domains using different namespace.  In that case, the
   relevant namespace can be used at each domain boundary to map into an
   RSVP Admission priority for that domain.  It is not expected that the
   RSVP Application-Level Resource-Priority Header Policy Element would
   be taken into account at RSVP-hops within a given administrative
   domain.  It is expected to be used at administrative domain
   boundaries only in order to set/reset the RSVP Admission Priority
   Policy Element.

   The existence of pre-established inter-domain policy agreements or
   Service Level Agreements may avoid the need to take real-time action
   at administrative domain boundaries for mapping/remapping of
   admission priorities.

   Mapping/remapping by PDPs may also be applied to boundaries between
   various signaling protocols, such as those advanced by the NSIS
   working group.

   As can be observed, the framework described above for mapping/
   remapping application level resource priority requirements into an
   RSVP admission priority can also be used together with [RFC3181] for
   mapping/remapping application level resource priority requirements
   into an RSVP preemption priority (when preemption is indeed needed).
   In that case, when processing the RSVP Application-Level Resource-
   Priority Policy Element, the PDPs at boundaries between
   administrative domains (or between various QoS signaling protocols)
   can map it into an RSVP "preemption priority" information.  This
   Preemption priority information comprises a setup preemption level
   and a defending preemption priority level.  This preemption priority
   information can then be encoded inside the Preemption Priority Policy



Le Faucheur, et al.     Expires November 14, 2008               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft   RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services         May 2008


   Element of [RFC3181] and thus, can be taken into account at every
   RSVP-enabled network hop as discussed [RFC4542].  Appendix B provides
   examples of various hypothetical policies for emergency session
   handling, some of them involving admission priority, some of them
   involving both admission priority and preemption priority.  Appendix
   B also identifies how the Application-Level Resource Priority need to
   be mapped into RSVP policy elements by the PDPs to realize these
   policies.

2.1.  Operations of Admission Priority

   The RSVP Admission Priority policy element defined in this document
   allows admission bandwidth to be allocated preferentially to an
   authorized priority service.  Multiple models of bandwidth allocation
   MAY be used to that end.

   A number of bandwidth allocation models have been defined in the IETF
   for allocation of bandwidth across different classes of traffic
   trunks in the context of Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering.
   Those include the Maximum Allocation Model (MAM) defined in
   [RFC4125], the Russian Dolls Model (RDM) specified in [RFC4127] and
   the Maximum Allocation model with Reservation (MAR) defined in
   [RFC4126].  These same models MAY however be applied for allocation
   of bandwidth across different levels of admission priority as defined
   in this document.  Appendix A provides an illustration of how these
   bandwidth allocation models can be applied for such purposes and
   introduces an additional bandwidth allocation model that we term the
   Priority Bypass Model (PrBM).  It is important to note that the
   models described and illustrated in Appendix A are only informative
   and do not represent a recommended course of action.

   We can see in these examples, that the RSVP Admission Priority may
   effectively influence the fundamental admission control decision of
   RSVP (for example by determining which bandwidth pool is to be used
   by RSVP for performing its fundamental bandwidth allocation).  In
   that sense, we observe that the policy control and admission control
   are not separate logics but instead somewhat blended.


3.  New Policy Elements

   The Framework document for policy-based admission control [RFC2753]
   describes the various components that participate in policy decision
   making (i.e., PDP, PEP and LPDP).

   As described in section 2 of the present document, the Application-
   Level Resource Priority Policy Element and the Admission Priority
   Policy Element serve different roles in this framework:



Le Faucheur, et al.     Expires November 14, 2008               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft   RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services         May 2008


   o  the Application-Level Resource Priority Policy Element conveys
      application level information and is processed by PDPs

   o  the emphasis of Admission Priority Policy Element is to be simple,
      stateless, and light-weight such that it can be processed
      internally within a node's LPDP.  It can then be enforced
      internally within a node's PEP.  It is set by PDPs based on
      processing of the Application-Level Resource Priority Policy
      Element.

   [RFC2750] defines extensions for supporting generic policy based
   admission control in RSVP.  These extensions include the standard
   format of POLICY_DATA objects and a description of RSVP handling of
   policy events.

   The POLICY_DATA object contains one or more of Policy Elements, each
   representing a different (and perhaps orthogonal) policy.  As an
   example, [RFC3181] specifies the Preemption Priority Policy Element.
   This document defines two new Policy Elements called:

   o  the Admission Priority Policy Element

   o  the Application-Level Resource Priority Policy Element

3.1.  Admission Priority Policy Element

   The format of the Admission Priority policy element is as shown in
   Figure 1:

          0           0 0           1 1           2 2           3
          0  . . .    7 8   . . .   5 6    . . .  3 4  . . .    1
         +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
         |     Length                | P-Type = ADMISSION_PRI    |
         +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
         | Flags       | M. Strategy | Error Code  | Reserved    |
         +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
         |              Reserved                   |Adm. Priority|
         +---------------------------+---------------------------+

                Figure 1: Admission Priority Policy Element

   where:

   o  Length: 16 bits

      *  Always 12.  The overall length of the policy element, in bytes.





Le Faucheur, et al.     Expires November 14, 2008               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft   RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services         May 2008


   o  P-Type: 16 bits

      *  ADMISSION_PRI = To be allocated by IANA (see "IANA
         Considerations" section)

   o  Flags: Reserved

      *  SHALL be set to zero on transmit and SHALL be ignored on
         reception

   o  Merge Strategy: 8 bits (only applicable to multicast flows)

      *  values are defined by corresponding registry maintained by IANA
         (see "IANA Considerations" section)

   o  Error code: 8 bits (only applicable to multicast flows)

      *  values are defined by corresponding registry maintained by IANA
         (see "IANA Considerations" section)

   o  Reserved: 8 bits

      *  SHALL be set to zero on transmit and SHALL be ignored on
         reception

   o  Reserved: 24 bits

      *  SHALL be set to zero on transmit and SHALL be ignored on
         reception

   o  Adm. Priority (Admission Priority): 8 bits (unsigned)

      *  The admission control priority of the flow, in terms of access
         to network bandwidth in order to provide higher probability of
         session completion to selected flows.  Higher values represent
         higher Priority.  A given Admission Priority is encoded in this
         information element using the same value as when encoded in the
         "Admission Priority" field of the "Admission Priority"
         parameter defined in [I-D.ietf-nsis-qspec], or in the
         "Admission Priority" parameter defined in
         [I-D.ietf-dime-qos-parameters].  In other words, a given value
         inside the Admission Priority information element defined in
         the present document, inside the [I-D.ietf-nsis-qspec]
         Admission Priority field or inside the
         [I-D.ietf-dime-qos-parameters] Admission Priority parameter,
         refers to the same admission priority.  Bandwidth allocation
         models such as those described in Appendix A are to be used by
         the RSVP router to achieve such increased probability of



Le Faucheur, et al.     Expires November 14, 2008               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft   RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services         May 2008


         session establishment.  The admission priority value
         effectively indicates which bandwidth constraint(s) of the
         bandwidth constraint model in use is(are) applicable to
         admission of this RSVP reservation.

   Note that the Admission Priority Policy Element does NOT indicate
   that this RSVP reservation is to preempt any other RSVP reservation.
   If a priority session justifies both admission priority and
   preemption priority, the corresponding RSVP reservation needs to
   carry both an Admission Priority Policy Element and a Preemption
   Priority Policy Element.  The Admission Priority and Preemption
   Priority are handled by LPDPs and PEPs as separate mechanisms.  They
   can be used one without the other, or they can be used both in
   combination.

3.1.1.  Admission Priority Merging Rules

   This section discusses alternatives for dealing with RSVP admission
   priority in case of merging of reservations.  As merging is only
   applicable to multicast, this section also only applies to multicast
   sessions.

   The rules for merging Admission Priority Policy Elements are defined
   by the value encoded inside the Merge Strategy field in accordance
   with the corresponding IANA registry.  The merge strategies (and
   associated values) defined by the present document are the same as
   those defined in [RFC3181] for merging Preemption Priority Policy
   Elements (see "IANA Considerations" section).

   The only difference with [RFC3181] is that this document does not
   recommend any merge strategies for Admission Priority, while
   [RFC3181] recommends the first of these merge strategies for
   Preemption Priority.  Note that with the Admission Priority (as is
   the case with the Preemption Priority), "Take highest priority"
   translates into "take the highest numerical value".

3.2.  Application-Level Resource Priority Policy Element

   The format of the Application-Level Resource Priority policy element
   is as shown in Figure 2:











Le Faucheur, et al.     Expires November 14, 2008              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft   RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services         May 2008


          0           0 0           1 1           2 2           3
          0  . . .    7 8   . . .   5 6    . . .  3 4  . . .    1
         +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
         | Length                    | P-Type = APP_RESOURCE_PRI |
         +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
         //     ALRP List                                        //
         +---------------------------+---------------------------+

       Figure 2: Application-Level Resource Priority Policy Element

   where:

   o  Length:

      *  The length of the policy element (including the Length and
         P-Type) is in number of octets (MUST be a multiple of 4) and
         indicates the end of the ALRP list.

   o  P-Type: 16 bits

      *  APP_RESOURCE_PRI = To be allocated by IANA (see "IANA
         Considerations" section)

   o  ALRP List:

      *  List of ALRP where each ALRP is encoded as shown in Figure 3.

   ALRP:
          0           0 0           1 1           2 2           3
          0  . . .    7 8   . . .   5 6    . . .  3 4  . . .    1
         +---------------------------+-------------+-------------+
         |     ALRP Namespace        | Reserved    |ALRP Priority|
         +---------------------------+---------------------------+

               Figure 3: Application-Level Resource Priority

   where:

   o  ALRP Namespace (Application-Level Resource Priority Namespace): 16
      bits (unsigned)

      *  Contains a numerical value identifying the namespace of the
         application-level resource priority.  This value is encoded as
         per the "Resource-Priority Namespaces" IANA registry.  (See
         IANA Considerations section for the request to IANA to extend
         the registry to include this numerical value).





Le Faucheur, et al.     Expires November 14, 2008              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft   RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services         May 2008


   o  Reserved: 8 bits

      *  SHALL be set to zero on transmit and SHALL be ignored on
         reception.

   o  ALRP Priority: (Application-Level Resource Priority Priority): 8
      bits (unsigned)

      *  Contains the priority value within the namespace of the
         application-level resource priority.  This value is encoded as
         per the "Resource-Priority Priority-Value" IANA registry.  (See
         IANA Considerations section for the request to IANA to extend
         the registry to include this numerical value).

3.2.1.  Application-Level Resource Priority Modifying and Merging Rules

   When POLICY_DATA objects are protected by integrity, LPDPs should not
   attempt to modify them.  They MUST be forwarded as-is to ensure their
   security envelope is not invalidated.

   In case of multicast, when POLICY_DATA objects are not protected by
   integrity, LPDPs MAY merge incoming Application-Level Resource
   Priority elements to reduce their size and number.  When they do
   merge those, LPDPs MUST do so according to the following rule:

   o  The ALRP List in the outgoing APP_RESOURCE_PRI element MUST list
      all the ALRPs appearing in the ALRP List of an incoming
      APP_RESOURCE_PRI element.  A given ALRP MUST NOT appear more than
      once.  In other words, the outgoing ALRP List is the union of the
      incoming ALRP Lists that are merged.

   As merging is only applicable to Multicast, this rule only applies to
   Multicast sessions.

3.3.  Default Handling

   As specified in section 4.2 of [RFC2750], Policy Ignorant Nodes
   (PINs) implement a default handling of POLICY_DATA objects ensuring
   that those objects can traverse PIN nodes in transit from one PEP to
   another.  This applies to the situations where POLICY_DATA objects
   contain the Admission Priority Policy Element and the ALRP Policy
   Element specified in this document, so that those can traverse PIN
   nodes.

   Section 4.2 of [RFC2750] also defines a similar default behavior for
   policy-capable nodes that do not recognized a particular Policy
   Element.  This applies to the Admission Priority Policy Element and
   the ALRP Policy Element specified in this document, so that those can



Le Faucheur, et al.     Expires November 14, 2008              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft   RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services         May 2008


   traverse policy-capable nodes that do not support this document.


4.  Security Considerations

   The ADMISSION_PRI and APP_RESOURCE_PRI are Policy Elements that can
   be signaled by RSVP through encapsulation in a Policy Data object as
   defined in [RFC2750].  Therefore, like any other Policy Elements,
   their integrity can be protected as discussed in section 6 of
   [RFC2750] by two optional security mechanisms.  The first mechanism
   relies on RSVP Authentication as specified in [RFC2747] and [RFC3097]
   to provide a chain of trust when all RSVP nodes are policy capable.
   With this mechanism, the INTEGRITY object is carried inside RSVP
   messages.  The second mechanism relies on the INTEGRITY object within
   the POLICY_DATA object to guarantee integrity between RSVP Policy
   Enforcement Points (PEPs) that are not RSVP neighbors.

4.1.  Use of RSVP Authentication between RSVP nighbors

   This mechanism can be used can be used between RSVP neighbors that
   are policy capable.  The RSVP neighbors use shared keys to compute
   the cryptographic signature of the RSVP message.
   [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-security-groupkeying] discusses key types, key
   provisioning methods as well as their respective applicability.

4.2.  Use of INTEGRITY object within the POLICY_DATA object

   The INTEGRITY object within the POLICY_DATA object can be used to
   guarantee integrity between non-neighboring RSVP PEPs.

   Details for computation of the content of the INTEGRITY object can be
   found in Appendix B of [RFC2750].  This states that the Policy
   Decision Point (PDP), at its discretion, and based on destination
   PEP/PDP or other criteria, selects an Authentication Key and the hash
   algorithm to be used.  Keys to be used between PDPs can be
   distributed manually or via standard key management protocol for
   secure key distribution.

   Note that where non-RSVP hops may exist in between RSVP hops, as well
   as where RSVP capable Policy Ignorant Nodes (PINs) may exist in
   between PEPs, it may be difficult for the PDP to determine what is
   the destination PDP for a POLICY_DATA object contained in some RSVP
   messages (such as a Path message).  This is because in those cases
   the next PEP is not known at the time of forwarding the message.  In
   this situation, key shared across multiple PDPs may be used.  This is
   conceptually similar to the use of key shared across multiple RSVP
   neighbors discussed in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-security-groupkeying].
   We observe also that this issue may not exist in some deployment



Le Faucheur, et al.     Expires November 14, 2008              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft   RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services         May 2008


   scenarios where a single (or low number of) PDP is used to control
   all the PEPs of a region (such as an administrative domain).  In such
   scenarios, it may be easy for a PDP to determine what is the next hop
   PDP, even when the next hop PEP is not known, simply by determining
   what is the next region that will be traversed (say based on the
   destination address).


5.  IANA Considerations

   As specified in [RFC2750], Standard RSVP Policy Elements (P-type
   values) are to be assigned by IANA as per "IETF Consensus" following
   the policies outlined in [RFC2434].

   IANA needs to allocate two P-Types from the Standard RSVP Policy
   Element range:

   o  one P-Type to the Admission Priority Policy Element

   o  one P-Type to the Application-Level Resource Priority Policy
      Element.

   In section 3.1, the present document defines a Merge Strategy field
   inside the Admission Priority policy element.  IANA needs to create a
   registry for this field and allocate the following values:

   o  1: Take priority of highest QoS

   o  2: Take highest priority

   o  3: Force Error on heterogeneous merge

   Following the policies outlined in [RFC2434], numbers in the range
   4-127 are allocated through an IETF Consensus action, numbers in the
   range 128-240 as First Come First Served and numbers between 241-255
   are reserved for Private Use. Value 0 is Reserved (for consistency
   with [RFC3181] Merge Strategy values).

   In section 3.1, the present document defines an Error Code field
   inside the Admission Priority policy element.  IANA needs to create a
   registry for this field and allocate the following values:

   o  0: NO_ERROR Value used for regular ADMISSION_PRI elements

   o  2: HETEROGENEOUS This element encountered heterogeneous merge

   Following the policies outlined in [RFC2434], numbers in the range
   3-127 are allocated through an IETF Consensus action, numbers in the



Le Faucheur, et al.     Expires November 14, 2008              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft   RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services         May 2008


   range 128-240 as First Come First Served and numbers between 241-255
   are reserved for Private Use. Value 1 is Reserved (for consistency
   with [RFC3181] Error Code values).

   The present document defines an ALRP Namespace field in section 3.2
   that contains a numerical value identifying the namespace of the
   application-level resource priority.  The IANA already maintains the
   Resource-Priority Namespaces registry (under the SIP Parameters)
   listing all such namespace.  However, that registry does not
   currently allocate a numerical value to each namespace.  Hence, this
   document requests the IANA to extend the Resource-Priority Namespace
   registry in the following ways:

   o  a new column should be added to the registry

   o  the title of the new column should be "Namespace Numerical Value
      *"

   o  in the Legend, add a line saying "Namespace Numerical Value = the
      unique numerical value identifying the namespace"

   o  add a line at the bottom of the registry stating the following "*
      : [RFCXXX] " where XXX is the RFC number of the present document

   o  allocate an actual numerical value to each namespace in the
      registry and state that value in the new "Namespace numerical
      Value *" column.

   A numerical value should be allocated immediately by IANA to all
   existing namespace.  Then, in the future, IANA should automatically
   allocate a numerical value to any new namespace added to the
   registry.

   The present document defines an ALRP Priority field in section 3.2
   that contains a numerical value identifying the actual application-
   level resource priority within the application-level resource
   priority namespace.  The IANA already maintains the Resource-Priority
   Priority-values registry (under the SIP Parameters) listing all such
   priorities.  However, that registry does not currently allocate a
   numerical value to each priority-value.  Hence, this document
   requests the IANA to extend the Resource-Priority Priority-Values
   registry in the following ways:

   o  for each namespace, the registry should be structured with two
      columns

   o  the title of the first column should read "Priority Values (least
      to greatest)"



Le Faucheur, et al.     Expires November 14, 2008              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft   RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services         May 2008


   o  the first column should list all the values currently defined in
      the registry (e.g. for the drsn namespace: "routine", "priority",
      "immediate", "flash", "flash-override", "flash-override-override"
      for the drsn namespace)

   o  the title of the second column should read "Priority Numerical
      Value *"

   o  At the bottom of the registry, add a "Legend" with a line saying
      "Priority Numerical Value = the unique numerical value identifying
      the priority within a namespace"

   o  add a line at the bottom of the registry stating the following "*
      : [RFCXXX] " where XXX is the RFC number of the present document

   o  allocate an actual numerical value to each and state that value in
      the new "Priority Numerical Value *" column.

   A numerical value should be allocated immediately by IANA to all
   existing priority.  Then, in the future, IANA should automatically
   allocate a numerical value to any new namespace added to the
   registry.  The numerical value must be unique within each namespace.
   For the initial allocation, within each namespace, values should be
   allocated in decreasing order ending with 0 (so that the greatest
   priority is always allocated value 0).  For example, in the drsn
   namespace, "routine" would be allocated numerical value 5 and "flash-
   override-override" would be allocated numerical value 0.


6.  Acknowledgments

   We would like to thank An Nguyen for his encouragement to address
   this topic and ongoing comments.  Also, this document borrows heavily
   from some of the work of S. Herzog on Preemption Priority Policy
   Element [RFC3181].  Dave Oran and Janet Gunn provided useful input
   into this document.


7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2205]  Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
              Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
              Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.

   [RFC2434]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,



Le Faucheur, et al.     Expires November 14, 2008              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft   RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services         May 2008


              October 1998.

   [RFC2747]  Baker, F., Lindell, B., and M. Talwar, "RSVP Cryptographic
              Authentication", RFC 2747, January 2000.

   [RFC2750]  Herzog, S., "RSVP Extensions for Policy Control",
              RFC 2750, January 2000.

   [RFC3097]  Braden, R. and L. Zhang, "RSVP Cryptographic
              Authentication -- Updated Message Type Value", RFC 3097,
              April 2001.

   [RFC3181]  Herzog, S., "Signaled Preemption Priority Policy Element",
              RFC 3181, October 2001.

   [RFC3261]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
              A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
              Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
              June 2002.

   [RFC4412]  Schulzrinne, H. and J. Polk, "Communications Resource
              Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
              RFC 4412, February 2006.

7.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-dime-diameter-qos]
              Sun, D., McCann, P., Tschofenig, H., Tsou, T., Doria, A.,
              and G. Zorn, "Diameter Quality of Service Application",
              draft-ietf-dime-diameter-qos-05 (work in progress),
              February 2008.

   [I-D.ietf-dime-qos-parameters]
              Korhonen, J. and H. Tschofenig, "Quality of Service
              Parameters for Usage with the AAA Framework",
              draft-ietf-dime-qos-parameters-03 (work in progress),
              February 2008.

   [I-D.ietf-nsis-qspec]
              Ash, G., Bader, A., Kappler, C., and D. Oran, "QoS NSLP
              QSPEC Template", draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-20 (work in
              progress), April 2008.

   [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-security-groupkeying]
              Behringer, M. and F. Faucheur, "Applicability of Keying
              Methods for RSVP Security",
              draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-security-groupkeying-00 (work in
              progress), February 2008.



Le Faucheur, et al.     Expires November 14, 2008              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft   RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services         May 2008


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

   [RFC2753]  Yavatkar, R., Pendarakis, D., and R. Guerin, "A Framework
              for Policy-based Admission Control", RFC 2753,
              January 2000.

   [RFC3182]  Yadav, S., Yavatkar, R., Pabbati, R., Ford, P., Moore, T.,
              Herzog, S., and R. Hess, "Identity Representation for
              RSVP", RFC 3182, October 2001.

   [RFC3312]  Camarillo, G., Marshall, W., and J. Rosenberg,
              "Integration of Resource Management and Session Initiation
              Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3312, October 2002.

   [RFC3689]  Carlberg, K. and R. Atkinson, "General Requirements for
              Emergency Telecommunication Service (ETS)", RFC 3689,
              February 2004.

   [RFC3690]  Carlberg, K. and R. Atkinson, "IP Telephony Requirements
              for Emergency Telecommunication Service (ETS)", RFC 3690,
              February 2004.

   [RFC4125]  Le Faucheur, F. and W. Lai, "Maximum Allocation Bandwidth
              Constraints Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic
              Engineering", RFC 4125, June 2005.

   [RFC4126]  Ash, J., "Max Allocation with Reservation Bandwidth
              Constraints Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic
              Engineering & Performance Comparisons", RFC 4126,
              June 2005.

   [RFC4127]  Le Faucheur, F., "Russian Dolls Bandwidth Constraints
              Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering",
              RFC 4127, June 2005.

   [RFC4542]  Baker, F. and J. Polk, "Implementing an Emergency
              Telecommunications Service (ETS) for Real-Time Services in
              the Internet Protocol Suite", RFC 4542, May 2006.


Appendix A.  Examples of Bandwidth Allocation Model for Admission
             Priority

   Sections A.1 and A.2 respectively illustrate how the Maximum
   Allocation Model (MAM) ([RFC4125]) and the Russian Dolls Model (RDM)
   ([RFC4127]) can be used for support of admission priority.  The
   Maximum Allocation model with Reservation (MAR) ([RFC4126]) could



Le Faucheur, et al.     Expires November 14, 2008              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft   RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services         May 2008


   also be used in a similar manner for support of admission priority.
   Section A.3 illustrates how a simple "Priority Bypass Model" can also
   be used for support of admission priority.

   For simplicity, operations with only a single "priority" level
   (beyond non-priority) are illustrated here; However, the reader will
   appreciate that operations with multiple priority levels can easily
   be supported with these models.

   In all the figures below:

      x represents a non-priority session

      o represents a priority session

A.1.  Admission Priority with Maximum Allocation Model (MAM)

   This section illustrates operations of admission priority when a
   Maximum Allocation Model (MAM) is used for bandwidth allocation
   across non-priority traffic and priority traffic.  A property of the
   Maximum Allocation Model is that priority traffic can not use more
   than the bandwidth made available to priority traffic (even if the
   non-priority traffic is not using all of the bandwidth available for
   it).


                -----------------------
           ^  ^  ^  |              |  ^
           .  .  .  |              |  .
    Total  .  .  .  |              |  .   Bandwidth
          (1)(2)(3) |              |  .   Available
    Engi-  .  .  .  |              |  .   for non-priority use
   neered  .or.or.  |              |  .
           .  .  .  |              |  .
   Capacity.  .  .  |              |  .
           v  .  .  |              |  v
              .  .  |--------------| ---
              v  .  |              |  ^
                 .  |              |  .   Bandwidth available for
                 v  |              |  v   priority use
                -------------------------

                    Figure 4: MAM Bandwidth Allocation

   Figure 4 shows a link within a routed network conforming to this
   document.  On this link are two amounts of bandwidth available to two
   types of traffic: non-priority and priority.




Le Faucheur, et al.     Expires November 14, 2008              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft   RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services         May 2008


   If the non-priority traffic load reaches the maximum bandwidth
   available for non-priority, no additional non-priority sessions can
   be accepted even if the bandwidth reserved for priority traffic is
   not currently fully utilized.

   With the Maximum Allocation Model, in the case where the priority
   load reaches the maximum bandwidth reserved for priority sessions, no
   additional priority sessions can be accepted.

   As illustrated in Figure 4, an operator may map the MAM model onto
   the Engineered Capacity limits according to different policies.  At
   one extreme, where the proportion of priority traffic is reliably
   known to be fairly small at all times and where there may be some
   safety margin factored in the engineered capacity limits, the
   operator may decide to configure the bandwidth available for non-
   priority use to the full engineered capacity limits; effectively
   allowing the priority traffic to ride within the safety margin of
   this engineered capacity.  This policy can be seen as an economically
   attractive approach as all of the engineered capacity is made
   available to non-priority sessions.  This policy is illustrated as
   (1) in Figure 4.  As an example, if the engineered capacity limit on
   a given link is X, the operator may configure the bandwidth available
   to non-priority traffic to X, and the bandwidth available to priority
   traffic to 5% of X. At the other extreme, where the proportion of
   priority traffic may be significant at times and the engineered
   capacity limits are very tight, the operator may decide to configure
   the bandwidth available to non-priority traffic and the bandwidth
   available to priority traffic such that their sum is equal to the
   engineered capacity limits.  This guarantees that the total load
   across non-priority and priority traffic is always below the
   engineered capacity and, in turn, guarantees there will never be any
   QoS degradation.  However, this policy is less attractive
   economically as it prevents non-priority sessions from using the full
   engineered capacity, even when there is no or little priority load,
   which is the majority of time.  This policy is illustrated as (3) in
   Figure 4.  As an example, if the engineered capacity limit on a given
   link is X, the operator may configure the bandwidth available to non-
   priority traffic to 95% of X, and the bandwidth available to priority
   traffic to 5% of X. Of course, an operator may also strike a balance
   anywhere in between these two approaches.  This policy is illustrated
   as (2) in Figure 4.

   Figure 5 shows some of the non-priority capacity of this link being
   used.







Le Faucheur, et al.     Expires November 14, 2008              [Page 20]


Internet-Draft   RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services         May 2008


                -----------------------
           ^  ^  ^  |              |  ^
           .  .  .  |              |  .
    Total  .  .  .  |              |  .   Bandwidth
           .  .  .  |              |  .   Available
    Engi-  .  .  .  |              |  .   for non-priority use
   neered  .or.or.  |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  .
           .  .  .  |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  .
   Capacity.  .  .  |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  .
           v  .  .  |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  v
              .  .  |--------------| ---
              v  .  |              |  ^
                 .  |              |  .   Bandwidth available for
                 v  |              |  v   priority use
                -------------------------

               Figure 5: Partial load of non-priority calls

   Figure 6 shows the same amount of non-priority load being used at
   this link, and a small amount of priority bandwidth being used.

                -----------------------
           ^  ^  ^  |              |  ^
           .  .  .  |              |  .
    Total  .  .  .  |              |  .   Bandwidth
           .  .  .  |              |  .   Available
    Engi-  .  .  .  |              |  .   for non-priority use
   neered  .or.or.  |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  .
           .  .  .  |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  .
   Capacity.  .  .  |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  .
           v  .  .  |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  v
              .  .  |--------------| ---
              v  .  |              |  ^
                 .  |              |  .   Bandwidth available for
                 v  |oooooooooooooo|  v   priority use
                -------------------------

      Figure 6: Partial load of non-priority calls & partial load of
                           priority calls Calls

   Figure 7 shows the case where non-priority load equates or exceeds
   the maximum bandwidth available to non-priority traffic.  Note that
   additional non-priority sessions would be rejected even if the
   bandwidth reserved for priority sessions is not fully utilized.







Le Faucheur, et al.     Expires November 14, 2008              [Page 21]


Internet-Draft   RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services         May 2008


                -----------------------
           ^  ^  ^  |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  ^
           .  .  .  |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  .
    Total  .  .  .  |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  .   Bandwidth
           .  .  .  |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  .   Available
    Engi-  .  .  .  |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  .   for non-priority use
   neered  .or.or.  |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  .
           .  .  .  |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  .
   Capacity.  .  .  |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  .
           v  .  .  |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  v
              .  .  |--------------| ---
              v  .  |              |  ^
                 .  |              |  .   Bandwidth available for
                 v  |oooooooooooooo|  v   priority use
                -------------------------

     Figure 7: Full non-priority load & partial load of priority calls

   Figure 8 shows the case where the priority traffic equates or exceeds
   the bandwidth reserved for such priority traffic.

   In that case additional priority sessions could not be accepted.
   Note that this does not mean that such sessions are dropped
   altogether: they may be handled by mechanisms, which are beyond the
   scope of this particular document (such as establishment through
   preemption of existing non-priority sessions, or such as queuing of
   new priority session requests until capacity becomes available again
   for priority traffic).























Le Faucheur, et al.     Expires November 14, 2008              [Page 22]


Internet-Draft   RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services         May 2008


                -----------------------
           ^  ^  ^  |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  ^
           .  .  .  |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  .
    Total  .  .  .  |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  .   Bandwidth
           .  .  .  |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  .   Available
    Engi-  .  .  .  |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  .   for non-priority use
   neered  .or.or.  |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  .
           .  .  .  |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  .
   Capacity.  .  .  |              |  .
           v  .  .  |              |  v
              .  .  |--------------| ---
              v  .  |oooooooooooooo|  ^
                 .  |oooooooooooooo|  .   Bandwidth available for
                 v  |oooooooooooooo|  v   priority use
                -------------------------

         Figure 8: Partial non-priority load & Full priority load

A.2.  Admission Priority with Russian Dolls Model (RDM)

   This section illustrates operations of admission priority when a
   Russian Dolls Model (RDM) is used for bandwidth allocation across
   non-priority traffic and priority traffic.  A property of the Russian
   Dolls Model is that priority traffic can use the bandwidth which is
   not currently used by non-priority traffic.

   As with the MAM model, an operator may map the RDM model onto the
   Engineered Capacity limits according to different policies.  The
   operator may decide to configure the bandwidth available for non-
   priority use to the full engineered capacity limits; As an example,
   if the engineered capacity limit on a given link is X, the operator
   may configure the bandwidth available to non-priority traffic to X,
   and the bandwidth available to non-priority and priority traffic to
   105% of X.

   Alternatively, the operator may decide to configure the bandwidth
   available to non-priority and priority traffic to the engineered
   capacity limits; As an example, if the engineered capacity limit on a
   given link is X, the operator may configure the bandwidth available
   to non-priority traffic to 95% of X, and the bandwidth available to
   non-priority and priority traffic to X.

   Finally, the operator may decide to strike a balance in between.  The
   considerations presented for these policies in the previous section
   in the MAM context are equally applicable to RDM.

   Figure 9 shows the case where only some of the bandwidth available to
   non-priority traffic is being used and a small amount of priority



Le Faucheur, et al.     Expires November 14, 2008              [Page 23]


Internet-Draft   RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services         May 2008


   traffic is in place.  In that situation both new non-priority
   sessions and new priority sessions would be accepted.

               --------------------------------------
               |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  .                 ^
               |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  . Bandwidth       .
               |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  . Available for   .
               |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  . non-priority    .
               |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  . use             .
               |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  .                 . Bandwidth
               |              |  .                 . available for
               |              |  v                 . non-priority
               |--------------| ---                . and priority
               |              |                    . use
               |              |                    .
               |oooooooooooooo|                    v
               ---------------------------------------

       Figure 9: Partial non-priority load & Partial Aggregate load

   Figure 10 shows the case where all of the bandwidth available to non-
   priority traffic is being used and a small amount of priority traffic
   is in place.  In that situation new priority sessions would be
   accepted but new non-priority sessions would be rejected.

               --------------------------------------
               |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  .                 ^
               |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  . Bandwidth       .
               |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  . Available for   .
               |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  . non-priority    .
               |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  . use             .
               |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  .                 . Bandwidth
               |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  .                 . available for
               |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  v                 . non-priority
               |--------------| ---                . and priority
               |              |                    . use
               |              |                    .
               |oooooooooooooo|                    v
               ---------------------------------------

        Figure 10: Full non-priority load & Partial Aggregate load

   Figure 11 shows the case where only some of the bandwidth available
   to non-priority traffic is being used and a heavy load of priority
   traffic is in place.  In that situation both new non-priority
   sessions and new priority sessions would be accepted.  Note that, as
   illustrated in Figure 10, priority sessions use some of the bandwidth
   currently not used by non-priority traffic.



Le Faucheur, et al.     Expires November 14, 2008              [Page 24]


Internet-Draft   RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services         May 2008


               --------------------------------------
               |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  .                 ^
               |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  . Bandwidth       .
               |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  . Available for   .
               |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  . non-priority    .
               |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  . use             .
               |              |  .                 . Bandwidth
               |              |  .                 . available for
               |oooooooooooooo|  v                 . non-priority
               |--------------| ---                . and priority
               |oooooooooooooo|                    . use
               |oooooooooooooo|                    .
               |oooooooooooooo|                    v
               ---------------------------------------

        Figure 11: Partial non-priority load & Heavy Aggregate load

   Figure 12 shows the case where all of the bandwidth available to non-
   priority traffic is being used and all of the remaining available
   bandwidth is used by priority traffic.  In that situation new non-
   priority sessions would be rejected.  In that situation new priority
   sessions could not be accepted right away.  Those priority sessions
   may be handled by mechanisms, which are beyond the scope of this
   particular document (such as established through preemption of
   existing non-priority sessions, or such as queuing of new priority
   session requests until capacity becomes available again for priority
   traffic).
























Le Faucheur, et al.     Expires November 14, 2008              [Page 25]


Internet-Draft   RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services         May 2008


               --------------------------------------
               |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  .                 ^
               |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  . Bandwidth       .
               |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  . Available for   .
               |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  . non-priority    .
               |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  . use             .
               |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  .                 . Bandwidth
               |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  .                 . available for
               |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  v                 . non-priority
               |--------------| ---                . and priority
               |oooooooooooooo|                    . use
               |oooooooooooooo|                    .
               |oooooooooooooo|                    v
               ---------------------------------------

          Figure 12: Full non-priority load & Full Aggregate load

A.3.  Admission Priority with Priority Bypass Model (PrBM)

   This section illustrates operations of admission priority when a
   simple Priority Bypass Model (PrBM) is used for bandwidth allocation
   across non-priority traffic and priority traffic.  With the Priority
   Bypass Model, non-priority traffic is subject to resource based
   admission control while priority traffic simply bypasses the resource
   based admission control.  In other words:

   o  when a non-priority session arrives, this session is subject to
      bandwidth admission control and is accepted if the current total
      load (aggregate over non-priority and priority traffic) is below
      the engineered/allocated bandwidth.

   o  when a priority session arrives, this session is admitted
      regardless of the current load.

   A property of this model is that a priority session is never
   rejected.

   The rationale for this simple scheme is that, in practice in some
   networks:

   o  the volume of priority sessions is very low for the vast majority
      of time, so it may not be economical to completely set aside
      bandwidth for priority sessions and preclude the utilization of
      this bandwidth by normal sessions in normal situations

   o  even in emergency periods where priority sessions are more heavily
      used, those always still represent a fairly small proportion of
      the overall load which can be absorbed within the safety margin of



Le Faucheur, et al.     Expires November 14, 2008              [Page 26]


Internet-Draft   RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services         May 2008


      the engineered capacity limits.  Thus, even if they are admitted
      beyond the engineered bandwidth threshold, they are unlikely to
      result in noticeable QoS degradation.

   As with the MAM and RDM model, an operator may map the Priority
   Bypass model onto the Engineered Capacity limits according to
   different policies.  The operator may decide to configure the
   bandwidth limit for admission of non-priority traffic to the full
   engineered capacity limits; As an example, if the engineered capacity
   limit on a given link is X, the operator may configure the bandwidth
   limit for non-priority traffic to X. Alternatively, the operator may
   decide to configure the bandwidth limit for non-priority traffic to
   below the engineered capacity limits (so that the sum of the non-
   priority and priority traffic stays below the engineered capacity);
   As an example, if the engineered capacity limit on a given link is X,
   the operator may configure the bandwidth limit for non-priority
   traffic to 95% of X. Finally, the operator may decide to strike a
   balance in between.  The considerations presented for these policies
   in the previous sections in the MAM and RDM contexts are equally
   applicable to the Priority Bypass Model.

   Figure 13 illustrates the bandwidth allocation with the Priority
   Bypass Model.

                -----------------------
           ^     ^  |              |  ^
           .     .  |              |  .
    Total  .     .  |              |  .   Bandwidth Limit
          (1)   (2) |              |  .   (on non-priority + priority)
    Engi-  .     .  |              |  .   for admission
   neered  . or  .  |              |  .   of non-priority traffic
           .     .  |              |  .
   Capacity.     .  |              |  .
           v     .  |              |  v
                 .  |--------------| ---
                 .  |              |
                 v  |              |
                    |              |

           Figure 13: Priority Bypass Model Bandwidth Allocation

   Figure 14 shows some of the non-priority capacity of this link being
   used.  In this situation, both new non-priority and new priority
   sessions would be accepted.







Le Faucheur, et al.     Expires November 14, 2008              [Page 27]


Internet-Draft   RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services         May 2008


                -----------------------
           ^     ^  |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  ^
           .     .  |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  .
    Total  .     .  |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  .   Bandwidth Limit
          (1)   (2) |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  .   (on non-priority + priority)
    Engi-  .     .  |              |  .   for admission
   neered  . or  .  |              |  .   of non-priority traffic
           .     .  |              |  .
   Capacity.     .  |              |  .
           v     .  |              |  v
                 .  |--------------| ---
                 .  |              |
                 v  |              |
                    |              |

               Figure 14: Partial load of non-priority calls

   Figure 15 shows the same amount of non-priority load being used at
   this link, and a small amount of priority bandwidth being used.  In
   this situation, both new non-priority and new priority sessions would
   be accepted.

                 -----------------------
           ^     ^  |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  ^
           .     .  |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  .
    Total  .     .  |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  .   Bandwidth Limit
          (1)   (2) |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  .   (on non-priority + priority)
    Engi-  .     .  |oooooooooooooo|  .   for admission
   neered  . or  .  |              |  .   of non-priority traffic
           .     .  |              |  .
   Capacity.     .  |              |  .
           v     .  |              |  v
                 .  |--------------| ---
                 .  |              |
                 v  |              |
                    |              |


      Figure 15: Partial load of non-priority calls & partial load of
                              priority calls

   Figure 16 shows the case where aggregate non-priority and priority
   load exceeds the bandwidth limit for admission of non-priority
   traffic.  In this situation, any new non-priority session is rejected
   while any new priority session is admitted.






Le Faucheur, et al.     Expires November 14, 2008              [Page 28]


Internet-Draft   RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services         May 2008


                -----------------------
           ^     ^  |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  ^
           .     .  |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  .
    Total  .     .  |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  .   Bandwidth Limit
          (1)   (2) |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx|  .   (on non-priority + priority)
    Engi-  .     .  |oooooooooooooo|  .   for admission
   neered  . or  .  |xxxooxxxooxxxo|  .   of non-priority traffic
           .     .  |xxoxxxxxxoxxxx|  .
   Capacity.     .  |oxxxooooxxxxoo|  .
           v     .  |xxoxxxooxxxxxx|  v
                 .  |--------------| ---
                 .  |oooooooooooooo|
                 v  |              |
                    |              |

                     Figure 16: Full non-priority load


Appendix B.  Example Usages of RSVP Extensions

   This section provides examples of how RSVP extensions defined in this
   document can be used (in conjunctions with other RSVP functionality
   and SIP functionality) to enforce different hypothetical policies for
   handling Emergency sessions in a given administrative domain.  This
   Appendix does not provide additional specification.  It is only
   included in this document for illustration purposes.

   We assume an environment where SIP is used for session control and
   RSVP is used for resource reservation.

   In a mild abuse of language, we refer here to "Call Queueing" as the
   set of "session" layer capabilities that may be implemented by SIP
   user agents to influence their treatment of SIP requests.  This may
   include the ability to "queue" session requests when those can not be
   immediately honored (in some cases with the notion of "bumping", or
   "displacement", of less important session requests from that queue).
   It may include additional mechanisms such as exemption from certain
   network management controls, and alternate routing.

   We only mention below the RSVP policy elements that are to be
   enforced by PEPs.  It is assumed that these policy elements are set
   at administrative domain boundaries by PDPs.  The Admission Priority
   and Preemption Priority RSVP policy elements are set by PDPs as a
   result of processing the Application Level Resource Priority Policy
   Element (which is carried in RSVP messages).

   If one wants to implement an emergency service purely based on Call
   Queueing, one can achieve this by signaling emergency sessions:



Le Faucheur, et al.     Expires November 14, 2008              [Page 29]


Internet-Draft   RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services         May 2008


   o  using "Resource-Priority" Header in SIP

   o  not using Admission-Priority Policy Element in RSVP

   o  not using Preemption Policy Element in RSVP

   If one wants to implement an emergency service based on Call Queueing
   and on "prioritized access to network layer resources", one can
   achieve this by signaling emergency sessions:

   o  using "Resource-Priority" Header in SIP

   o  using Admission-Priority Policy Element in RSVP

   o  not using Preemption Policy Element in RSVP

   Emergency sessions will not result in preemption of any session.
   Different bandwidth allocation models can be used to offer different
   "prioritized access to network resources".  Just as examples, this
   includes strict setting aside of capacity for emergency sessions as
   well as simple bypass of admission limits for emergency sessions.

   If one wants to implement an emergency service based on Call
   Queueing, on "prioritized access to network layer resources", and
   ensures that (say) "Emergency-1" sessions can preempt "Emergency-2"
   sessions, but non-emergency sessions are not affected by preemption,
   one can do that by signaling emergency sessions:

   o  using "Resource-Priority" Header in SIP

   o  using Admission-Priority Policy Element in RSVP

   o  using Preemption Policy Element in RSVP with:

      *  setup (Emergency-1) > defending (Emergency-2)

      *  setup (Emergency-2) <= defending (Emergency-1)

      *  setup (Emergency-1) <= defending (Non-Emergency)

      *  setup (Emergency-2) <= defending (Non-Emergency)

   If one wants to implement an emergency service based on Call
   Queueing, on "prioritized access to network layer resources", and
   ensure that "emergency" sessions can preempt regular sessions, one
   could do that by signaling emergency sessions:





Le Faucheur, et al.     Expires November 14, 2008              [Page 30]


Internet-Draft   RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services         May 2008


   o  using "Resource-Priority" Header in SIP

   o  using Admission-Priority Policy Element in RSVP

   o  using Preemption Policy Element in RSVP with:

      *  setup (Emergency) > defending (Non-Emergency)

      *  setup (Non-Emergency) <= defending (Emergency)

   If one wants to implement an emergency service based on Call
   Queueing, on "prioritized access to network layer resources", and
   ensure that "emergency" sessions can partially preempt regular
   sessions (ie reduce their reservation size), one could do that by
   signaling emergency sessions:

   o  using "Resource-Priority" Header in SIP

   o  using Admission-Priority Policy Element in RSVP

   o  using Preemption in Policy Element RSVP with:

      *  setup (Emergency) > defending (Non-Emergency)

      *  setup (Non-Emergency) <= defending (Emergency)

   o  activate RFC4495 RSVP Bandwidth Reduction mechanisms


Authors' Addresses

   Francois Le Faucheur
   Cisco Systems
   Greenside, 400 Avenue de Roumanille
   Sophia Antipolis  06410
   France

   Phone: +33 4 97 23 26 19
   Email: flefauch@cisco.com












Le Faucheur, et al.     Expires November 14, 2008              [Page 31]


Internet-Draft   RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services         May 2008


   James Polk
   Cisco Systems
   2200 East President George Bush Highway
   Richardson, TX  75082-3550
   United States

   Phone: +1 972 813 5208
   Email: jmpolk@cisco.com


   Ken Carlberg
   G11
   123a Versailles Circle
   Towson, MD  21204
   United States

   Email: carlberg@g11.org.uk


































Le Faucheur, et al.     Expires November 14, 2008              [Page 32]


Internet-Draft   RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services         May 2008


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   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.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Intellectual Property

   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
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   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
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.











Le Faucheur, et al.     Expires November 14, 2008              [Page 33]


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