[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 draft-ietf-nsis-ext

Internet Engineering Task Force                              J. Loughney
Internet-Draft                                                     Nokia
Intended status: Standards Track                       November 12, 2007
Expires: May 15, 2008


                        NSIS Extensibility Model
                         draft-nsis-ext-00.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 May 15, 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

Abstract

   This document discusses the Next Steps in Signaling extensibility
   model.  This model is based upon a two-layer model, where there is a
   transport layer and a signaling application model.  This two-layer
   provides the ability to develop new signaling applications, while
   retaining the use of a common transport layer.  This document will
   serve as guidance on how the NSIS architecture can be extended.





Loughney                  Expires May 15, 2008                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft          NSIS Extensibility Model           November 2007


Table of Contents

   1.  Requirements notation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.1.  NSIS Extensibility Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  GIST Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.1.  NSLP Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.2.  Message Routing Methods  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.3.  Protocol Indicators  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.4.  Router Alert Values  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  NSLP Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.1.  Common Functionality Among Signaling Applications  . . . .  7
   5.  QoS Model Extensibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   8.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 10






























Loughney                  Expires May 15, 2008                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft          NSIS Extensibility Model           November 2007


1.  Requirements notation

   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 [1].


2.  Introduction

   The Next Steps in Signaling Framework NSIS Framework [2] details a
   basic two-layer framework for signaling on the Internet.  The
   document decomposes signaling into a two-layer model, into a generic
   transport layer and specific signaling layers.

   This model allows for an extensible model for different signaling
   needs on the Internet.  The NSIS working group is working on two main
   signaling applications - QoS signaling [3] and NAT/Firewall signaling
   [4].  It is expected that there will be more signaling applications.

   The NSIS Transport Layer Protocol, GIST (General Internet Signaling
   Transport) GIST [5] defines a basic protocol for routing and
   transport of per-flow signaling along the path taken by that flow
   through the network; managing the underlying transport and security
   protocols.

   Above GIST can one or more NSIS Signaling Layer protocols, which can
   signal for things such as QoS, firewall control and NAT signaling.QoS
   NSLP [3], NAT/FW NSLP [4].  These signaling applications manage their
   state by using the services that the GIST provides them for
   signaling.

   This two layer approach allows for signaling applications to be
   developed independently of the transport.  As it is likely that the
   functionality entities for different signaling applications will be
   distinct, not all path elements support NSIS signaling will require
   that a specific signaling application is present - only those nodes
   that will be maintaining some signaling application state need to
   support the signaling application.

2.1.  NSIS Extensibility Types

   Generally, NSIS protocols can be extended in multiple ways.  This
   section is and overview of the mechanisms used.  The extensibility
   rules are based upon the procedures by which IANA assigns values:
   "Standards Action" (as defined in [IANA]), "IETF Action", "Expert
   Review", and "Organization/Vendor Private", defined below.

   Extensions subject to "IETF Action" require either a Standards Track



Loughney                  Expires May 15, 2008                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft          NSIS Extensibility Model           November 2007


   RFC, Experimental RFC or an Information RFC.

   Extensions subject to "Expert Review" refer to values that are to be
   reviewed by an Expert designated by the IESG.  The code points from
   these ranges are typically used for experimental extensions; such
   assignments MUST be requested by either Experimental or Information
   RFCs that document their use and processing, and the actual
   assignments made during the IANA actions for the document.  Values
   from "Expert Review" ranges MUST be registered with IANA.

   "Organization/Vendor Private" ranges refer to values that are
   enterprise-specific.  In this way, different enterprises, vendors, or
   Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) can use the same code
   point without fear of collision.

   In the NSIS protocols, experimental code points are allocated for
   experimentation, usually within closed networks, as explained in RFC
   3692.[7].  If these experiments yield useful results, it is assumed
   that they will be formally allocated by one of the above mechanisms.


3.  GIST Extensibility

   GIST is Major extensibility options for GIST are:

3.1.  NSLP Identifiers

   Each signaling application requires one of more NSLPIDs (different
   NSLPIDs may be used to distinguish different classes of signaling
   node, for example to handle different aggregation levels or different
   processing subsets).  An NSLPID must be associated with a unique RAO
   value.  IETF Action is required to allocate a new NSLP Identifier.

3.2.  Message Routing Methods

   GIST allows the idea of multiple Message Routing Methods (MRM).  The
   message routing method is indicated in the leading 2 bytes of the MRI
   object.  GIST allocates 2 bits for experimental Routing Methods, for
   use in closed networks for experimentation purposes.  Standards
   Action is required to allocate new Routing Methods.

   Experimental NSLPs are required to be able to use experimental MRMs,
   and the experimental NSLP is not supported, then the MRM is ignored.
   The expectation is that the experimental MRM is used within a closed
   network, for experimental purposes, as explained in RFC 3692.[7]






Loughney                  Expires May 15, 2008                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft          NSIS Extensibility Model           November 2007


3.3.  Protocol Indicators

   The GIMPS design allows the set of possible protocols to be used in a
   messaging association to be extended.  Every new mode of using a
   protocol is given by a Protocol Indicator, which is used as a tag in
   the Node Addressing and Stack Proposal objects.  New protocol
   indicators require IETF Action.  Allocating a new protocol indicator
   requires defining the higher layer addressing information in the Node
   Addressing Object that is needed to define its configuration.

3.4.  Router Alert Values

   Router Alert Option (RAO) values are allocated on the basis of IETF
   consensus.  However, new RAO values SHOULD NOT be allocated for each
   new NSLP.  Careful consideration needs to be exercised when choosing
   to allocate a new RAO value.  This section discusses some
   considerations on how to choose if an existing RAO option should be
   chosen or a new RAO should be allocated for an NSLP

   The use of the RAO is the primary mechanism to indicate that an GIST
   message should be intercepted by a particular node.  There are two
   basic reasons why a GIST node might wish not to intercept a
   particular message.  The first reason would be because the message is
   for a signaling application that the node does not process.  The
   second reason would be because the node is processes signaling
   messages at the aggregate level, not for individual flow, even though
   the signaling application is present on the node.  However, these
   reasons do not preclude a node processing several RAO values,
   implying it supports several different signaling applications.

   Some of this information can be encoded in the RAO value field, this
   then allows messages to be filtered on the fast path.  There is a
   tradeoff between two approaches here, whose evaluation depends on
   whether the processing node is specialized or general purpose:

   Fine-Grained: The signaling application (including specific version)
   and aggregation level are directly identified in the RAO value.  A
   specialized node which handles only a single NSLP can efficiently
   ignore all other messages; a general purpose node may have to match
   the RAO value in a message against a long list of possible values.

   Coarse-Grained; RAO values are allocated are based on common
   applications or sets of applications (such as 'All QoS Signaling
   Applications').  This speeds up the processing in a general purpose
   node, but a specialized node may have to carry out further processing
   on the GIST common header to identify the precise messages it needs
   to consider.




Loughney                  Expires May 15, 2008                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft          NSIS Extensibility Model           November 2007


   These considerations imply that the RAO value should not be tied
   directly to the NSLPID, but should be selected for the application on
   broader considerations of likely deployment scenarios.  Note that the
   exact NSLP is given in the GIMPS common header, and some
   implementations may still be able to process it on the fast path.
   The semantics of the node dropping out of the signaling path are the
   same however the filtering is done.  This is to say that the RAO does
   not have to have a one-to-one relation to a specific NSLPID, the RAO
   must be uniquely derivable from the NSLPID.

   There is a special consideration in the case of the aggregation
   level.  In this case, whether a message should be processed depends
   on the network region it is in (specifically, the link it is on).
   There are then two basic possibilities:

   All routers have essentially the same algorithm for which messages
   they process, i.e. all messages at aggregation level 0.  However,
   messages have their aggregation level incremented on entry to an
   aggregation region and decremented on exit.

   Router interfaces are configured to process messages only above a
   certain aggregation level and ignore all others.  The aggregation
   level of a message is never changed; signaling messages for end to
   end flows have level 0, but signaling messages for aggregates are
   generated with a higher level.

   The first technique requires aggregating/deaggregating routers to be
   configured with which of their interfaces lie at which aggregation
   level, and also requires consistent message rewriting at these
   boundaries.  The second technique eliminates the rewriting, but
   requires interior routers to be configured also.  It is not clear
   what the right trade-off between these options is.


4.  NSLP Extensibility

   An NSLP roughly should correspond to a class of signaling
   application, this requires some state maintenance along a network
   path.  Signaling applications should be generic enough to allow for
   state manipulation for a common set of functions.  This allows for an
   architecture which allows for flexible network deployment, without
   over-burdening nodes with extra signaling applications.

   New NSLPs should be created when there is a new signaling
   application.  Creating new NSLPs which only slightly modify existing
   NSLPs is not recommended as it will increase deployment complexity
   (common nodes would need to support multiple NSLPs for similar
   functionality).



Loughney                  Expires May 15, 2008                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft          NSIS Extensibility Model           November 2007


4.1.  Common Functionality Among Signaling Applications

   While NSIS has adopted a two-layer signaling approach, in practice,
   there is much in common between different NSLPs.  Efforts should be
   made to ensure some high-level of compatibility among signaling
   applications, this could be reused by some implementations in order
   to combine multiple signaling applications into one implementation,
   but that is an implementation decision.


5.  QoS Model Extensibility

   The QoS NSLP provides signaling for QoS reservations on the Internet.
   The QoS NSLP decouples the resource reservation model or architecture
   from the signaling.  The QoS specification is defined in QSpec [6].
   New QoS Models require IETF action, which defines the elements within
   the QSpec.  See QSpec [6] for details.

   A key part of the QoS model is support a common language, which can
   be shared among several QOSMs.  These QSPEC parameters ensure a
   certain level of interoperability of QOSMs.  Optional QSPEC
   parameters support the extensibility of the QoS NSLP to other QOSMs
   in the future.  The node initiating the NSIS signaling adds an
   Initiator QSPEC that must not be removed, thereby ensuring the
   intention of the NSIS initiator is preserved along the signaling
   path.


6.  IANA Considerations

   This document outlines the basic rules for extending NSIS protocols.
   This instructions IANA on allocation policies for NSIS protocols.


7.  Security Considerations

   This document is an informational document, outlining the
   extensibility model of the NSIS protocol suite.  As such, this
   document does not impact the security of the Internet directly.


8.  Acknowledgements

   This document borrows some ideas and some text from RFC3936 [8],
   Procedures for Modifying the Resource reSerVation Protocol (RSVP).

   Robert Hancock provided text for much of the GIST section.  Claudia
   Keppler have provided feedback on this draft.



Loughney                  Expires May 15, 2008                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft          NSIS Extensibility Model           November 2007


   Allison Mankin and Bob Braden suggest that this draft be worked on.


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [4]  Stiemerling, M., "NAT/Firewall NSIS Signaling Layer Protocol
        (NSLP)", draft-ietf-nsis-nslp-natfw-15 (work in progress),
        July 2007.

   [5]  Schulzrinne, H. and R. Hancock, "GIST: General Internet
        Signalling Transport", draft-ietf-nsis-ntlp-14 (work in
        progress), July 2007.

   [3]  Manner, J., "NSLP for Quality-of-Service Signaling",
        draft-ietf-nsis-qos-nslp-15 (work in progress), July 2007.

   [6]  Ash, G., Bader, A., Kappler, C., and D. Oran, "QoS NSLP QSPEC
        Template", draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-18 (work in progress),
        October 2007.

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

   [2]  Hancock, R., Karagiannis, G., Loughney, J., and S. Van den
        Bosch, "Next Steps in Signaling (NSIS): Framework", RFC 4080,
        June 2005.

9.2.  Informative References

   [7]  Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers
        Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004.

   [8]  Kompella, K. and J. Lang, "Procedures for Modifying the Resource
        reSerVation Protocol (RSVP)", BCP 96, RFC 3936, October 2004.















Loughney                  Expires May 15, 2008                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft          NSIS Extensibility Model           November 2007


Author's Address

   John Loughney
   Nokia
   955 Page Mill Road
   Palo Alto  94303
   USA

   Phone: +1 650 283 8068
   Email: john.loughney@nokia.com









































Loughney                  Expires May 15, 2008                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft          NSIS Extensibility Model           November 2007


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   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.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).





Loughney                  Expires May 15, 2008                 [Page 10]


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