draft-ietf-nsis-req-01.txt   draft-ietf-nsis-req-02.txt 
NSIS Working Group NSIS Working Group
Internet Draft M. Brunner (Editor) Internet Draft M. Brunner (Editor)
Document: draft-ietf-nsis-req-01.txt NEC Document: draft-ietf-nsis-req-02.txt NEC
Expires: October 2002 April 2002 Expires: November 2002 May 2002
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols
<draft-ietf-nsis-req-01.txt> <draft-ietf-nsis-req-02.txt>
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance
with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002 Informational [Page 1]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
Abstract Abstract
This document defines requirements for signaling QoS across This document defines requirements for signaling QoS across
different network environments. To achieve wide applicability of the different network environments. To achieve wide applicability of the
requirements, the starting point is a diverse set of scenarios/use requirements, the starting point is a diverse set of scenarios/use
cases concerning various types of networks and application cases concerning various types of networks and application
interactions. We also provide an outline structure for the problem, interactions. We also provide an outline structure for the problem,
including QoS related terminology. Taken with the scenarios, this including QoS related terminology. Taken with the scenarios, this
allows us to focus more precisely on which parts of the overall QoS allows us to focus more precisely on which parts of the overall QoS
problem needs to be solved. We present the assumptions and the problem needs to be solved. We present the assumptions and the
aspects not considered within scope before listing the requirements aspects not considered within scope before listing the requirements
grouped according to areas such as architecture and design goals, grouped according to areas such as architecture and design goals,
skipping to change at page 2, line 34 skipping to change at line 65
first have a clear idea of the scope within which they are first have a clear idea of the scope within which they are
applicable. applicable.
We describe a set of QoS signaling scenarios and use cases in the We describe a set of QoS signaling scenarios and use cases in the
Appendix of that document. These scenarios derive from a variety of Appendix of that document. These scenarios derive from a variety of
backgrounds, and help obtain a clearer picture of what is in or out backgrounds, and help obtain a clearer picture of what is in or out
of scope of the NSIS work. They illustrate the problem of QoS of scope of the NSIS work. They illustrate the problem of QoS
signaling from various perspectives (end-system, access network, signaling from various perspectives (end-system, access network,
core network) and for various areas (fixed line, mobile, wireless core network) and for various areas (fixed line, mobile, wireless
environments). As the NSIS work becomes more clearly defined, environments). As the NSIS work becomes more clearly defined,
scenarios will be added or dropped, or defined in more detail. scenarios will be added or dropped, or defined in more detail.
Based on these scenarios, we are able to define the QoS signaling Based on these scenarios, we are able to define the QoS signaling
problem on a more abstract level. In Section 3, we thus present a problem on a more abstract level. In Section 3, we thus present a
simple conceptual model of the QoS signaling problem, describe the simple conceptual model of the QoS signaling problem, describe the
entities involved in QoS signaling, and typical signaling paths. In entities involved in QoS signaling, and typical signaling paths. In
Section 4 we list assumptions and exclusions. Section 4 we list assumptions and exclusions.
The model of Section 3 allows deriving requirements from the The model of Section 3 allows deriving requirements from the
scenarios presented in the appendix in a coherent and consistent scenarios presented in the appendix in a coherent and consistent
manner. Requirements are grouped according to areas such as manner. Requirements are grouped according to areas such as
Architecture and design goals, Signaling Flows, Layering, Architecture and design goals, Signaling Flows, Layering,
Performance, Flexibility, Security and Mobility. Performance, Flexibility, Security and Mobility.
QoS is a pretty large field with a lot of interaction with other QoS is a pretty large field with a lot of interaction with other
protocols, mechanisms, applications etc. In the following, some protocols, mechanisms, applications etc. In the following, some
thoughts from an end-system point of view and from a network point thoughts from an end-system point of view and from a network point
of view. of view.
End-system perspective: In future mobile terminals, the support of End-system perspective: In future mobile terminals, the support of
adaptive applications is more and more important. Adaptively can be adaptive applications is more and more important. Adaptively can be
seen as an important technique to react to QoS violations that may seen as an important technique to react to QoS violations that may
occur frequently, e.g., in wireless environments due to changed occur frequently, e.g., in wireless environments due to changed
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 2]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
environmental and network conditions. This may result in degraded environmental and network conditions. This may result in degraded
end-to-end performance. It is then up to adaptive applications to end-to-end performance. It is then up to adaptive applications to
react to the new resource availability. Therefore, it is essential react to the new resource availability. Therefore, it is essential
to define interoperability between media-, mobility- and QoS to define interoperability between media-, mobility- and QoS
management. While most likely mobile terminals cannot assume, that management. While most likely mobile terminals cannot assume, that
explicit QoS reservation schemes are available, some access networks explicit QoS reservation schemes are available, some access networks
nevertheless may offer such capabilities. Applications subscribed to nevertheless may offer such capabilities. Applications subscribed to
an end-system QoS management system should be supported with a an end-system QoS management system should be supported with a
dedicated QoS API to set-up, control and adapt media sessions. dedicated QoS API to set-up, control and adapt media sessions.
Network perspective: QoS enabled IP networks are expected to handle Network perspective: QoS enabled IP networks are expected to handle
two different kinds of QoS granularities: per-flow QoS and per- two different kinds of QoS granularities: per-flow QoS and per-
trunk/per-class QoS. Per-flow QoS might be needed in access networks trunk/per-class QoS. Per-flow QoS might be needed in access networks
and may there be subject of QoS signaling. However, in the core and may there be subject of QoS signaling. However, in the core
network only per-trunk or per-class QoS can be considered for network only per-trunk or per-class QoS can be considered for
scalability reasons. Therefore there might be different requirements scalability reasons. Therefore there might be different requirements
on QoS signaling applying to different parts of the network. In the on QoS signaling applying to different parts of the network. In the
access network QoS signaling is an interaction between end systems access network QoS signaling is an interaction between end systems
and access routers or access network QoS managers (in the following and access routers or access network QoS managers (in the following
we call them QoS initiator and QoS controller). In the core network we call them QoS initiator and QoS controller). In the core network
skipping to change at page 3, line 28 skipping to change at line 115
network only per-trunk or per-class QoS can be considered for network only per-trunk or per-class QoS can be considered for
scalability reasons. Therefore there might be different requirements scalability reasons. Therefore there might be different requirements
on QoS signaling applying to different parts of the network. In the on QoS signaling applying to different parts of the network. In the
access network QoS signaling is an interaction between end systems access network QoS signaling is an interaction between end systems
and access routers or access network QoS managers (in the following and access routers or access network QoS managers (in the following
we call them QoS initiator and QoS controller). In the core network we call them QoS initiator and QoS controller). In the core network
QoS signaling refers to trunks or classes of traffic between core QoS signaling refers to trunks or classes of traffic between core
and edge systems or between peering core systems. Please note that and edge systems or between peering core systems. Please note that
this does not exclude the transport of per-flow signaling through this does not exclude the transport of per-flow signaling through
core networks. core networks.
It is clear from these descriptions that the subject of QoS is It is clear from these descriptions that the subject of QoS is
uniquely complex and any investigation could potentially have a very uniquely complex and any investigation could potentially have a very
broad scope - so broad that it is a challenge to focus work on an broad scope - so broad that it is a challenge to focus work on an
area which could lead to a concrete and useful result. This is our area which could lead to a concrete and useful result. This is our
motivation for considering a set of use cases, which map out the motivation for considering a set of use cases, which map out the
domain of application that we want to address. It is also the domain of application that we want to address. It is also the
motivation for defining a problem structure, which allows us to motivation for defining a problem structure, which allows us to
state the boundaries of what types of functionality to consider, and state the boundaries of what types of functionality to consider, and
to list background assumptions. to list background assumptions.
There are several areas of the requirements related to networking There are several areas of the requirements related to networking
aspects which are incomplete, for example, interaction with host and aspects which are incomplete, for example, interaction with host and
site multi-homing, use of anycast services, and so on. These issues site multi-homing, use of anycast services, and so on. These issues
should be considered in any future requirement analysis work. should be considered in any future requirement analysis work.
2 Terminology 2 Terminology
In the area of Qualiaty of Service (QoS) it is quite difficult and In the area of Qualiaty of Service (QoS) it is quite difficult and
an exercise for its own to define terminology. Nevertheless, we an exercise for its own to define terminology. Nevertheless, we
tried to list the most often used terms in the draft and tried to tried to list the most often used terms in the draft and tried to
explain them. However, don't be to religious about it, they are not explain them. However, don't be to religious about it, they are not
meant to prescribe any thing in the draft. meant to prescribe any thing in the draft.
Aggregate: a group of flows, usually with similar QoS requirements, Aggregate: a group of flows, usually with similar QoS requirements,
which can be treated together as a whole with a single overall QoS which can be treated together as a whole with a single overall QoS
requirement for signaling and provisioning. Aggregates and flows can requirement for signaling and provisioning. Aggregates and flows can
be further aggregated together. be further aggregated together.
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002 Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 3]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
[QoS] Domain: a collection of networks under the same administrative [QoS] Domain: a collection of networks under the same administrative
control and grouped together for administrative purposes. control and grouped together for administrative purposes.
Egress point: the router via which a path exits a domain/subdomain. Egress point: the router via which a path exits a domain/subdomain.
End Host: the end system or host, for whose flows QoS is being End Host: the end system or host, for whose flows QoS is being
requested and provisioned. requested and provisioned.
End-to-End QoS: the QoS delivered by the network between two End-to-End QoS: the QoS delivered by the network between two
communicating end hosts. End-to-end QoS co-ordinates and enforces communicating end hosts. End-to-end QoS co-ordinates and enforces
predefined traffic management policies across multiple network predefined traffic management policies across multiple network
entities and administrative domains. entities and administrative domains.
Edge-to-edge QoS: QoS within an administrative domain that connects Edge-to-edge QoS: QoS within an administrative domain that connects
to other networks rather than hosts or end systems. to other networks rather than hosts or end systems.
Flow: a traffic stream (sequence of IP packets between two end Flow: a traffic stream (sequence of IP packets between two end
systems) for which a specific level of QoS is to be provided. The systems) for which a specific level of QoS is to be provided. The
flow can be unicast (uni- or bi-directional) or multicast. flow can be unicast (uni- or bi-directional) or multicast.
Flow Administration: represents the policy associated with how flows Flow Administration: represents the policy associated with how flows
should be treated in the network, for example whether and how the should be treated in the network, for example whether and how the
flows should be aggregated. It may consist of both user and local flows should be aggregated. It may consist of both user and local
network management information. network management information.
Higher Layers: the higher layer (transport protocol and application) Higher Layers: the higher layer (transport protocol and application)
functions that request QoS from the network layer. The request might functions that request QoS from the network layer. The request might
be a trigger generated within the end system, or the trigger might be a trigger generated within the end system, or the trigger might
be provided by some entity within the network (e.g. application be provided by some entity within the network (e.g. application
proxy or policy server). proxy or policy server).
Indication: feedback from QoS provisioning to indicate the current Indication: feedback from QoS provisioning to indicate the current
QoS being provided to a flow or aggregate, and whether any QoS being provided to a flow or aggregate, and whether any
violations have been detected by the QoS technology being used violations have been detected by the QoS technology being used
within the local domain/subdomain. within the local domain/subdomain.
Ingress point: the router via which a path enters a Ingress point: the router via which a path enters a
domain/subdomain. domain/subdomain.
Mapping: the act of transforming parameters from QSCs to values that Mapping: the act of transforming parameters from QSCs to values that
are meaningful to the actual QoS technology in use in the are meaningful to the actual QoS technology in use in the
domain/subdomain. domain/subdomain.
Path: the route across the networks taken by a flow or aggregate, Path: the route across the networks taken by a flow or aggregate,
i.e. which domains/subdomains it passes through and the i.e. which domains/subdomains it passes through and the
egress/ingress points for each. egress/ingress points for each.
Path segment: the segment of a path within a single Path segment: the segment of a path within a single
domain/subdomain. domain/subdomain.
QoS Administration Function: a generic term for all functions QoS Administration Function: a generic term for all functions
associated with admission control, policy control, traffic associated with admission control, policy control, traffic
engineering etc. engineering etc.
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002 Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 4]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
QoS Control Information: the information the governs the QoS QoS Control Information: the information the governs the QoS
treatment to be applied to a flow or aggregate, including the QSC, treatment to be applied to a flow or aggregate, including the QSC,
flow administration, and any associated security or accounting flow administration, and any associated security or accounting
information. information.
QoS Controller: this is responsible for interpreting the signaling QoS Controller: this is responsible for interpreting the signaling
carrying the user QoS parameters, optionally inserting/modifying the carrying the user QoS parameters, optionally inserting/modifying the
parameters according to local network QoS management policy, and parameters according to local network QoS management policy, and
invoking local QoS provisioning mechanisms. Note that q QoS invoking local QoS provisioning mechanisms. Note that q QoS
controller might have very different functionality depending on controller might have very different functionality depending on
where in the network and in what environment they are implemented. where in the network and in what environment they are implemented.
QoS Initiator: this is responsible for generating the QSCs for QoS Initiator: this is responsible for generating the QSCs for
traffic flow(s) based on user or application requirements and traffic flow(s) based on user or application requirements and
signaling them to the network as well as invoking local QoS signaling them to the network as well as invoking local QoS
provisioning mechanisms. This can be located in the end system, but provisioning mechanisms. This can be located in the end system, but
may reside elsewhere in network. may reside elsewhere in network.
QoS Provisioning: the act of actually allocating resources to a flow QoS Provisioning: the act of actually allocating resources to a flow
or aggregate of flows, may include mechanisms such as LSP initiation or aggregate of flows, may include mechanisms such as LSP initiation
for MPLS, packet scheduler configuration within a router, and so on. for MPLS, packet scheduler configuration within a router, and so on.
The mechanisms depend on the overall QoS technology being used The mechanisms depend on the overall QoS technology being used
within the [sub]domain. within the [sub]domain.
QoS Service Classes (QSC): specify the QoS requirements of a traffic QoS Service Classes (QSC): specify the QoS requirements of a traffic
flow or aggregate. Can be further sub-divided into user specific flow or aggregate. Can be further sub-divided into user specific
and network related parameters and network related parameters
QoS Signaling: a way to communicate QSCs and QoS management QoS Signaling: a way to communicate QSCs and QoS management
information between hosts, end systems and network devices etc. May information between hosts, end systems and network devices etc. May
include request and response messages to facilitate negotiation/re- include request and response messages to facilitate negotiation/re-
negotiation, asynchronous feedback messages (not delivered upon negotiation, asynchronous feedback messages (not delivered upon
request) to inform End Hosts, QoS initiators and QoS controllers request) to inform End Hosts, QoS initiators and QoS controllers
about current QoS levels, and QoS querying facilities. about current QoS levels, and QoS querying facilities.
[QoS] Subdomain: a network within an administrative domain using a [QoS] Subdomain: a network within an administrative domain using a
uniform technology/QoS provisioning function to provision resources. uniform technology/QoS provisioning function to provision resources.
QoS Technology: a generic term for a set of protocols, standards and QoS Technology: a generic term for a set of protocols, standards and
mechanisms that can be used within a QoS domain/subdomain to manage mechanisms that can be used within a QoS domain/subdomain to manage
the QoS provided to flows or aggregates that traverse the domain. the QoS provided to flows or aggregates that traverse the domain.
Examples might include MPLS, DiffServ, and so on. A QoS technology Examples might include MPLS, DiffServ, and so on. A QoS technology
is associated with certain QoS provisioning techniques. is associated with certain QoS provisioning techniques.
QoS Violation: occurs when the QoS applied to a flow or aggregate QoS Violation: occurs when the QoS applied to a flow or aggregate
does not meet the requested and negotiated QoS agreed for it. does not meet the requested and negotiated QoS agreed for it.
Resource: something of value in a network infrastructure to which Resource: something of value in a network infrastructure to which
rules or policy criteria are first applied before access is granted. rules or policy criteria are first applied before access is granted.
Examples of resources include the buffers in a router and bandwidth Examples of resources include the buffers in a router and bandwidth
on an interface. on an interface.
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002 Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 5]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
Resource Allocation: part of a resource that has been dedicated for Resource Allocation: part of a resource that has been dedicated for
the use of a particular traffic type for a period of time through the use of a particular traffic type for a period of time through
the application of policies. the application of policies.
Sender-initiated QoS signaling protocol: A sender-initiated QoS Sender-initiated QoS signaling protocol: A sender-initiated QoS
signaling protocol is a protocol (see e.g., YESSIR [8], RMD [10]) signaling protocol is a protocol (see e.g., YESSIR [8], RMD [10])
where the QI initiates the signaling on behalf of the sender of the where the QI initiates the signaling on behalf of the sender of the
data. What this means is that admission control and resource data. What this means is that admission control and resource
allocation functions are processed from the data sender towards the allocation functions are processed from the data sender towards the
data receiver. However, the triggering instance is not specified. data receiver. However, the triggering instance is not specified.
Receiver-initiated QoS signalling protocol: A receiver-initiated Receiver-initiated QoS signalling protocol: A receiver-initiated
protocol, (see e.g., RSVP [9]) is a protocol where the QoS protocol, (see e.g., RSVP [9]) is a protocol where the QoS
reservations are initiated by the QoS Reiceiver on behalf of the reservations are initiated by the QoS Reiceiver on behalf of the
receiver of the user data. What this means is that admission control receiver of the user data. What this means is that admission control
and resource allocation functions are processed from the data and resource allocation functions are processed from the data
receiver back towards the data sender. However, the triggering receiver back towards the data sender. However, the triggering
instance is not specified. instance is not specified.
3 Problem Statement and Scope 3 Problem Statement and Scope
We provide in the following a preliminary architectural picture as a We provide in the following a preliminary architectural picture as a
basis for discussion. We will refer to it in the following basis for discussion. We will refer to it in the following
requirement section. requirement section.
A set of issues and problems to be solved has been given at a top A set of issues and problems to be solved has been given at a top
level by the use cases/scenarios of the appendix. However, the level by the use cases/scenarios of the appendix. However, the
problem of QoS has an extremely wide scope and there is a great deal problem of QoS has an extremely wide scope and there is a great deal
of work already done to provide different components of the of work already done to provide different components of the
solution, such as QoS technologies for example. A basic goal should solution, such as QoS technologies for example. A basic goal should
be to re-use these wherever possible, and to focus requirements work be to re-use these wherever possible, and to focus requirements work
at an early stage on those areas where a new solution is needed at an early stage on those areas where a new solution is needed
(e.g. an especially simple one). We also try to avoid defining (e.g. an especially simple one). We also try to avoid defining
requirements related to internal implementation aspects. requirements related to internal implementation aspects.
In this section, we present a simple conceptual model of the overall In this section, we present a simple conceptual model of the overall
QoS problem in order to identify the applicability to NSIS of QoS problem in order to identify the applicability to NSIS of
requirements derived from the use cases, and to clarify the scope of requirements derived from the use cases, and to clarify the scope of
the work, including any open issues. This model also identifies the work, including any open issues. This model also identifies
further sources of requirements from external interactions with further sources of requirements from external interactions with
other parts of an overall QoS solution, clarifies the terminology other parts of an overall QoS solution, clarifies the terminology
used, and allows the statement of design goals about the nature of used, and allows the statement of design goals about the nature of
the solution (see section 5). the solution (see section 5).
Note that this model is intended not to constrain the technical Note that this model is intended not to constrain the technical
approach taken subsequently, simply to allow concrete phrasing of approach taken subsequently, simply to allow concrete phrasing of
requirements (e.g. requirements about placement of the QoS requirements (e.g. requirements about placement of the QoS
initiator, or ability to 'drive' particular QoS technologies.) initiator, or ability to 'drive' particular QoS technologies.)
Roughly, the scope of NSIS is assumed to be the interaction between Roughly, the scope of NSIS is assumed to be the interaction between
the QoS initiator and QoS controller(s), including selection of the QoS initiator and QoS controller(s), including selection of
signaling protocols to carry the QoS information, and the signaling protocols to carry the QoS information, and the
syntax/semantics of the information that is exchanged. Further syntax/semantics of the information that is exchanged. Further
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 6]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
statements on assumptions/exclusions are given in the next Section. statements on assumptions/exclusions are given in the next Section.
The main elements are: The main elements are:
1. Something that starts the request for QoS, the QoS Initiator. 1. Something that starts the request for QoS, the QoS Initiator.
This might be in the end system or within some other part of the This might be in the end system or within some other part of the
network. The distinguishing feature of the QoS initiator is that it network. The distinguishing feature of the QoS initiator is that it
acts on triggers coming (directly or indirectly) from the higher acts on triggers coming (directly or indirectly) from the higher
layers in the end systems. It needs to map the QoS requested by layers in the end systems. It needs to map the QoS requested by
them, and also provides feedback information to the higher layers them, and also provides feedback information to the higher layers
which might be used by transport layer rate management or adaptive which might be used by transport layer rate management or adaptive
applications. applications.
2. Something that assists in managing QoS further along the path, 2. Something that assists in managing QoS further along the path,
the QoS controller. the QoS controller.
The QoS controller does not interact with higher layers, but The QoS controller does not interact with higher layers, but
interacts with the QoS initiator and possibly more QoS controllers interacts with the QoS initiator and possibly more QoS controllers
on the path, edge to edge or possibly end to end. on the path, edge to edge or possibly end to end.
3. The QoS initiator and controller(s) interact with each other, 3. The QoS initiator and controller(s) interact with each other,
path segment by path segment. This interaction involves the exchange path segment by path segment. This interaction involves the exchange
of data (QoS control information) over some signaling protocol. of data (QoS control information) over some signaling protocol.
4. The path segment traverses an underlying network (QoS domain or 4. The path segment traverses an underlying network (QoS domain or
subdomain) covering one or more IP hops. The underlying network uses subdomain) covering one or more IP hops. The underlying network uses
some local QoS technology. This QoS technology has to be provisioned some local QoS technology. This QoS technology has to be provisioned
appropriately for the flow, and this is done by the QoS initiator appropriately for the flow, and this is done by the QoS initiator
and controller(s), mapping their QoS control information to and controller(s), mapping their QoS control information to
technology-related QoS parameters and receiving indications about technology-related QoS parameters and receiving indications about
success or failure in response. success or failure in response.
Now concentrating more on the overall end to end (multiple QoS Now concentrating more on the overall end to end (multiple QoS
domains) aspects, in particular: domains) aspects, in particular:
1. The QoS initiator need not be located at an end system, and the 1. The QoS initiator need not be located at an end system, and the
QoS controllers are not assumed to be located on the flow's data QoS controllers are not assumed to be located on the flow's data
path. However, they must be able to identify the ingress and egress path. However, they must be able to identify the ingress and egress
points for the flow path as it traverses the domain/subdomain. Any points for the flow path as it traverses the domain/subdomain. Any
signaling protocol must be able to find the appropriate QoS signaling protocol must be able to find the appropriate QoS
controller and carry this ingress/egress point information. controller and carry this ingress/egress point information.
2. We see the network at the level of domains/subdomains rather than 2. We see the network at the level of domains/subdomains rather than
individual routers (except in the special case that the domain individual routers (except in the special case that the domain
contains one link). Domains are assumed to be administrative contains one link). Domains are assumed to be administrative
entities, so security requirements apply to the signaling between entities, so security requirements apply to the signaling between
them. Subdomains are introduced to allow the fact a given QoS them. Subdomains are introduced to allow the fact a given QoS
provisioning mechanism may only be used within a part of a domain, provisioning mechanism may only be used within a part of a domain,
typically for a particular subnetwork technology boundary. typically for a particular subnetwork technology boundary.
Aggregation can also take place at subdomain boundaries. Aggregation can also take place at subdomain boundaries.
3. Any domain may contain QoS administration functions (e.g. to do 3. Any domain may contain QoS administration functions (e.g. to do
with traffic engineering, admission control, policy and so on). with traffic engineering, admission control, policy and so on).
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002 Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 7]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
These are assumed to interact with the QoS initiator and controllers These are assumed to interact with the QoS initiator and controllers
(and end systems) using standard mechanisms. (and end systems) using standard mechanisms.
4. The placement of the QoS initiators and QoS controllers is not 4. The placement of the QoS initiators and QoS controllers is not
fixed. Actually, there are two extreme cases: fixed. Actually, there are two extreme cases:
- Each router on the data path implements a QoS controller and QoS - Each router on the data path implements a QoS controller and QoS
initiator. initiator.
- Only the end systems incorporate a QoS controller and QoS - Only the end systems incorporate a QoS controller and QoS
initiator, which means the end systems need to have QoS provisioning initiator, which means the end systems need to have QoS provisioning
capabilities. However this case does not seam to be realistic but capabilities. However this case does not seam to be realistic but
shows the flexible allocation of the controller and initiator shows the flexible allocation of the controller and initiator
function. function.
4 Assumptions and Exclusions 4 Assumptions and Exclusions
4.1 Assumptions and Non-Assumptions 4.1 Assumptions and Non-Assumptions
1. The NSIS signaling could run end to end, end to edge, or edge to 1. The NSIS signaling could run end to end, end to edge, or edge to
edge, or network-to-network ((between providers), depending on what edge, or network-to-network ((between providers), depending on what
point in the network acts as the initiator, and how far towards the point in the network acts as the initiator, and how far towards the
other end of the network the signaling propagates. Although the other end of the network the signaling propagates. Although the
figures show QoS controllers at a very limited number of locations figures show QoS controllers at a very limited number of locations
in the network (e.g. at domain or subdomain borders, or even in the network (e.g. at domain or subdomain borders, or even
controlling a complete domain), this is only one possible case. In controlling a complete domain), this is only one possible case. In
general, we could expect QoS controllers to become more 'dense' general, we could expect QoS controllers to become more 'dense'
towards the edges of the network, but this is not a requirement. An towards the edges of the network, but this is not a requirement. An
overprovisioned domain might contain no QoS controllers at all (and overprovisioned domain might contain no QoS controllers at all (and
skipping to change at page 9, line 5 skipping to change at line 426
we do not exclude that different signaling protocols are used in we do not exclude that different signaling protocols are used in
each path segment. We only place requirements on the universality of each path segment. We only place requirements on the universality of
the QoS control information that is being transported. (The goals the QoS control information that is being transported. (The goals
here would be to allow the use of signaling protocols which are here would be to allow the use of signaling protocols which are
matched to the characteristics of the portion of the network being matched to the characteristics of the portion of the network being
traversed.) Note that the outcome of NSIS work might result in traversed.) Note that the outcome of NSIS work might result in
various protocols or various flavors of the same protocol. This various protocols or various flavors of the same protocol. This
implies the need for the translation of information into QoS domain implies the need for the translation of information into QoS domain
specific format as well. specific format as well.
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002 Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 8]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
4. We assume that the service definitions a QoS initiator can ask 4. We assume that the service definitions a QoS initiator can ask
for are known in advance of the signaling protocol running. Service for are known in advance of the signaling protocol running. Service
definition includes QoS parameters, life-time of QoS guarantee etc. definition includes QoS parameters, life-time of QoS guarantee etc.
There are many ways a service requester get to know about it. There There are many ways a service requester get to know about it. There
might be standardized services, the definition can be negotiated might be standardized services, the definition can be negotiated
together with a contract, the service definition is published at a together with a contract, the service definition is published at a
Web-page, etc. Web-page, etc.
5. We assume that there are means for the discovery of NSIS entities 5. We assume that there are means for the discovery of NSIS entities
in order to know the signaling peers (solutions include static in order to know the signaling peers (solutions include static
configuration, automatically discovered, or implicitly runs over the configuration, automatically discovered, or implicitly runs over the
right nodes, etc.) right nodes, etc.)
4.2 Exclusions 4.2 Exclusions
1. Development of specific mechanisms and algorithms for application 1. Development of specific mechanisms and algorithms for application
and transport layer adaptation are not considered, nor are the and transport layer adaptation are not considered, nor are the
protocols that would support it. protocols that would support it.
2. Specific mechanisms (APIs and so on) for interaction between 2. Specific mechanisms (APIs and so on) for interaction between
transport/applications and the network layer are not considered, transport/applications and the network layer are not considered,
except to clarify the requirements on the negotiation capabilities except to clarify the requirements on the negotiation capabilities
and information semantics that would be needed of the signaling and information semantics that would be needed of the signaling
protocol. The same applies to application adaptation mechanisms. protocol. The same applies to application adaptation mechanisms.
3. Specific mechanisms for QoS provisioning within a 3. Specific mechanisms for QoS provisioning within a
domain/subdomain are not considered. It should be possible to domain/subdomain are not considered. It should be possible to
exploit these mechanisms optimally within the end to end context. exploit these mechanisms optimally within the end to end context.
Consideration of how to do this might generate new requirements for Consideration of how to do this might generate new requirements for
NSIS however. For example, the information needed by an QoS NSIS however. For example, the information needed by an QoS
controller to manage a radio subnetwork needs to be provided by the controller to manage a radio subnetwork needs to be provided by the
NSIS solution. NSIS solution.
4. Specific mechanisms (APIs and so on) for interaction between the 4. Specific mechanisms (APIs and so on) for interaction between the
network layer and underlying QoS provisioning mechanisms are not network layer and underlying QoS provisioning mechanisms are not
considered. considered.
5. Interaction with QoS administration capabilities is not 5. Interaction with QoS administration capabilities is not
considered. Standard protocols should be used for this (e.g. COPS). considered. Standard protocols should be used for this (e.g. COPS).
This may imply requirements for the sort of information that should This may imply requirements for the sort of information that should
be exchanged between the NSIS network QoS entities. be exchanged between the NSIS network QoS entities.
6. Security issues related to multicasting are outside the scope of 6. Security issues related to multicasting are outside the scope of
the QoS signaling protocol. the QoS signaling protocol.
Since multicasting is currently not an issue for the QoS protocol, Since multicasting is currently not an issue for the QoS protocol,
security issues related to multicast are outside the scope. security issues related to multicast are outside the scope.
Multicast security may additionally be an application issue that is Multicast security may additionally be an application issue that is
also outside the scope of the QoS protocol. also outside the scope of the QoS protocol.
7. Protection of non-QoS signaling messages is outside the scope of 7. Protection of non-QoS signaling messages is outside the scope of
the QoS protocol the QoS protocol
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 9]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
Security protection of data messages transmitted along the Security protection of data messages transmitted along the
established QoS path is outside the scope of the QoS protocol. These established QoS path is outside the scope of the QoS protocol. These
security properties are likely to be application specific and may be security properties are likely to be application specific and may be
provided by the corresponding application layer protocol. provided by the corresponding application layer protocol.
8. Service definitions and QoS classes are out of scope. Together 8. Service definitions and QoS classes are out of scope. Together
with the service definition any definition of service specific with the service definition any definition of service specific
parameters are not considered in this draft. Only the base NSIS parameters are not considered in this draft. Only the base NSIS
signaling protocol for transporting the QoS/service information are signaling protocol for transporting the QoS/service information are
handled. handled.
9. Similarly, specific methods, protocols, and ways to express QoS 9. Similarly, specific methods, protocols, and ways to express QoS
information in the Application/Session level are not considered information in the Application/Session level are not considered
(e.g., SDP, SIP, RTSP, etc.). (e.g., SDP, SIP, RTSP, etc.).
10. The specification of any extensions needed to signal QoS 10. The specification of any extensions needed to signal QoS
information via application level protocols (e.g. SDP(ng)), and the information via application level protocols (e.g. SDP(ng)), and the
mapping on NSIS information are considered outside of the scope of mapping on NSIS information are considered outside of the scope of
NSIS working group, as this work is in the direct scope of other NSIS working group, as this work is in the direct scope of other
IETF working groups (e.g. MMUSIC). IETF working groups (e.g. MMUSIC).
5 Requirements 5 Requirements
This section defines more detailed requirements for a QoS signaling This section defines more detailed requirements for a QoS signaling
solution, derived from consideration of the use cases/scenarios, and solution, derived from consideration of the use cases/scenarios, and
respecting the framework, scoping assumptions, and terminology respecting the framework, scoping assumptions, and terminology
considered earlier. The requirements are in subsections, grouped considered earlier. The requirements are in subsections, grouped
roughly according to general technical aspects: architecture and roughly according to general technical aspects: architecture and
design goals, topology issues, QoS parameters, performance, design goals, topology issues, QoS parameters, performance,
security, information, and flexibility. security, information, and flexibility.
Two general (and potentially contradictory) goals for the solution Two general (and potentially contradictory) goals for the solution
are that it should be applicable in a very wide range of scenarios, are that it should be applicable in a very wide range of scenarios,
and at the same time lightweight in implementation complexity and and at the same time lightweight in implementation complexity and
resource requirements in nodes. One approach to this is that the resource requirements in nodes. One approach to this is that the
solution could deal with certain requirements via modular components solution could deal with certain requirements via modular components
or capabilities, which are optional to implement in individual or capabilities, which are optional to implement in individual
nodes. nodes.
Some of the requirements are technically contradictory. Depending on Some of the requirements are technically contradictory. Depending on
the scenarios a solution applies to, one or the other requirement is the scenarios a solution applies to, one or the other requirement is
applicable. applicable.
Find in Section 6 the MUSTs, SHOULDs, and MAYs Find in Section 6 the MUSTs, SHOULDs, and MAYs
5.1 Architecture and Design Goals 5.1 Architecture and Design Goals
This section contains requirements related to desirable overall This section contains requirements related to desirable overall
characteristics of a solution, e.g. enabling flexibility, or characteristics of a solution, e.g. enabling flexibility, or
independence of parts of the framework. independence of parts of the framework.
5.1.1
Applicability for different QoS technologies.
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002 5.1.1 Applicability for different QoS technologies.
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 10]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
The QoS signaling protocol must work with various QoS technologies. The QoS signaling protocol must work with various QoS technologies.
The information exchanged over the signaling protocol must be in The information exchanged over the signaling protocol must be in
such detail and quantity that it is useful for various QoS such detail and quantity that it is useful for various QoS
technologies. technologies.
5.1.2
Resource availability information on request 5.1.2 Resource availability information on request
In some scenarios, e.g., the mobile terminal scenario, it is In some scenarios, e.g., the mobile terminal scenario, it is
required to query, whether resources are available, without required to query, whether resources are available, without
performing a reservation on the resource. One solution might be a performing a reservation on the resource. One solution might be a
feedback mechanism based on which a QoS inferred handover can take feedback mechanism based on which a QoS inferred handover can take
place. place.
5.1.3
Modularity 5.1.3 Modularity
A modular design allows for more lightweight implementations, if A modular design allows for more lightweight implementations, if
fewer features are needed. Mutually exclusive solutions are fewer features are needed. Mutually exclusive solutions are
supported. Examples for modularity: supported. Examples for modularity:
- Work over any kind of network (narrowband / broadband, error-prone - Work over any kind of network (narrowband / broadband, error-prone
/ reliable...) - This implies low bandwidth signaling and redundant / reliable...) - This implies low bandwidth signaling and redundant
information must be supported if necessary. information must be supported if necessary.
- In case QoS requirements are soft (e.g. banking transactions, - In case QoS requirements are soft (e.g. banking transactions,
gaming), fast and lightweight signaling (e.g., not more than one gaming), fast and lightweight signaling (e.g., not more than one
round-trip time) round-trip time)
- Uni- and bi-directional reservations are possible - Uni- and bi-directional reservations are possible
5.1.4
Decoupling of protocol and information it is carrying 5.1.4 Decoupling of protocol and information it is carrying
The signaling protocol(s) used must be clearly separated from the The signaling protocol(s) used must be clearly separated from the
QoS control information being transported. This provides for the QoS control information being transported. This provides for the
independent development of these two aspects of the solution, and independent development of these two aspects of the solution, and
allows for this control information to be carried within other allows for this control information to be carried within other
protocols, including application layer ones, existing ones or those protocols, including application layer ones, existing ones or those
being developed in the future. The gained flexibility in the being developed in the future. The gained flexibility in the
information transported allows for the applicability of the same information transported allows for the applicability of the same
protocol in various scenarios. protocol in various scenarios.
However, note that the information carried needs to be the same. However, note that the information carried needs to be the same.
Otherwise interoperability is difficult to achieve. Otherwise interoperability is difficult to achieve.
5.1.5
Reuse of existing QoS provisioning 5.1.5 Reuse of existing QoS provisioning
Reuse existing QoS functions and protocols for QoS provisioning Reuse existing QoS functions and protocols for QoS provisioning
within a domain/subdomain unchanged. (Motivation: 'Don't re-invent within a domain/subdomain unchanged. (Motivation: 'Don't re-invent
the wheel'.) the wheel'.)
5.1.6
Avoid duplication of [sub]domain signaling functions 5.1.6 Independence of signaling and provisioning paradigm
The specification of the NSIS signaling protocol should be optimized
to avoid duplication of existing [sub]domain QoS signaling and to
minimize the overall complexity. (Motivation: we don't want to
introduce duplicate feedback or negotiation mechanisms, or
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002
complicate the work by including all possible existing QoS signaling
in some form. The function will be placed in the new part if it has
to be end-to-end, universal to all network types
('simple/lightweight'), or if it has to be protected by upper layer
security mechanisms.)
The point here is that the QoS technology (lower layer stuff) gets
re-used unchanged, and we have new signaling above it. But, in many
cases the local QoS technology will contain equivalent functions to
the NSIS-required ones, just in a technology specific form. Examples
of these functions would be error/QoS violation notifications,
ability to query for resources and so on. So, there is a danger that
our 'lightweight' signaling ends up trying to carry all this
information all over again, and (even worse) that the
initiator/controller functions have to weigh up nearly equivalent
information coming from two directions. However, the basic problem
here is that the boundary between new and re-used stuff is pretty
shaky. The requirement is trying to scope our problem (a) to
eliminate the potential overlap, and (b) to keep the new NSIS stuff
simple.
However, we are aware that it is very difficult to judge what is
duplicated, if we want to run the protocol in various environments.
5.1.7
Independence of signaling and provisioning paradigm
The QoS signaling should be independent of the paradigm and The QoS signaling should be independent of the paradigm and
mechanism of QoS provisioning. The independence allows for using the mechanism of QoS provisioning. The independence allows for using the
NSIS protocol together with various QoS technologies. NSIS protocol together with various QoS technologies.
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 11]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
5.2 Signaling Flows 5.2 Signaling Flows
This section contains requirements related to the possible signaling This section contains requirements related to the possible signaling
flows that should be supported, e.g. over what parts of the flow flows that should be supported, e.g. over what parts of the flow
path, between what entities (end-systems, routers, middleboxes, path, between what entities (end-systems, routers, middleboxes,
management systems), in which direction. management systems), in which direction.
5.2.1
Free placement of QoS Initiator and QoS Controllers functions 5.2.1 Free placement of QoS Initiator and QoS Controllers functions
The protocol(s) must work in various scenarios such as host-to- The protocol(s) must work in various scenarios such as host-to-
network-to-host, edge-to-edge, (e.g., just within one providers network-to-host, edge-to-edge, (e.g., just within one providers
domain), user-to-network (from end system into the network, ending, domain), user-to-network (from end system into the network, ending,
e.g., at the entry to the network and vice versa), network-to- e.g., at the entry to the network and vice versa), network-to-
network (e.g., between providers). network (e.g., between providers).
Placing the QoS controller and initiator functions at different Placing the QoS controller and initiator functions at different
locations allows for various scenarios to work with the same or locations allows for various scenarios to work with the same or
similar protocols. similar protocols.
5.2.2
No constraint of the QoS signaling and QoS Controllers to be in 5.2.2 No constraint of the QoS signaling and QoS Controllers to be in
the data path. the data path.
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002
There is a set of scenarios, where QoS signaling is not on the data There is a set of scenarios, where QoS signaling is not on the data
path. The QoS Controller being in the data path is one extreme case path. The QoS Controller being in the data path is one extreme case
and useful in certain cases. and useful in certain cases.
There are going to be cases where a centralized entity will take a There are going to be cases where a centralized entity will take a
decision about QoS requests. In this case, there's no question there decision about QoS requests. In this case, there's no question there
is no need to have data follow the signalling path. is no need to have data follow the signalling path.
There are going to be cases wiout a centralized entity managing There are going to be cases wiout a centralized entity managing
resources and the signaling will be used as a tool for resource resources and the signaling will be used as a tool for resource
management. For various reasons (such as efficient use of expensive management. For various reasons (such as efficient use of expensive
bandwidth), one will want to have fine-grained, fast, and very bandwidth), one will want to have fine-grained, fast, and very
dynamic control of the resources in the network. - dynamic control of the resources in the network. -
There are going to be cases where there will be neither signaling There are going to be cases where there will be neither signaling
nor a centralized entity (overprovisioning). Nothing has to be done nor a centralized entity (overprovisioning). Nothing has to be done
anyway. anyway.
One can capture the requirement with the following wording: If one One can capture the requirement with the following wording: If one
views the domain with a QoS technology as a virtual router then NSIS views the domain with a QoS technology as a virtual router then NSIS
signaling used between those virtual routers must follow the same signaling used between those virtual routers must follow the same
path as the data. path as the data.
Routing the signaling protocol along an independent path is desired Routing the signaling protocol along an independent path is desired
by network operators/designers. Ideally, the capability to route the by network operators/designers. Ideally, the capability to route the
protocol along an independent path would give the network protocol along an independent path would give the network
designer/operator the option to manage bandwidth utilization through designer/operator the option to manage bandwidth utilization through
the topology. the topology.
There are other possibilities as well. An NSIS protocol must accept There are other possibilities as well. An NSIS protocol must accept
all of these possibilities. all of these possibilities.
5.2.3
Concealment of topology and technology information Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 12]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
5.2.3 Concealment of topology and technology information
The QoS protocol should allow hiding the internal structure of a QoS The QoS protocol should allow hiding the internal structure of a QoS
domain from end-nodes and from other networks. Hence an adversary domain from end-nodes and from other networks. Hence an adversary
should not be able to learn the internal structure of a network with should not be able to learn the internal structure of a network with
the help of the QoS protocol. the help of the QoS protocol.
In various scenarios, topology information should be hidden for In various scenarios, topology information should be hidden for
various reasons. From a business point of view, some administrations various reasons. From a business point of view, some administrations
don't want to reveal the topology and technology used. don't want to reveal the topology and technology used.
5.2.4
Optional transparency of QoS signaling to network 5.2.4 Optional transparency of QoS signaling to network
It should be possible that the QoS signaling for some flows traverse It should be possible that the QoS signaling for some flows traverse
path segments transparently, i.e., without interpretation at QoS path segments transparently, i.e., without interpretation at QoS
controllers within the network. An example would be a subdomain controllers within the network. An example would be a subdomain
within a core network, which only interpreted signaling for within a core network, which only interpreted signaling for
aggregates established at the domain edge, with the flow-related aggregates established at the domain edge, with the flow-related
signaling passing transparently through it. signaling passing transparently through it.
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002
5.3 Additional information beyond signaling of QoS information 5.3 Additional information beyond signaling of QoS information
This section contains the desired signaling (messages) for other This section contains the desired signaling (messages) for other
purposes other than that for conveying QoS parameters. purposes other than that for conveying QoS parameters.
5.3.1
Explicit release of resources 5.3.1 Explicit release of resources
When a QoS reservation is no longer necessary, e.g. because the When a QoS reservation is no longer necessary, e.g. because the
application terminates, or because a mobile host experienced a hand- application terminates, or because a mobile host experienced a hand-
off, it must be possible to explicitly release resources. off, it must be possible to explicitly release resources.
5.3.2
Possibility for automatic release of resources after failure 5.3.2 Possibility for automatic release of resources after failure
When the QoS Initiator goes down, the resources it requested should
be released, since they will no longer be necessary. When the QoS Initiator goes down, the resources it requested in the
5.3.3 network should be released, since they will no longer be necessary.
Possibility for automatic re-setup of resources after recovery
After detection of a failure in the network, any QoS
controller/initiator must be able to release a reservation it is
involved in. For example, this may require signaling of the "Release
after Failure" message upstream as well as downstream, or soft state
timing out of reservations.
Note that this might need to work together with a notification
mechanism.
5.3.3 Possibility for automatic re-setup of resources after recovery
In case of a failure, the reservation can get setup again In case of a failure, the reservation can get setup again
automatically. It enables sort of a persistent reservation, if the automatically. It enables sort of a persistent reservation, if the
QoS Initiator requests it. In scenarios where the reservations are QoS Initiator requests it. In scenarios where the reservations are
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 13]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
on a longer time scale, this could make sense to reduce the on a longer time scale, this could make sense to reduce the
signaling load in case of failure and recovery. signaling load in case of failure and recovery.
5.3.4
Prompt notification of QoS violation in case of error / failure to 5.3.4 Prompt notification of QoS violation in case of error/failure to
QoS Initiator and QoS Controllers QoS Initiator and QoS Controllers
5.3.5
Feedback about success of request for QoS guarantees QoS Controllers should be able to notify the QoS Initiator, if there
is an error inside the network. There are two types of network
errors:
Recoverable errors: This type error can be locally repaired by the
network nodes. The network nodes do not have to notify the users of
the error immediately. This is a condition when the danger of
degradation (or actual short term degradation) of the provided QoS
was overcome by the network (QoS controller) itself.
Unrecoverable errors: the network nodes cannot handle this type of
error, and have to notify the users as soon as possible.
5.3.5 Feedback about success of request for QoS guarantees
A request for QoS must be answered at least with yes or no. However, A request for QoS must be answered at least with yes or no. However,
it might be useful in case of a negative answer to also get a it might be useful in case of a negative answer to also get a
description of what might be the QoS one can successfully request description of what might be the QoS one can successfully request
etc. So it might be useful to include an opaque element into the etc. So it might be useful to include an opaque element into the
answer. The element heavily depends on the service requested. answer. The element heavily depends on the service requested.
5.3.6 Allow local QoS information exchange between nodes of the same
administrative domain
The QoS signaling protocol must be able to exchange local QoS
information between QoS controllers located within one single
domain. Local QoS information might, for example, be IP addresses,
severe congestion notification, notification of successful or
erroneous processing of QoS signaling messages.
In some cases, the NSIS QoS signalling protocol may carry
identification of the QoS controllers located at the boundaries of a
domain. However, the identification of edge should not be visible to
the end host (QoS initiator) and only applies within one QoS
administrative domain.
5.4 Layering 5.4 Layering
This section contains requirements related to the way the signaling This section contains requirements related to the way the signaling
being considered interacts with upper layer functions (users, being considered interacts with upper layer functions (users,
applications, and QoS administration), and lower layer QoS applications, and QoS administration), and lower layer QoS
technologies. technologies.
5.4.1
The signaling protocol and QoS control information should be 5.4.1 The signaling protocol and QoS control information should be
application independent. application independent.
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 14]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
However, opaque application information might get transported in the However, opaque application information might get transported in the
signaling message, without being handled in the network. Development signaling message, without being handled in the network. Development
and deployment of new applications should be possible without and deployment of new applications should be possible without
impacting the network infrastructure. Additionally, QoS protocols impacting the network infrastructure. Additionally, QoS protocols
are expected to conform to the Internet principles. are expected to conform to the Internet principles.
5.5 QoS Control Information 5.5 QoS Control Information
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002
This section contains requirements related to the QoS control This section contains requirements related to the QoS control
information that needs to be exchanged. information that needs to be exchanged.
5.5.1
Mutability information on parameters 5.5.1 Mutability information on parameters
It should be possible for the initiator to control the mutability of It should be possible for the initiator to control the mutability of
the QSC information. This prevents from being changed in a non- the QSC information. This prevents from being changed in a non-
recoverable way. The initiator should be able to control what is recoverable way. The initiator should be able to control what is
requested end to end, without the request being gradually mutated as requested end to end, without the request being gradually mutated as
it passes through a sequence of domains. This implies that in case it passes through a sequence of domains. This implies that in case
of changes made on the parameters, the original requested ones must of changes made on the parameters, the original requested ones must
still be available. still be available.
Note that we do not require anything about particular QoS paramters Note that we do not require anything about particular QoS paramters
being changed. being changed.
5.5.2
Possibility to add and remove local domain information 5.5.2 Possibility to add and remove local domain information
It should be possible for the QoS control functions to add and It should be possible for the QoS control functions to add and
remove local scope elements. E.g., at the entrance to a QoS domain remove local scope elements. E.g., at the entrance to a QoS domain
domain-specific information is added, which is used in this domain domain-specific information is added, which is used in this domain
only, and the information is removed again when a signaling message only, and the information is removed again when a signaling message
leaves the domain. The motivation is in the economy of re-use the leaves the domain. The motivation is in the economy of re-use the
protocol for domain internal signaling of various information. Where protocol for domain internal signaling of various information. Where
additional information is needed for QoS control within a particular additional information is needed for QoS control within a particular
domain, it should be possible to carry this at the same time as the domain, it should be possible to carry this at the same time as the
'end to end' information.) 'end to end' information.)
5.5.3
Independence of reservation identifier 5.5.3 Independence of reservation identifier
A reservation identifier must be used, which is independent of the A reservation identifier must be used, which is independent of the
flow identifier, the IP address of the QoS Initiator, and the flow flow identifier, the IP address of the QoS Initiator, and the flow
end-points. Various scenarios in the mobility area require this end-points. Various scenarios in the mobility area require this
independence because flows resulting from handoff might have changed independence because flows resulting from handoff might have changed
end-points etc. but still have the same QoS requirement. end-points etc. but still have the same QoS requirement.
5.5.4
Seamless modification of already reserved QoS 5.5.4 Seamless modification of already reserved QoS
In many case, the reservation needs to be updated (up or downgrade). In many case, the reservation needs to be updated (up or downgrade).
This must happen seamlessly without service interruption. At least This must happen seamlessly without service interruption. At least
the signaling protocol must allow for it, even if some data path the signaling protocol must allow for it, even if some data path
elements might not be capable of doing so. elements might not be capable of doing so.
5.5.5
Signaling must support quantitative, qualitative, and relative QoS 5.5.5 Signaling must support quantitative, qualitative, and relative
specifications QoS specifications
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 15]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
5.6 Performance 5.6 Performance
This section discusses performance requirements and evaluation This section discusses performance requirements and evaluation
criteria and the way in which these could and should be traded off criteria and the way in which these could and should be traded off
against each other in various parts of the solution. against each other in various parts of the solution.
Scalability is a must anyway. However, depending on the scenario the Scalability is a must anyway. However, depending on the scenario the
question to which extends the protocol must be scalable. question to which extends the protocol must be scalable.
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002 5.6.1 Scalability in the number of messages received by a signaling
5.6.1
Scalability in the number of messages received by a signaling
communication partner (QoS initiator and controller) communication partner (QoS initiator and controller)
5.6.2
Scalability in number of hand-offs 5.6.2 Scalability in number of hand-offs
5.6.3
Scalability in the number of interactions for setting up a 5.6.3 Scalability in the number of interactions for setting up a
reservation reservation
5.6.4
Scalability in the number of state per entity (QoS initiators and 5.6.4 Scalability in the number of state per entity (QoS initiators and
QoS controllers) QoS controllers)
5.6.5
Scalability in CPU use (end terminal and intermediate nodes) 5.6.5 Scalability in CPU use (end terminal and intermediate nodes)
5.6.6
Low latency in setup 5.6.6 Low latency in setup
Low latency is only needed in scenarios, where reservations are in a Low latency is only needed in scenarios, where reservations are in a
short time scale (e.g. mobile environments), or where human short time scale (e.g. handover in mobile environments), or where
interaction is immediately concerned (e.g., voice communication human interaction is immediately concerned (e.g., voice
setup delay) communication setup delay)
5.6.7
Allow for low bandwidth consumption for signaling protocol 5.6.7 Allow for low bandwidth consumption for signaling protocol
Again only small sets of scenarios call for low bandwidth, mainly Again only small sets of scenarios call for low bandwidth, mainly
those where wireless links are involved. those where wireless links are involved.
Note that many of the performance issues are heavily dependent on Note that many of the performance issues are heavily dependent on
the scenario assumed and are normally a trade-off between speed, the scenario assumed and are normally a trade-off between speed,
reliability, complexity, and scalability. The trade-off varies in reliability, complexity, and scalability. The trade-off varies in
different parts of the network. For example, in radio access different parts of the network. For example, in radio access
networks low bandwidth consumption will overweight the low latency networks low bandwidth consumption will overweight the low latency
requirement, while in core networks it may be reverse. requirement, while in core networks it may be reverse.
5.6.8
Ability to constrain load on devices 5.6.8 Ability to constrain load on devices
The NSIS architecture should give the ability to constrain the load The NSIS architecture should give the ability to constrain the load
(CPU load, memory space, signaling bandwidth consumption and (CPU load, memory space, signaling bandwidth consumption and
signaling intensity) on devices where it is needed. This can be signaling intensity) on devices where it is needed. One of the
achieved by many different methods, for example message aggregation, reasons is that the protocol handling should have a minimal impact
by ignoring signaling message, header compression or minimizing on interior (core) nodes.
functionality. The architecture may choose any of these methods as
long as the requirement is met. This can be achieved by many different methods. Examples, and this
are only examples, include message aggregation, by ignoring
signaling message, header compression, or minimizing functionality.
The framework may choose any method as long as the requirement is
met.
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 16]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
5.6.9 Highest possible network utilization
There are networking environments that require high network
utilization for various reasons, and the signaling protocol should
to its best ability support high resource utilization while
maintaining appropriate QoS.
In networks where resources are very expensive (as is the case for
many wireless networks), efficient network utilization is of
critical financial importance. On the other hand there are other
parts of the network where high utilization is not required.
5.7 Flexibility 5.7 Flexibility
This section lists the various ways the protocol can flexibly be This section lists the various ways the protocol can flexibly be
employed. employed.
5.7.1
Aggregation capability, including the capability to select and 5.7.1 Aggregation capability, including the capability to select and
change the level of aggregation. change the level of aggregation.
5.7.2
Flexibility in the placement of the QoS initiator 5.7.2 Flexibility in the placement of the QoS initiator
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002
It might be the sender or the receiver of content. But also network- It might be the sender or the receiver of content. But also network-
initiated reservations are required in various scenarios. initiated reservations are required in various scenarios.
5.7.3
Flexibility in the initiation of re-negotiation (QoS change 5.7.3 Flexibility in the initiation of re-negotiation (QoS change
requests) requests)
Again the sender or the receiver of content might initiate a re- Again the sender or the receiver of content might initiate a re-
negotiation due to various reasons, such as local resource shortage negotiation due to various reasons, such as local resource shortage
(CPU, memory on end-system) or a user changed application (CPU, memory on end-system) or a user changed application
preference/profiles. But also network-initiated re-negotiation is preference/profiles. But also network-initiated re-negotiation is
required in cases, where the network is not able to further required in cases, where the network is not able to further
guarantee resources etc. guarantee resources etc.
5.7.4
Uni / bi-directional reservation 5.7.4 Uni / bi-directional reservation
Both uni-directonal as well as bi-direction reservations must be Both uni-directonal as well as bi-direction reservations must be
possible. possible.
5.8 Security 5.8 Security
This section discusses security-related requirements. First a list This section discusses security-related requirements. First a list
of security threats is given. of security threats is given.
5.8.1
The QoS protocol must provide strong authentication 5.8.1 The QoS protocol must provide strong authentication
A QoS protocol must make provision for enabling various entities to A QoS protocol must make provision for enabling various entities to
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 17]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
be authenticated against each other using data origin and/or entity be authenticated against each other using data origin and/or entity
authentication. The QoS protocol must enable mutual authentication authentication. The QoS protocol must enable mutual authentication
between the two communicating entities. The term strong between the two communicating entities. The term strong
authentication points to the fact that weak plain-text password authentication points to the fact that weak plain-text password
mechanisms must not be used for authentication. mechanisms must not be used for authentication.
5.8.2
The QoS protocol must provide means to authorize resource requests 5.8.2 The QoS protocol must provide means to authorize resource
requests
This requirement demands a hook to interact with a policy entity to This requirement demands a hook to interact with a policy entity to
request authorization data. This allows an authenticated entity to request authorization data. This allows an authenticated entity to
be associated with authorization data and to verify the resource be associated with authorization data and to verify the resource
request. Authorization prevents reservations by unauthorized request. Authorization prevents reservations by unauthorized
entities, reservations violating policies, theft of service and entities, reservations violating policies, theft of service and
additionally limits denial of service attacks against parts of the additionally limits denial of service attacks against parts of the
network or the entire network. Additionally it might be helpful to network or the entire network. Additionally it might be helpful to
provide some means to inform other protocols of participating nodes provide some means to inform other protocols of participating nodes
within the same administrative domain about a previous successful within the same administrative domain about a previous successful
authorization event. authorization event.
5.8.3
The QoS signaling messages must provide integrity protection. 5.8.3 The QoS signaling messages must provide integrity protection.
The integrity protection of the transmitted signaling messages The integrity protection of the transmitted signaling messages
prevent an adversary from modifying parts of the QoS signaling prevent an adversary from modifying parts of the QoS signaling
message and from mounting denial of service attacks against network message and from mounting denial of service attacks against network
elements participating in the QoS protocol. elements participating in the QoS protocol.
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002 5.8.4 The QoS signaling messages must be replay protected.
5.8.4
The QoS signaling messages must be replay protected.
To prevent replay of previous signaling messages the QoS protocol To prevent replay of previous signaling messages the QoS protocol
must provide means to detect old messages. A solution must cover must provide means to detect old messages. A solution must cover
issues of synchronization problems in the case of a restart or a issues of synchronization problems in the case of a restart or a
crash of a participating network element. The use of replay crash of a participating network element. The use of replay
mechanism apart from sequence numbers should be investigated. mechanism apart from sequence numbers should be investigated.
5.8.5
The QoS signaling protocol must allow for hop-by-hop security. 5.8.5 The QoS signaling protocol must allow for hop-by-hop security.
Hop-by-Hop security is a well known and proven concept in QoS Hop-by-Hop security is a well known and proven concept in QoS
protocols that allows intermediate nodes that actively participate protocols that allows intermediate nodes that actively participate
in the QoS protocol to modify the messages as required by the QoS in the QoS protocol to modify the messages as required by the QoS
processing. Note that this requirement does not exclude end-to-end processing. Note that this requirement does not exclude end-to-end
or network-to-network security of a QoS reservation request. End-to- or network-to-network security of a QoS reservation request. End-to-
end security between the initiator and the responder may be used to end security between the initiator and the responder may be used to
provide protection of non-mutable data fields. Network-to-network provide protection of non-mutable data fields. Network-to-network
security refers to the protection of messages over various hops but security refers to the protection of messages over various hops but
not in an end-to-end manner i.e. protected over a particular not in an end-to-end manner i.e. protected over a particular
network. network.
5.8.6
The QoS protocol should allow identity confidentiality and 5.8.6 The QoS protocol should allow identity confidentiality and
location privacy. location privacy.
Identity confidentiality enables privacy and avoids profiling of Identity confidentiality enables privacy and avoids profiling of
entities by adversary eavesdropping the signaling traffic along the entities by adversary eavesdropping the signaling traffic along the
path. The identity used in the process of authentication may also be path. The identity used in the process of authentication may also be
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 18]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
hidden to a limited extent from a network to which the initiator is hidden to a limited extent from a network to which the initiator is
attached. It is however required that the identity provide enough attached. It is however required that the identity provide enough
information for the access network to collect accounting data. information for the access network to collect accounting data.
Location privacy is an issue for the initiator who triggers the QoS Location privacy is an issue for the initiator who triggers the QoS
protocol. In some scenarios the initiator may not be willing to protocol. In some scenarios the initiator may not be willing to
reveal location information to the responder. reveal location information to the responder.
5.8.7
The QoS protocol should prevent denial-of-service attacks against 5.8.7 The QoS protocol should prevent denial-of-service attacks against
signaling entities. signaling entities.
To effectively prevent denial-of-service attacks the QoS protocol To effectively prevent denial-of-service attacks the QoS protocol
and the used security mechanisms should not force to do heavy and the used security mechanisms should not force to do heavy
computation to verify a resource request prior authenticating the computation to verify a resource request prior authenticating the
requesting entity. Additionally the QoS protocol and the used requesting entity. Additionally the QoS protocol and the used
security mechanisms should not require large resource consumption security mechanisms should not require large resource consumption
(for example main memory or other additional message exchanges) (for example main memory or other additional message exchanges)
before a successful authentication was done. before a successful authentication was done.
5.8.8
The QoS protocol should support confidentiality of signaling 5.8.8 The QoS protocol should support confidentiality of signaling
messages. messages.
Based on the signaling information exchanged between nodes Based on the signaling information exchanged between nodes
participating in the QoS protocol an adversary may learn both the participating in the QoS protocol an adversary may learn both the
identities and the content of the QoS messages. To prevent this from identities and the content of the QoS messages. To prevent this from
happening, confidentiality of the QoS requests in a hop-by-hop happening, confidentiality of the QoS requests in a hop-by-hop
manner should be provided. Note that hop-by-hop is always required manner should be provided. Note that hop-by-hop is always required
whenever entities actively participating in the protocol must be whenever entities actively participating in the protocol must be
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002
able to read and eventually modify the content of the QoS messages. able to read and eventually modify the content of the QoS messages.
This does not exclude the case where one or more network elements This does not exclude the case where one or more network elements
are not required to read the information of the transmitted QoS are not required to read the information of the transmitted QoS
messages. messages.
5.8.9
The QoS protocol should provide hooks to interact with protocols 5.8.9 The QoS protocol should provide hooks to interact with protocols
that allow the negotiation of authentication and key management that allow the negotiation of authentication and key management
protocols. protocols.
The negotiation of an authentication and key management protocols The negotiation of an authentication and key management protocols
within the QoS protocol is outside the scope of the QoS protocol. within the QoS protocol is outside the scope of the QoS protocol.
This requirement originates from the fact that more than one key This requirement originates from the fact that more than one key
management protocol may be used to provide security associations. So management protocol may be used to provide security associations. So
both entities must be capable to use the same protocol which may be both entities must be capable to use the same protocol which may be
difficult in a mobile environment with different requirements and difficult in a mobile environment with different requirements and
different protocols. The goal of such a negotiation step is to different protocols. The goal of such a negotiation step is to
determine which authentication and key management protocol to use is determine which authentication and key management protocol to use is
executed prior to the execution of the chosen key management executed prior to the execution of the chosen key management
protocol. The used key management protocol must however be able to protocol. The used key management protocol must however be able to
skipping to change at page 19, line 26 skipping to change at line 1038
management protocol may be used to provide security associations. So management protocol may be used to provide security associations. So
both entities must be capable to use the same protocol which may be both entities must be capable to use the same protocol which may be
difficult in a mobile environment with different requirements and difficult in a mobile environment with different requirements and
different protocols. The goal of such a negotiation step is to different protocols. The goal of such a negotiation step is to
determine which authentication and key management protocol to use is determine which authentication and key management protocol to use is
executed prior to the execution of the chosen key management executed prior to the execution of the chosen key management
protocol. The used key management protocol must however be able to protocol. The used key management protocol must however be able to
create a security association that matches with the one used in the create a security association that matches with the one used in the
QoS protocol. A QoS protocol should however provide a way to QoS protocol. A QoS protocol should however provide a way to
interact with these negotiation protocols. interact with these negotiation protocols.
5.8.10 The QoS protocol should provide means to interact with key 5.8.10 The QoS protocol should provide means to interact with key
management protocols management protocols
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 19]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
Key management protocols typically require a larger number of Key management protocols typically require a larger number of
messages to be transmitted to allow a session key and the messages to be transmitted to allow a session key and the
corresponding security association to be derived. To avoid the corresponding security association to be derived. To avoid the
complex issue of mapping individual authentication and key complex issue of mapping individual authentication and key
management protocols to a QoS protocol such a protocol is outside management protocols to a QoS protocol such a protocol is outside
the scope of the QoS protocol. Although the key management protocol the scope of the QoS protocol. Although the key management protocol
may be independent there must be a way for the QoS protocol to may be independent there must be a way for the QoS protocol to
exploit existing security associations to avoid executing a separate exploit existing security associations to avoid executing a separate
key management protocol (or instance of the same protocol) for key management protocol (or instance of the same protocol) for
protocols that closely operate together. If no such security protocols that closely operate together. If no such security
skipping to change at page 19, line 41 skipping to change at line 1058
complex issue of mapping individual authentication and key complex issue of mapping individual authentication and key
management protocols to a QoS protocol such a protocol is outside management protocols to a QoS protocol such a protocol is outside
the scope of the QoS protocol. Although the key management protocol the scope of the QoS protocol. Although the key management protocol
may be independent there must be a way for the QoS protocol to may be independent there must be a way for the QoS protocol to
exploit existing security associations to avoid executing a separate exploit existing security associations to avoid executing a separate
key management protocol (or instance of the same protocol) for key management protocol (or instance of the same protocol) for
protocols that closely operate together. If no such security protocols that closely operate together. If no such security
association exists then there should be means for the QoS protocol association exists then there should be means for the QoS protocol
to trigger a key management protocol to dynamically create the to trigger a key management protocol to dynamically create the
required security associations. required security associations.
5.9 Mobility 5.9 Mobility
5.9.1 Allow efficient QoS re-establishment after handover
Handover is an essential function in wireless networks. After
handover, QoS may need to be completely or partially re-established
due to route changes. The re-establishment may be requested by the
mobile node itself or triggered by the access point that the mobile
node is attached to. In the first case, the QoS signalling should
allow efficient QoS re-establishment after handover. Re-
establishment of QoS after handover should be as quick as possible
so that the mobile node does not experience service interruption or
QoS degradation. The re-establishment should be localized, and not
require end-to-end signalling, if possible.
TBD TBD
5.10 Interworking with other protocols and techniques 5.10 Interworking with other protocols and techniques
Hooks must be provided to enable efficient interworking between Hooks must be provided to enable efficient interworking between
various protocols and techniques including: various protocols and techniques including:
5.10.1 Interworking with IP tunneling 5.10.1 Interworking with IP tunneling
IP tunneling for various applications must be supported. More IP tunneling for various applications must be supported. More
specifically tunneling for IPSec tunnels are of importance. This specifically tunneling for IPSec tunnels are of importance. This
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002
mainly impacts the identification of flows. Additionally, care needs mainly impacts the identification of flows. Additionally, care needs
to be taken using IPSec for signaling message. to be taken using IPSec for signaling message.
5.10.2 The solution should not constrain either to IPv4 or IPv6 5.10.2 The solution should not constrain either to IPv4 or IPv6
5.10.3 Independence from charging model 5.10.3 Independence from charging model
Signaling must not be constrained by charging models or the charging Signaling must not be constrained by charging models or the charging
infrastructure used. However, the end-system should be able to query infrastructure used. However, the end-system should be able to query
current pay statistics and to specify user cost functions. current pay statistics and to specify user cost functions.
5.10.4 The QoS protocol should provide hooks for AAA protocols 5.10.4 The QoS protocol should provide hooks for AAA protocols
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 20]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
The security mechanism should be developed with respect to be able The security mechanism should be developed with respect to be able
to collect usage records from one or more network elements. to collect usage records from one or more network elements.
5.11 Operational 5.11 Operational
5.11.1 Ability to assign transport quality to signaling messages 5.11.1 Ability to assign transport quality to signaling messages
The NSIS architecture should allow the network operator to assign The NSIS architecture should allow the network operator to assign
the NSIS protocol messages a certain transport quality. As signaling the NSIS protocol messages a certain transport quality. As signaling
opens up for possible denial-of-service attacks, this requirement opens up for possible denial-of-service attacks, this requirement
gives the network operator a mean, but also the obligation, to gives the network operator a mean, but also the obligation, to
trade-off between signaling latency and the impact (from the trade-off between signaling latency and the impact (from the
signaling messages) on devices within his/her network. From protocol signaling messages) on devices within his/her network. From protocol
design this requirement states that the protocol messages should be design this requirement states that the protocol messages should be
detectable, at least where the control and assignment of the detectable, at least where the control and assignment of the
messages priority is done. messages priority is done.
skipping to change at page 20, line 43 skipping to change at line 1136
router part includes all the layer 2 technologies to access to the router part includes all the layer 2 technologies to access to the
Internet. In many cases, there is an application and/or user running Internet. In many cases, there is an application and/or user running
on the host initiating QoS signaling. The access network can be on the host initiating QoS signaling. The access network can be
characterized by low capacity links, meadium speed IP processing characterized by low capacity links, meadium speed IP processing
capabilities, and it might consist of a complete layer 2 network as capabilities, and it might consist of a complete layer 2 network as
well. The core network characteristics include high-speed forwarding well. The core network characteristics include high-speed forwarding
capacities and interdomain QoS issues. All of them are not strictly capacities and interdomain QoS issues. All of them are not strictly
defined and should not be regarded as that, but should give a defined and should not be regarded as that, but should give a
feeling about where in the network we have different requirements feeling about where in the network we have different requirements
concerning QoS signaling. concerning QoS signaling.
Note that the requirement titles are listed for better reading. Note that the requirement titles are listed for better reading.
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002
5.1 Architecture and Design Goals 5.1 Architecture and Design Goals
5.1.1 Applicability for different QoS technologies. 5.1.1 Applicability for different QoS technologies.
5.1.2 Resource availability information on request 5.1.2 Resource availability information on request
5.1.3 Modularity 5.1.3 Modularity
5.1.4 Decoupling of protocol and information it is carrying 5.1.4 Decoupling of protocol and information it is carrying
5.1.5 Reuse of existing QoS provisioning 5.1.5 Reuse of existing QoS provisioning
5.1.6 Avoid duplication of [sub]domain signaling functions 5.1.6 Independence of signaling and provisioning paradigm
5.1.7 Independence of signaling and provisioning paradigm
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
| host-to-net | access | core | | host-to-net | access | core |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.1.1 | | | | 5.1.1 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.1.2 | | | | 5.1.2 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.1.3 | | | | 5.1.3 | | | |
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 21]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.1.4 | | | | 5.1.4 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.1.5 | | | | 5.1.5 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.1.6 | | | | 5.1.6 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.1.7 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.2 Signaling Flows 5.2 Signaling Flows
5.2.1 Free placement of QoS Initiator and QoS Controllers functions 5.2.1 Free placement of QoS Initiator and QoS Controllers functions
5.2.2 No constraint of the QoS signaling and QoS Controllers to be 5.2.2 No constraint of the QoS signaling and QoS Controllers to be
in the data path. in the data path.
5.2.3 Concealment of topology and technology information 5.2.3 Concealment of topology and technology information
5.2.4 Optional transparency of QoS signaling to network 5.2.4 Optional transparency of QoS signaling to network
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
| host-to-net | access | core | | host-to-net | access | core |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.2.1 | | | | 5.2.1 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.2.2 | | | | 5.2.2 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.2.3 | | | | 5.2.3 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.2.4 | | | | 5.2.4 | | | |
skipping to change at page 22, line 4 skipping to change at line 1186
| host-to-net | access | core | | host-to-net | access | core |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.2.1 | | | | 5.2.1 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.2.2 | | | | 5.2.2 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.2.3 | | | | 5.2.3 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.2.4 | | | | 5.2.4 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002
5.3 Additional information beyond signaling of QoS information 5.3 Additional information beyond signaling of QoS information
5.3.1 Explicit release of resources 5.3.1 Explicit release of resources
5.3.2 Possibility for automatic release of resources after failure 5.3.2 Possibility for automatic release of resources after failure
5.3.3 Possibility for automatic re-setup of resources after recovery 5.3.3 Possibility for automatic re-setup of resources after recovery
5.3.4 Prompt notification of QoS violation in case of error / 5.3.4 Prompt notification of QoS violation in case of error /
failure to QoS Initiator and QoS Controllers failure to QoS Initiator and QoS Controllers
5.3.5 Feedback about success of request for QoS guarantees 5.3.5 Feedback about success of request for QoS guarantees
5.3.6 Allow local QoS information exchange between nodes of the same
administrative domain
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
| host-to-net | access | core | | host-to-net | access | core |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.3.1 | | | | 5.3.1 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.3.2 | | | | 5.3.2 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.3.3 | | | | 5.3.3 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.3.4 | | | | 5.3.4 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.3.5 | | | | 5.3.5 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.3.6 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 22]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
5.4 Layering 5.4 Layering
5.4.1 The signaling protocol and QoS control information should be 5.4.1 The signaling protocol and QoS control information should be
application independent. application independent.
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
| host-to-net | access | core | | host-to-net | access | core |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.4.1 | | | | 5.4.1 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.5 QoS Control Information 5.5 QoS Control Information
5.5.1 Mutability information on parameters 5.5.1 Mutability information on parameters
5.5.2 Possibility to add and remove local domain information 5.5.2 Possibility to add and remove local domain information
5.5.3 Independence of reservation identifier 5.5.3 Independence of reservation identifier
5.5.4 Seamless modification of already reserved QoS 5.5.4 Seamless modification of already reserved QoS
5.5.5 Signaling must support quantitative, qualitative, and relative 5.5.5 Signaling must support quantitative, qualitative, and relative
QoS specifications QoS specifications
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
| host-to-net | access | core | | host-to-net | access | core |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.5.1 | | | | 5.5.1 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.5.2 | | | | 5.5.2 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.5.3 | | | | 5.5.3 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.5.4 | | | | 5.5.4 | | | |
skipping to change at page 23, line 4 skipping to change at line 1249
5.5.1 | | | | 5.5.1 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.5.2 | | | | 5.5.2 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.5.3 | | | | 5.5.3 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.5.4 | | | | 5.5.4 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.5.5 | | | | 5.5.5 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002
5.6 Performance 5.6 Performance
5.6.1 Scalability in the number of messages received by a signaling 5.6.1 Scalability in the number of messages received by a signaling
communication partner (QoS initiator and controller) communication partner (QoS initiator and controller)
5.6.2 Scalability in number of hand-offs 5.6.2 Scalability in number of hand-offs
5.6.3 Scalability in the number of interactions for setting up a 5.6.3 Scalability in the number of interactions for setting up a
reservation reservation
5.6.4 Scalability in the number of state per entity (QoS initiators 5.6.4 Scalability in the number of state per entity (QoS initiators
and QoS controllers) and QoS controllers)
5.6.5 Scalability in CPU use (end terminal and intermediate nodes) 5.6.5 Scalability in CPU use (end terminal and intermediate nodes)
5.6.6 Low latency in setup 5.6.6 Low latency in setup
5.6.7 Allow for low bandwidth consumption for signaling protocol 5.6.7 Allow for low bandwidth consumption for signaling protocol
skipping to change at page 23, line 17 skipping to change at line 1263
communication partner (QoS initiator and controller) communication partner (QoS initiator and controller)
5.6.2 Scalability in number of hand-offs 5.6.2 Scalability in number of hand-offs
5.6.3 Scalability in the number of interactions for setting up a 5.6.3 Scalability in the number of interactions for setting up a
reservation reservation
5.6.4 Scalability in the number of state per entity (QoS initiators 5.6.4 Scalability in the number of state per entity (QoS initiators
and QoS controllers) and QoS controllers)
5.6.5 Scalability in CPU use (end terminal and intermediate nodes) 5.6.5 Scalability in CPU use (end terminal and intermediate nodes)
5.6.6 Low latency in setup 5.6.6 Low latency in setup
5.6.7 Allow for low bandwidth consumption for signaling protocol 5.6.7 Allow for low bandwidth consumption for signaling protocol
5.6.8 Ability to constrain load on devices 5.6.8 Ability to constrain load on devices
5.6.9 Highest possible network utilization
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
| host-to-net | access | core | | host-to-net | access | core |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.6.1 | | | | 5.6.1 | | | |
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 23]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.6.2 | | | | 5.6.2 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.6.3 | | | | 5.6.3 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.6.4 | | | | 5.6.4 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.6.5 | | | | 5.6.5 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.6.6 | | | | 5.6.6 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.6.7 | | | | 5.6.7 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.6.8 | | | | 5.6.8 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.6.9 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.7 Flexibility 5.7 Flexibility
5.7.1 Aggregation capability, including the capability to select and 5.7.1 Aggregation capability, including the capability to select and
change the level of aggregation. change the level of aggregation.
5.7.2 Flexibility in the placement of the QoS initiator 5.7.2 Flexibility in the placement of the QoS initiator
5.7.3 Flexibility in the initiation of re-negotiation (QoS change 5.7.3 Flexibility in the initiation of re-negotiation (QoS change
requests) requests)
5.7.4 Uni / bi-directional reservation 5.7.4 Uni / bi-directional reservation
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
| host-to-net | access | core | | host-to-net | access | core |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.7.1 | | | | 5.7.1 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.7.2 | | | | 5.7.2 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.7.3 | | | | 5.7.3 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.7.4 | | | | 5.7.4 | | | |
skipping to change at page 24, line 4 skipping to change at line 1311
| host-to-net | access | core | | host-to-net | access | core |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.7.1 | | | | 5.7.1 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.7.2 | | | | 5.7.2 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.7.3 | | | | 5.7.3 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.7.4 | | | | 5.7.4 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002
5.8 Security 5.8 Security
5.8.1 The QoS protocol must provide strong authentication 5.8.1 The QoS protocol must provide strong authentication
5.8.2 The QoS protocol must provide means to authorize resource 5.8.2 The QoS protocol must provide means to authorize resource
requests requests
5.8.3 The QoS signaling messages must provide integrity protection. 5.8.3 The QoS signaling messages must provide integrity protection.
5.8.4 The QoS signaling messages must be replay protected. 5.8.4 The QoS signaling messages must be replay protected.
5.8.5 The QoS signaling protocol must allow for hop-by-hop security. 5.8.5 The QoS signaling protocol must allow for hop-by-hop security.
5.8.6 The QoS protocol should allow identity confidentiality and 5.8.6 The QoS protocol should allow identity confidentiality and
location privacy. location privacy.
5.8.7 The QoS protocol should prevent denial-of-service attacks 5.8.7 The QoS protocol should prevent denial-of-service attacks
against signaling entities. against signaling entities.
skipping to change at page 24, line 18 skipping to change at line 1326
requests requests
5.8.3 The QoS signaling messages must provide integrity protection. 5.8.3 The QoS signaling messages must provide integrity protection.
5.8.4 The QoS signaling messages must be replay protected. 5.8.4 The QoS signaling messages must be replay protected.
5.8.5 The QoS signaling protocol must allow for hop-by-hop security. 5.8.5 The QoS signaling protocol must allow for hop-by-hop security.
5.8.6 The QoS protocol should allow identity confidentiality and 5.8.6 The QoS protocol should allow identity confidentiality and
location privacy. location privacy.
5.8.7 The QoS protocol should prevent denial-of-service attacks 5.8.7 The QoS protocol should prevent denial-of-service attacks
against signaling entities. against signaling entities.
5.8.8 The QoS protocol should support confidentiality of signaling 5.8.8 The QoS protocol should support confidentiality of signaling
messages. messages.
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 24]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
5.8.9 The QoS protocol should provide hooks to interact with 5.8.9 The QoS protocol should provide hooks to interact with
protocols that allow the negotiation of authentication and key protocols that allow the negotiation of authentication and key
management protocols. management protocols.
5.8.10 The QoS protocol should provide means to interact with key 5.8.10 The QoS protocol should provide means to interact with key
management protocols. management protocols.
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
| host-to-net | access | core | | host-to-net | access | core |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.8.1 | | | | 5.8.1 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.8.2 | | | | 5.8.2 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.8.3 | | | | 5.8.3 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.8.4 | | | | 5.8.4 | | | |
skipping to change at page 24, line 46 skipping to change at line 1359
5.8.6 | | | | 5.8.6 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.8.7 | | | | 5.8.7 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.8.8 | | | | 5.8.8 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.8.9 | | | | 5.8.9 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.8.10 | | | | 5.8.10 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.9 Mobility 5.9 Mobility
5.9.1 Allow efficient QoS re-establishment after handover
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
| host-to-net | access | core |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.9.1 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.10 Interworking with other protocols and techniques 5.10 Interworking with other protocols and techniques
5.10.1 Interworking with IP tunneling 5.10.1 Interworking with IP tunneling
5.10.2 The solution should not constrain either to IPv4 or IPv6 5.10.2 The solution should not constrain either to IPv4 or IPv6
5.10.3 Independence from charging model 5.10.3 Independence from charging model
5.10.4 The QoS protocol should provide hooks for AAA protocols 5.10.4 The QoS protocol should provide hooks for AAA protocols
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002
| host-to-net | access | core | | host-to-net | access | core |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.10.1 | | | | 5.10.1 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.10.2 | | | | 5.10.2 | | | |
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 25]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.10.3 | | | | 5.10.3 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.10.4 | | | | 5.10.4 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.11 Operational 5.11 Operational
5.11.1 Ability to assign transport quality to signaling messages 5.11.1 Ability to assign transport quality to signaling messages
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
| host-to-net | access | core | | host-to-net | access | core |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
5.11.1 | | | | 5.11.1 | | | |
----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+ ----------------------+-------------+-------------+------------+
7 References 7 References
[1] Kempf, J., "Dormant Mode Host Alerting ("IP Paging") Problem [1] Kempf, J., "Dormant Mode Host Alerting ("IP Paging") Problem
Statement", RFC 3132, June 2001. Statement", RFC 3132, June 2001.
[2] Chaskar, H., "Requirements of a QoS Solution for Mobile IP", [2] Chaskar, H., "Requirements of a QoS Solution for Mobile IP",
draft-ietf-mobileip-qos-requirements-01.txt, Work in Progress, draft-ietf-mobileip-qos-requirements-01.txt, Work in Progress,
August 2001 August 2001
[3] Manner. J., et al, "Mobility Related Terminology", draft-manner- [3] Manner. J., et al, "Mobility Related Terminology", draft-manner-
seamoby-terms-02.txt, Work In Progress, July 2001. seamoby-terms-02.txt, Work In Progress, July 2001.
[4] 3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS); Service Description [4] 3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS); Service Description
Stage 2 v 7.7.0", TS 03.60, June 2001 Stage 2 v 7.7.0", TS 03.60, June 2001
[5] 3GPP2, "Network Reference Model for cdma2000 Spread Spectrum [5] 3GPP2, "Network Reference Model for cdma2000 Spread Spectrum
System, revision B", S.R0005-B, May 2001 System, revision B", S.R0005-B, May 2001
[6] Bradner, S., Mankin, A., "Report of the Next Steps in Signaling [6] Bradner, S., Mankin, A., "Report of the Next Steps in Signaling
BOF", draft-bradner-nsis-bof-00.txt, Work in Progress, July 2001 BOF", draft-bradner-nsis-bof-00.txt, Work in Progress, July 2001
[7] Partain, D., et al, "Resource Reservation Issues in Cellular [7] Partain, D., et al, "Resource Reservation Issues in Cellular
Radio Access Networks", draft-westberg-rmd-cellular-issues-00.txt, Radio Access Networks", draft-westberg-rmd-cellular-issues-00.txt,
Work in Progress, June 2001. Work in Progress, June 2001.
[8] YESSIR - YEt another Sender Session Internet Reservations, [8] YESSIR - YEt another Sender Session Internet Reservations,
h http://www.cs.columbia.edupingpan/projects/yessir.html
ttp://www.cs.columbia.edupingpan/projects/yessir.htm
l
[9] Braden, R., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, A., Jamin, S., [9] Braden, R., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, A., Jamin, S.,
"Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional
Specification", IETF RFC 2205, 1997. Specification", IETF RFC 2205, 1997.
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002
[10] Westberg, L., Jacobsson, M., Partain, D., Karagiannis, G., [10] Westberg, L., Jacobsson, M., Partain, D., Karagiannis, G.,
Oosthoek, S., Rexhepi, V., Szabo, R., Wallentin, P., "Resource Oosthoek, S., Rexhepi, V., Szabo, R., Wallentin, P., "Resource
Management in Diffserv Framework", Internet draft, work in progress, Management in Diffserv Framework", Internet draft, work in progress,
draft-westberg-rmd-framework-xx.txt, 2002. draft-westberg-rmd-framework-xx.txt, 2002.
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 26]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
[11] Kempf, J., McCann, P., Roberts, P., "IP Mobility and the CDMA [11] Kempf, J., McCann, P., Roberts, P., "IP Mobility and the CDMA
Radio Access Network", IETF Draft, draft-kempf-cdma-appl-02.txt, Radio Access Network", IETF Draft, draft-kempf-cdma-appl-02.txt,
Work in progress, September 2001. Work in progress, September 2001.
8 Appendix: Scenarios/Use cases 8 Appendix: Scenarios/Use cases
In the following we describe scenarios, which are important to In the following we describe scenarios, which are important to
cover, and which allow us to discuss various requirements. Some cover, and which allow us to discuss various requirements. Some
regard this as use cases to be covered defining the use of a QoS regard this as use cases to be covered defining the use of a QoS
signaling protocol. signaling protocol.
8.1 Scenario: Terminal Mobility 8.1 Scenario: Terminal Mobility
The scenario we are looking at is the case where a mobile terminal The scenario we are looking at is the case where a mobile terminal
(MT) changes from one access point to another access point. The (MT) changes from one access point to another access point. The
access points are located in separate QoS domains. We assume Mobile access points are located in separate QoS domains. We assume Mobile
IP to handle mobility on the network layer in this scenario and IP to handle mobility on the network layer in this scenario and
consider the various extensions (i.e., IETF proposals) to Mobile IP, consider the various extensions (i.e., IETF proposals) to Mobile IP,
in order to provide 'fast handover' for roaming Mobile Terminals. in order to provide 'fast handover' for roaming Mobile Terminals.
The goal to be achieved lies in providing, keeping, and adapting the The goal to be achieved lies in providing, keeping, and adapting the
requested QoS for the ongoing IP sessions in case of handover. requested QoS for the ongoing IP sessions in case of handover.
Furthermore, the negotiation of QoS parameters with the new domain Furthermore, the negotiation of QoS parameters with the new domain
via the old connection might be needed, in order to support the via the old connection might be needed, in order to support the
skipping to change at page 26, line 43 skipping to change at line 1480
From a technical point of view, terminal mobility means changing the From a technical point of view, terminal mobility means changing the
access point of a mobile terminal (MT). However, technologies might access point of a mobile terminal (MT). However, technologies might
change in various directions (access technology, QoS technology, change in various directions (access technology, QoS technology,
administrative domain). If the access points are within one specific administrative domain). If the access points are within one specific
QoS technology (independent of access technology) we call this QoS technology (independent of access technology) we call this
intra-QoS technology handoff. In the case of an inter-QoS technology intra-QoS technology handoff. In the case of an inter-QoS technology
handoff, one changes from e.g. a DiffServ to an IntServ domain, handoff, one changes from e.g. a DiffServ to an IntServ domain,
however still using the same access technology. Finally, if the however still using the same access technology. Finally, if the
access points are using different access technologies we call it access points are using different access technologies we call it
inter-technology hand-off. inter-technology hand-off.
The following issues are of special importance in this scenario: The following issues are of special importance in this scenario:
1) Handoff decision 1) Handoff decision
- The QoS management requests handoff. The QoS management can decide - The QoS management requests handoff. The QoS management can decide
to change the access point, since the traffic conditions of the new to change the access point, since the traffic conditions of the new
access point are better supporting the QoS requirements. The metric access point are better supporting the QoS requirements. The metric
may be different (optimized towards a single or a group/class of may be different (optimized towards a single or a group/class of
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002
users). Note that the MT or the network (see below) might trigger users). Note that the MT or the network (see below) might trigger
the handoff. the handoff.
- The mobility management forces handoff. This can have several - The mobility management forces handoff. This can have several
reasons. The operator optimizes his network, admission is no longer reasons. The operator optimizes his network, admission is no longer
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 27]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
granted (e.g. emptied prepaid condition). Or another example is when granted (e.g. emptied prepaid condition). Or another example is when
the MT is reaching the focus of another base station. However, this the MT is reaching the focus of another base station. However, this
might be detected via measurements of QoS on the physical layer and might be detected via measurements of QoS on the physical layer and
is therefore out of scope of QoS signaling in IP. Note again that is therefore out of scope of QoS signaling in IP. Note again that
the MT or the network (see below) might trigger the handoff. the MT or the network (see below) might trigger the handoff.
- This scenario shows that local decisions might not be enough. The - This scenario shows that local decisions might not be enough. The
rest of the path to the other end of the communication needs to be rest of the path to the other end of the communication needs to be
considered as well. Hand-off decisions in a QoS domain, does not considered as well. Hand-off decisions in a QoS domain, does not
only depend on the local resource availability, e.g., the wireless only depend on the local resource availability, e.g., the wireless
part, but involves the rest of the path as well. Additionally, part, but involves the rest of the path as well. Additionally,
decomposition of an end-to-end reservation might be needed, in order decomposition of an end-to-end reservation might be needed, in order
to change only parts of it. to change only parts of it.
2) Trigger sources 2) Trigger sources
- Mobile terminal: If the end-system QoS management identifies - Mobile terminal: If the end-system QoS management identifies
another (better-suited) access point, it will request the handoff another (better-suited) access point, it will request the handoff
from the terminal itself. This will be especially likely in the case from the terminal itself. This will be especially likely in the case
that two different provider networks are involved. Another important that two different provider networks are involved. Another important
example is when the current access point bearer disappears (e.g. example is when the current access point bearer disappears (e.g.
removing the Ethernet cable). In this case, the QoS initiator is removing the Ethernet cable). In this case, the QoS initiator is
basically located on the mobile terminal. basically located on the mobile terminal.
- Network (access network manager): Sometimes, the handoff trigger - Network (access network manager): Sometimes, the handoff trigger
will be issued from the network management to optimize the overall will be issued from the network management to optimize the overall
load situation. Most likely this will result in changing the base- load situation. Most likely this will result in changing the base-
station of a single providers network. Most likely the QoS initiator station of a single providers network. Most likely the QoS initiator
is located on a system within the network. is located on a system within the network.
3) Integration with other protocols 3) Integration with other protocols
- Interworking with other protocol must be considered in one or the - Interworking with other protocol must be considered in one or the
other form. E.g., it might be worth combining QoS signaling between other form. E.g., it might be worth combining QoS signaling between
different QoS domains with mobility signaling at hand-over. different QoS domains with mobility signaling at hand-over.
4) Handover rates 4) Handover rates
In mobile networks, the admission control process has to cope with In mobile networks, the admission control process has to cope with
far more admission requests than call setups alone would generate. far more admission requests than call setups alone would generate.
For example, in the GSM (Global System for Mobile communications) For example, in the GSM (Global System for Mobile communications)
case, mobility usually generates an average of one to two handovers case, mobility usually generates an average of one to two handovers
per call. For third generation networks (such as UMTS), where it is per call. For third generation networks (such as UMTS), where it is
necessary to keep radio links to several cells simultaneously necessary to keep radio links to several cells simultaneously
(macro-diversity), the handover rate is significantly higher (see (macro-diversity), the handover rate is significantly higher (see
for example [11]) for example [11])
5) Fast reservations 5) Fast reservations
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002
Handover can also cause packet losses. This happens when the Handover can also cause packet losses. This happens when the
processing of an admission request causes a delayed handover to the processing of an admission request causes a delayed handover to the
new base station. In this situation, some packets might be new base station. In this situation, some packets might be
discarded, and the overall speech quality might be degraded discarded, and the overall speech quality might be degraded
significantly. Moreover, a delay in handover may cause degradation significantly. Moreover, a delay in handover may cause degradation
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 28]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
for other users. In the worst case scenario, a delay in handover may for other users. In the worst case scenario, a delay in handover may
cause the connection to be dropped if the handover occurred due to cause the connection to be dropped if the handover occurred due to
bad air link quality. Therefore, it is critical that QoS signalling bad air link quality. Therefore, it is critical that QoS signalling
in connection with handover be carried out very quickly. in connection with handover be carried out very quickly.
6) Call blocking in case of overload 6) Call blocking in case of overload
Furthermore, when the network is overloaded, it is preferable to Furthermore, when the network is overloaded, it is preferable to
keep reservations for previously established flows while blocking keep reservations for previously established flows while blocking
new requests. Therefore, the resource reservation requests in new requests. Therefore, the resource reservation requests in
connection with handover should be given higher priority than new connection with handover should be given higher priority than new
requests for resource reservation. requests for resource reservation.
8.2 Scenario: Cellular Networks 8.2 Scenario: Cellular Networks
In this scenario, the user is using the packet service of a 3rd In this scenario, the user is using the packet service of a 3rd
generation cellular system, e.g. UMTS. The region between the End generation cellular system, e.g. UMTS. The region between the End
Host and the edge node connecting the cellular network to another Host and the edge node connecting the cellular network to another
QoS domain (e.g. the GGSN in UMTS or the PDSN in 3GPP2) is QoS domain (e.g. the GGSN in UMTS or the PDSN in 3GPP2) is
considered to be a single QoS domain [4][5]. considered to be a single QoS domain [4][5].
The issues in such an environment regarding QoS include: The issues in such an environment regarding QoS include:
1) Cellular systems provide their own QoS technology with 1) Cellular systems provide their own QoS technology with
specialized parameters to co-ordinate the QoS provided by both the specialized parameters to co-ordinate the QoS provided by both the
radio access and wired access network. For example, in a UMTS radio access and wired access network. For example, in a UMTS
network, one aspect of GPRS is that it can be considered as a QoS network, one aspect of GPRS is that it can be considered as a QoS
technology; provisioning of QoS within GPRS is described mainly in technology; provisioning of QoS within GPRS is described mainly in
terms of calling UMTS bearer classes. This QoS technology needs to terms of calling UMTS bearer classes. This QoS technology needs to
be invoked with suitable parameters when a request for QoS is be invoked with suitable parameters when a request for QoS is
triggered by higher layers, and this therefore involves mapping the triggered by higher layers, and this therefore involves mapping the
requested IP QoS onto these UMTS bearer classes. This request for requested IP QoS onto these UMTS bearer classes. This request for
resources might be triggered by IP signaling messages that pass resources might be triggered by IP signaling messages that pass
skipping to change at page 29, line 5 skipping to change at line 1606
in the framework given here). The QoS initiator could be located at in the framework given here). The QoS initiator could be located at
the End Host (triggered by applications), the GGSN/PDSN, or at a the End Host (triggered by applications), the GGSN/PDSN, or at a
node not directly on the data path, such as a bandwidth broker. In node not directly on the data path, such as a bandwidth broker. In
the second case, the GGSN/PDSN could either be acting as a proxy on the second case, the GGSN/PDSN could either be acting as a proxy on
behalf of an End Host with little capabilities, and/or managing behalf of an End Host with little capabilities, and/or managing
aggregate resources within its QoS domain (the UMTS core network). aggregate resources within its QoS domain (the UMTS core network).
The IP signaling messages are interpreted by the QoS controllers, The IP signaling messages are interpreted by the QoS controllers,
which may be located at the GGSN/PDSN, and in any QoS sub-domains which may be located at the GGSN/PDSN, and in any QoS sub-domains
within the cellular system. within the cellular system.
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002
3) Initiation of IP-level QoS negotiation. IP-level QoS re- 3) Initiation of IP-level QoS negotiation. IP-level QoS re-
negotiation may be initiated by either the End Host, or by the negotiation may be initiated by either the End Host, or by the
network, based on current network loads, which might change network, based on current network loads, which might change
depending on the location of the end host. depending on the location of the end host.
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 29]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
4) The networks are designed and mainly used for speech 4) The networks are designed and mainly used for speech
communication (at least so far). communication (at least so far).
Note that in comparison to the former scenario, the emphasis is much Note that in comparison to the former scenario, the emphasis is much
less on the mobility aspects, because mobility is mainly handled on less on the mobility aspects, because mobility is mainly handled on
the lower layer. the lower layer.
8.3 Scenario: UMTS access 8.3 Scenario: UMTS access
The UMTS access scenario is shown in figure 3. The Proxy-Call State The UMTS access scenario is shown in figure 3. The Proxy-Call State
Control Function/Policy Control Function (P-CSCF/PCF) is the Control Function/Policy Control Function (P-CSCF/PCF) is the
outbound SIP proxy of the visited domain, i.e. the domain where the outbound SIP proxy of the visited domain, i.e. the domain where the
mobile user wants to set-up a call. The Gateway GPRS Support Node mobile user wants to set-up a call. The Gateway GPRS Support Node
(GGSN) is the egress router of the UMTS domain and connects the UMTS (GGSN) is the egress router of the UMTS domain and connects the UMTS
access network to the Edge Router (ER) of the core IP network. The access network to the Edge Router (ER) of the core IP network. The
P-CSCF/PCF communicates with the GGSN via the COPS protocol [4]. The P-CSCF/PCF communicates with the GGSN via the COPS protocol [4]. The
User Equipment (UE) consists of a Mobile Terminal (MT) and Terminal User Equipment (UE) consists of a Mobile Terminal (MT) and Terminal
Equipment (TE), e.g. a laptop. Equipment (TE), e.g. a laptop.
+--------+ +--------+
+----------| P-CSCF |-------> SIP signaling +----------| P-CSCF |-------> SIP signaling
/ +--------+ / +--------+
/ SIP : / SIP :
: +--------+ NSIS +----------------+ : +--------+ NSIS +----------------+
: | PCF |---------| QoS Controller | : | PCF |---------| QoS Controller |
: +--------+ +----------------+ : +--------+ +----------------+
: : : :
: : COPS : : COPS
: : : :
skipping to change at page 30, line 4 skipping to change at line 1661
control of the end-user service in the UMTS access network (i.e. control of the end-user service in the UMTS access network (i.e.
from UE to GGSN). In the current UMTS release R.5, the PCF is part from UE to GGSN). In the current UMTS release R.5, the PCF is part
of the P-CSCF, but in UMTS R.6 the interface between P-CSCF and PCF of the P-CSCF, but in UMTS R.6 the interface between P-CSCF and PCF
may evolve to an open standardized interface. In any case the PCF may evolve to an open standardized interface. In any case the PCF
has all required QoS information for per-flow admission control in has all required QoS information for per-flow admission control in
the UMTS access network (which it gets from the P-CSCF and/or GGSN). the UMTS access network (which it gets from the P-CSCF and/or GGSN).
Thus the PCF would be the appropriate entity to host the Thus the PCF would be the appropriate entity to host the
functionality of QI, initiating the "NSIS" QoS signaling towards the functionality of QI, initiating the "NSIS" QoS signaling towards the
core IP network. The PCF/P-CSCF has to do the mapping from codec core IP network. The PCF/P-CSCF has to do the mapping from codec
type (derived from SIP/SDP signaling) to IP traffic descriptor. SDP type (derived from SIP/SDP signaling) to IP traffic descriptor. SDP
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002
extensions to explicitly signal QoS information [7] are useful to extensions to explicitly signal QoS information [7] are useful to
avoid the need to store codec information in the PCF and to allow avoid the need to store codec information in the PCF and to allow
for more flexibility and accurate description of the QoS traffic for more flexibility and accurate description of the QoS traffic
parameters. The PCF also controls the GGSN to open and close the parameters. The PCF also controls the GGSN to open and close the
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 30]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
gates and to configure per-flow policers, i.e. to authorize or gates and to configure per-flow policers, i.e. to authorize or
forbid user traffic. forbid user traffic.
The QC is (of course) not part of the standard UMTS architecture. The QC is (of course) not part of the standard UMTS architecture.
However, to achieve end-to-end QoS a QC is needed such that the PCF However, to achieve end-to-end QoS a QC is needed such that the PCF
can request a QoS connection to the IP network. As in the previous can request a QoS connection to the IP network. As in the previous
example, the QC could manage a set of pre-provisioned resources in example, the QC could manage a set of pre-provisioned resources in
the IP network, i.e. bandwidth pipes, and the QC performs per-flow the IP network, i.e. bandwidth pipes, and the QC performs per-flow
admission control into these pipes. In this way, a connection can be admission control into these pipes. In this way, a connection can be
made between two UMTS access networks, and hence, end-to-end QoS can made between two UMTS access networks, and hence, end-to-end QoS can
be achieved. In this case the QI and QC are clearly two separate be achieved. In this case the QI and QC are clearly two separate
entities. entities.
This use case clearly illustrates the need for an "NSIS" QoS This use case clearly illustrates the need for an "NSIS" QoS
skipping to change at page 30, line 24 skipping to change at line 1685
example, the QC could manage a set of pre-provisioned resources in example, the QC could manage a set of pre-provisioned resources in
the IP network, i.e. bandwidth pipes, and the QC performs per-flow the IP network, i.e. bandwidth pipes, and the QC performs per-flow
admission control into these pipes. In this way, a connection can be admission control into these pipes. In this way, a connection can be
made between two UMTS access networks, and hence, end-to-end QoS can made between two UMTS access networks, and hence, end-to-end QoS can
be achieved. In this case the QI and QC are clearly two separate be achieved. In this case the QI and QC are clearly two separate
entities. entities.
This use case clearly illustrates the need for an "NSIS" QoS This use case clearly illustrates the need for an "NSIS" QoS
signaling protocol between QI and QC. An important application of signaling protocol between QI and QC. An important application of
such a protocol may be its use in the inter-connection of UMTS such a protocol may be its use in the inter-connection of UMTS
networks over an IP backbone. networks over an IP backbone.
8.4 Wired part of wireless network 8.4 Wired part of wireless network
A wireless network, seen from a QoS domain perspective, usually A wireless network, seen from a QoS domain perspective, usually
consists of three parts: a wireless interface part (the "radio consists of three parts: a wireless interface part (the "radio
interface"), a wired part of the wireless network (i.e., Radio interface"), a wired part of the wireless network (i.e., Radio
Access Network) and the backbone of the wireless network, as shown Access Network) and the backbone of the wireless network, as shown
in Figure 2. Note that this figure should not be seen as an in Figure 2. Note that this figure should not be seen as an
architectural overview of wireless networks but rather as showing architectural overview of wireless networks but rather as showing
the conceptual QoS domains in a wireless network. the conceptual QoS domains in a wireless network.
In this scenario, a mobile host can roam and perform a handover In this scenario, a mobile host can roam and perform a handover
procedure between base stations/access routers. In this scenario the procedure between base stations/access routers. In this scenario the
NSIS QoS protocol can be applied between a base station and the NSIS QoS protocol can be applied between a base station and the
gateway (GW). In this case a GW can also be considered as a local gateway (GW). In this case a GW can also be considered as a local
handover anchor point. Furthermore, in this scenario the NSIS QoS handover anchor point. Furthermore, in this scenario the NSIS QoS
protocol can also be applied either between two GWs, or between two protocol can also be applied either between two GWs, or between two
edge routers (ER). edge routers (ER).
|--| |--|
|GW| |GW|
|--| |--| |--| |--|
|MH|--- . |MH|--- .
|--| / |-------| . |--| / |-------| .
/--|base | |--| . /--|base | |--| .
|station|-|ER|.... |station|-|ER|....
|-------| |--| . |--| back- |--| |---| |-------| |--| . |--| back- |--| |---|
|----| |----|
...|ER|.......|ER|..|BGW|.."Internet"..|host| ...|ER|.......|ER|..|BGW|.."Internet"..|host|
-- |-------| |--| . |--| bone |--| |---| -- |-------| |--| . |--| bone |--| |---|
|----| |----|
|--| \ |base |-|ER|... . |--| \ |base |-|ER|... .
|MH| \ |station| |--| . |MH| \ |station| |--| .
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002
|--|--- |-------| . MH = mobile host |--|--- |-------| . MH = mobile host
|--| ER = edge router |--| ER = edge router
<----> |GW| GW = gateway <----> |GW| GW = gateway
Wireless link |--| BGW = border gateway Wireless link |--| BGW = border gateway
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 31]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
... = interior nodes ... = interior nodes
<-------------------> <------------------->
Wired part of wireless network Wired part of wireless network
<----------------------------------------> <---------------------------------------->
Wireless Network Wireless Network
Figure 2. QoS architecture of wired part of wireless network Figure 2. QoS architecture of wired part of wireless network
Each of these parts of the wireless network impose different issues Each of these parts of the wireless network impose different issues
to be solved on the QoS signaling solution being used: to be solved on the QoS signaling solution being used:
* Wireless interface: The solution for the air interface link * Wireless interface: The solution for the air interface link
has to ensure flexibility and spectrum efficient transmission has to ensure flexibility and spectrum efficient transmission
of IP packets. However, this link layer QoS can be solved in of IP packets. However, this link layer QoS can be solved in
the same way as any other last hop problem by allowing a the same way as any other last hop problem by allowing a
host to request the proper QoS profile. host to request the proper QoS profile.
* Wired part of the wireless network: This is the part of * Wired part of the wireless network: This is the part of
the network that is closest to the base stations/access the network that is closest to the base stations/access
routers. It is an IP network although some parts logically routers. It is an IP network although some parts logically
perform tunneling of the end user data. In cellular networks, perform tunneling of the end user data. In cellular networks,
the wired part of the wireless network is denoted as a the wired part of the wireless network is denoted as a
radio access network. radio access network.
This part of the wireless network has different This part of the wireless network has different
characteristics when compared to traditional IP networks: characteristics when compared to traditional IP networks:
1. The network supports a high proportion of real-time 1. The network supports a high proportion of real-time
traffic. The majority of the traffic transported in the traffic. The majority of the traffic transported in the
wired part of the wireless network is speech, which is wired part of the wireless network is speech, which is
very sensitive to delays and delay variation (jitter). very sensitive to delays and delay variation (jitter).
2. The network must support mobility. Many wireless 2. The network must support mobility. Many wireless
networks are able to provide a combination of soft networks are able to provide a combination of soft
and hard handover procedures. When handover occurs, and hard handover procedures. When handover occurs,
reservations need to be established on new paths. reservations need to be established on new paths.
The establishment time has to be as short as possible The establishment time has to be as short as possible
since long establishment times for reservations degrade since long establishment times for reservations degrade
the performance of the wireless network. Moreover, the performance of the wireless network. Moreover,
for maximal utilization of the radio spectrum, frequent for maximal utilization of the radio spectrum, frequent
handover operations are required. handover operations are required.
3. These links are typically rather bandwidth-limited. 3. These links are typically rather bandwidth-limited.
4. The wired transmission in such a network contains a 4. The wired transmission in such a network contains a
relatively high volume of expensive leased lines. relatively high volume of expensive leased lines.
Overprovisioning might therefore be prohibitively Overprovisioning might therefore be prohibitively
expensive. expensive.
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002
5. The radio base stations are spread over a wide 5. The radio base stations are spread over a wide
geographical area and are in general situated a large geographical area and are in general situated a large
distance from the backbone. distance from the backbone.
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 32]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
* Backbone of the wireless network: the requirements imposed * Backbone of the wireless network: the requirements imposed
by this network are similar to the requirements imposed by by this network are similar to the requirements imposed by
other types of backbone networks. other types of backbone networks.
Due to these very different characteristics and requirements, often Due to these very different characteristics and requirements, often
contradictory, different QoS signalling solutions might be needed in contradictory, different QoS signalling solutions might be needed in
each of the three network parts. each of the three network parts.
8.5 Scenario: Session Mobility 8.5 Scenario: Session Mobility
In this scenario, a session is moved from one end-system to another. In this scenario, a session is moved from one end-system to another.
Ongoing sessions are kept and QoS parameters need to be adapted, Ongoing sessions are kept and QoS parameters need to be adapted,
since it is very likely that the new device provides different since it is very likely that the new device provides different
capabilities. Note that it is open which entity initiates the move, capabilities. Note that it is open which entity initiates the move,
which implies that the QoS initiator might be triggered by different which implies that the QoS initiator might be triggered by different
entities. entities.
User mobility (i.e., a user changing the device and therefore moving User mobility (i.e., a user changing the device and therefore moving
the sessions to the new device) is considered to be a special case the sessions to the new device) is considered to be a special case
within the session mobility scenario. within the session mobility scenario.
Note that this scenario is different from terminal mobility. Not the Note that this scenario is different from terminal mobility. Not the
terminal (end-system) has moved to a different access point. Both terminal (end-system) has moved to a different access point. Both
terminals are still connected to an IP network at their original terminals are still connected to an IP network at their original
points. points.
The issues include: The issues include:
1) Keeping the QoS guarantees negotiated implies that the end- 1) Keeping the QoS guarantees negotiated implies that the end-
point(s) of communication are changed without changing the point(s) of communication are changed without changing the
reservations. reservations.
2) The trigger of the session move might be the user or any other 2) The trigger of the session move might be the user or any other
party involved in the session. party involved in the session.
8.6 Scenario: QoS reservations/negotiation from access to core network 8.6 Scenario: QoS reservations/negotiation from access to core network
The scenario includes the signaling between access networks and core The scenario includes the signaling between access networks and core
networks in order to setup and change reservations together with networks in order to setup and change reservations together with
potential negotiation. potential negotiation.
The issues to be solved in this scenario are different from previous The issues to be solved in this scenario are different from previous
ones. ones.
1) The entity of reservation is most likely an aggregate. 1) The entity of reservation is most likely an aggregate.
2) The time scales of reservations might be different (long living 2) The time scales of reservations might be different (long living
reservations of aggregates, rarer re-negotiation). reservations of aggregates, rarer re-negotiation).
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002
3) The specification of the traffic (amount of traffic), a 3) The specification of the traffic (amount of traffic), a
particular QoS is guaranteed for, needs to be changed. E.g., in case particular QoS is guaranteed for, needs to be changed. E.g., in case
additional flows are added to the aggregate, the traffic additional flows are added to the aggregate, the traffic
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 33]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
specification of the flow needs to be added if it is not already specification of the flow needs to be added if it is not already
included in the aggregates specification. included in the aggregates specification.
4) The flow specification is more complex including network 4) The flow specification is more complex including network
addresses and sets of different address for the source as well as addresses and sets of different address for the source as well as
for the destination of the flow. for the destination of the flow.
8.7 Scenario: QoS reservation/negotiation over administrative 8.7 Scenario: QoS reservation/negotiation over administrative
boundaries boundaries
Signaling between two or more core networks to provide QoS is Signaling between two or more core networks to provide QoS is
handled in this scenario. This might also include access to core handled in this scenario. This might also include access to core
signaling over administrative boundaries. Compared to the previous signaling over administrative boundaries. Compared to the previous
one it adds the case, where the two networks are not in the same one it adds the case, where the two networks are not in the same
administrative domain. Basically, it is the inter-domain/inter administrative domain. Basically, it is the inter-domain/inter
provider signaling which is handled in here. provider signaling which is handled in here.
The domain boundary is the critical issue to be resolved. Which as The domain boundary is the critical issue to be resolved. Which as
various flavors of issues a QoS signaling protocol has to be various flavors of issues a QoS signaling protocol has to be
concerned with. concerned with.
1) Competing administrations: Normally, only basic information 1) Competing administrations: Normally, only basic information
should be exchanged, if the signaling is between competing should be exchanged, if the signaling is between competing
administrations. Specifically information about core network administrations. Specifically information about core network
internals (e.g., topology, technology, etc.) should not be internals (e.g., topology, technology, etc.) should not be
exchanged. Some information exchange about the "access points" of exchanged. Some information exchange about the "access points" of
the core networks (which is topology information as well) may need the core networks (which is topology information as well) may need
to be exchanged, because it is needed for proper signaling. to be exchanged, because it is needed for proper signaling.
2) Additionally, as in scenario 4, signaling most likely is based on 2) Additionally, as in scenario 4, signaling most likely is based on
aggregates, with all the issues raise there. aggregates, with all the issues raise there.
3) Authorization: It is critical that the QoS initiator is 3) Authorization: It is critical that the QoS initiator is
authorized to perform a QoS path setup. authorized to perform a QoS path setup.
4) Accountability: It is important to notice that signaling might be 4) Accountability: It is important to notice that signaling might be
used as an entity to charge money for, therefore the interoperation used as an entity to charge money for, therefore the interoperation
with accounting needs to be available. with accounting needs to be available.
8.8 Scenario: QoS signaling between PSTN gateways and backbone routers 8.8 Scenario: QoS signaling between PSTN gateways and backbone routers
A PSTN gateway (i.e., host) requires information from the network A PSTN gateway (i.e., host) requires information from the network
regarding its ability to transport voice traffic across the network. regarding its ability to transport voice traffic across the network.
The voice quality will suffer due to packet loss, latency and The voice quality will suffer due to packet loss, latency and
jitter. Signaling is used to identify and admit a flow for which jitter. Signaling is used to identify and admit a flow for which
these impairments are minimized. In addition, the disposition of these impairments are minimized. In addition, the disposition of
the signaling request is used to allow the PSTN GW to make a call the signaling request is used to allow the PSTN GW to make a call
routing decision before the call is actually accepted and delivered routing decision before the call is actually accepted and delivered
to the final destination. to the final destination.
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002
PSTN gateways may handle thousands of calls simultaneously and there PSTN gateways may handle thousands of calls simultaneously and there
may be hundreds of PSTN gateways in a single provider network. These may be hundreds of PSTN gateways in a single provider network. These
numbers are likely to increase as the size of the network increases. numbers are likely to increase as the size of the network increases.
The point being that scalability is a major issue. The point being that scalability is a major issue.
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 34]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
There are several ways that a PSTN gateway can acquire assurances There are several ways that a PSTN gateway can acquire assurances
that a network can carry its traffic across the network. These that a network can carry its traffic across the network. These
include: include:
1. Over-provisioning a high availability network. 1. Over-provisioning a high availability network.
2. Handling admission control through some policy server 2. Handling admission control through some policy server
that has a global view of the network and its resources. that has a global view of the network and its resources.
3. Per PSTN GW pair admission control. 3. Per PSTN GW pair admission control.
4. Per call admission control (where a call is defined as 4. Per call admission control (where a call is defined as
the 5 tuple used to carry a single RTP flow). the 5 tuple used to carry a single RTP flow).
Item 1 requires no signaling at all and is therefore outside the Item 1 requires no signaling at all and is therefore outside the
scope of this working group. scope of this working group.
Item 2 is really a better informed version of 1, but it is also Item 2 is really a better informed version of 1, but it is also
outside the scope of this working group as it relies on a particular outside the scope of this working group as it relies on a particular
telephony signaling protocol rather than a packet admission control telephony signaling protocol rather than a packet admission control
protocol. protocol.
Item 3 is initially attractive as it appears to have reasonable Item 3 is initially attractive as it appears to have reasonable
scaling properties, however, its scaling properties only are scaling properties, however, its scaling properties only are
effective in cases where there are relatively few PSTN GWs. In the effective in cases where there are relatively few PSTN GWs. In the
more general case were a PSTN GW reduces to a single IP phone more general case were a PSTN GW reduces to a single IP phone
sitting behind some access network, the opportunities for sitting behind some access network, the opportunities for
aggregation are reduced and the problem reduces to item 4. aggregation are reduced and the problem reduces to item 4.
Item 4 is the most general case. However, it has the most difficult Item 4 is the most general case. However, it has the most difficult
scaling problems. The objective here is to place the requirements on scaling problems. The objective here is to place the requirements on
Item 4 such that a scalable per-flow admission control protocol or Item 4 such that a scalable per-flow admission control protocol or
protocol suite may be developed. protocol suite may be developed.
The case where per-flow signaling extends to individual IP end- The case where per-flow signaling extends to individual IP end-
points allows the inclusion of IP phones on cable, DSL, wireless or points allows the inclusion of IP phones on cable, DSL, wireless or
other access networks in this scenario. other access networks in this scenario.
Call Scenario Call Scenario
A PSTN GW signals end-to-end for some 5 tuple defined flow a A PSTN GW signals end-to-end for some 5 tuple defined flow a
bandwidth and QoS requirement. Note that the 5 tuple might include bandwidth and QoS requirement. Note that the 5 tuple might include
masking/wildcarding. The access network admits this flow according masking/wildcarding. The access network admits this flow according
to its local policy and the specific details of the access to its local policy and the specific details of the access
technology. technology.
At the edge router (i.e., border node), the flow is admitted, again At the edge router (i.e., border node), the flow is admitted, again
with an optional authentication process, possibly involving an with an optional authentication process, possibly involving an
external policy server. Note that the relationship between the PSTN external policy server. Note that the relationship between the PSTN
GW and the policy server and the routers and the policy server is GW and the policy server and the routers and the policy server is
outside the scope of NSIS. The edge router then admits the flow into outside the scope of NSIS. The edge router then admits the flow into
the core of the network, possibly using some aggregation technique. the core of the network, possibly using some aggregation technique.
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002
At the interior nodes, the NSIS host-to-host signaling should either At the interior nodes, the NSIS host-to-host signaling should either
be ignored or invisible as the Edge router performed the admission be ignored or invisible as the Edge router performed the admission
control decision to some aggregate. control decision to some aggregate.
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 35]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
At the inter-provider router (i.e., border node), again the NSIS At the inter-provider router (i.e., border node), again the NSIS
host-to-host signaling should either be ignored or invisible as the host-to-host signaling should either be ignored or invisible as the
Edge router has performed an admission control decision about an Edge router has performed an admission control decision about an
aggregate across a carrier network. aggregate across a carrier network.
8.9 PSTN trunking gateway 8.9 PSTN trunking gateway
One of the use cases for the NSIS signaling protocol is the scenario One of the use cases for the NSIS signaling protocol is the scenario
of interconnecting PSTN gateways with an IP network that supports of interconnecting PSTN gateways with an IP network that supports
QoS. QoS.
Four different scenarios are considered here. Four different scenarios are considered here.
1. 1. In-band QoS signaling is used. In this case the Media Gateway
In-band QoS signaling is used. In this case the Media Gateway
(MG) will be acting as the QoS Initiator and the Edge Router (MG) will be acting as the QoS Initiator and the Edge Router
(ER) will be the QoS Controller. Hence, the ER should do (ER) will be the QoS Controller. Hence, the ER should do
admission control (into pre-provisioned traffic trunks) for the admission control (into pre-provisioned traffic trunks) for the
individual traffic flows. This scenario is not further individual traffic flows. This scenario is not further
considered here. considered here.
2. 2. Out-of-band signaling in a single domain, the QoS Controller is
Out-of-band signaling in a single domain, the QoS Controller is
integrated in the MGC. In this case no NSIS protocol is integrated in the MGC. In this case no NSIS protocol is
required. required.
3. 3. Out-of-band signaling in a single domain, the QoS Controller is
Out-of-band signaling in a single domain, the QoS Controller is
a separate box. In this case NSIS signaling is used between the a separate box. In this case NSIS signaling is used between the
MGC and the QoS Controller. MGC and the QoS Controller.
4. 4. Out-of-band signaling between multiple domains, the QoS
Out-of-band signaling between multiple domains, the QoS
Controller (which may be integrated in the MGC) triggers the Controller (which may be integrated in the MGC) triggers the
QoS Controller of the next domain. QoS Controller of the next domain.
When the out-of-band QoS signaling is used the Media Gateway When the out-of-band QoS signaling is used the Media Gateway
Controller (MGC) will be acting as the QoS Initiator. Controller (MGC) will be acting as the QoS Initiator.
In the second scenario the voice provider manages a set of traffic In the second scenario the voice provider manages a set of traffic
trunks that are leased from a network provider. The MGC does the trunks that are leased from a network provider. The MGC does the
admission control in this case. Since the QoS Controller acts both admission control in this case. Since the QoS Controller acts both
as a QoS Initiator and a QoS Controller, no NSIS signaling is as a QoS Initiator and a QoS Controller, no NSIS signaling is
required. This scenario is shown in figure 1. required. This scenario is shown in figure 1.
+-------------+ ISUP/SIGTRAN +-----+ +-----+ +-------------+ ISUP/SIGTRAN +-----+ +-----+
| SS7 network |---------------------| MGC |--------------| SS7 | | SS7 network |---------------------| MGC |--------------| SS7 |
+-------------+ +-------+-----+---------+ +-----+ +-------------+ +-------+-----+---------+ +-----+
: / : \ : / : \
: / : \ : / : \
: / +--------:----------+ \ : / +--------:----------+ \
: MEGACO / / : \ \ : MEGACO / / : \ \
: / / +-----+ \ \ : / / +-----+ \ \
: / / | NMS | \ \ : / / | NMS | \ \
: / | +-----+ | \ : / | +-----+ | \
skipping to change at page 36, line 4 skipping to change at line 2004
: / : \ : / : \
: / : \ : / : \
: / +--------:----------+ \ : / +--------:----------+ \
: MEGACO / / : \ \ : MEGACO / / : \ \
: / / +-----+ \ \ : / / +-----+ \ \
: / / | NMS | \ \ : / / | NMS | \ \
: / | +-----+ | \ : / | +-----+ | \
: : | | : : : | | :
+--------------+ +----+ | bandwidth pipe (SLS) | +----+ +--------------+ +----+ | bandwidth pipe (SLS) | +----+
| PSTN network |--| MG |--|ER|======================|ER|-| MG |-- | PSTN network |--| MG |--|ER|======================|ER|-| MG |--
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002
+--------------+ +----+ \ / +----+ +--------------+ +----+ \ / +----+
\ QoS network / \ QoS network /
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 36]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
Figure 1: PSTN trunking gateway scenario Figure 1: PSTN trunking gateway scenario
In the third scenario, the voice provider does not lease traffic In the third scenario, the voice provider does not lease traffic
trunks in the network. Another entity may lease traffic trunks and trunks in the network. Another entity may lease traffic trunks and
may use a QoS Controller to do per-flow admission control. In this may use a QoS Controller to do per-flow admission control. In this
case the NSIS signaling is used between the MGC and the QoS case the NSIS signaling is used between the MGC and the QoS
Controller, which is a separate box here. Hence, the MGC acts only Controller, which is a separate box here. Hence, the MGC acts only
as a QoS Initiator. This scenario is depicted in figure 2. as a QoS Initiator. This scenario is depicted in figure 2.
+-------------+ ISUP/SIGTRAN +-----+ +-----+ +-------------+ ISUP/SIGTRAN +-----+ +-----+
| SS7 network |---------------------| MGC |--------------| SS7 | | SS7 network |---------------------| MGC |--------------| SS7 |
+-------------+ +-------+-----+---------+ +-----+ +-------------+ +-------+-----+---------+ +-----+
: / : \ : / : \
: / +-----+ \ : / +-----+ \
: / | QC | \ : / | QC | \
: / +-----+ \ : / +-----+ \
: / : \ : / : \
: / +--------:----------+ \ : / +--------:----------+ \
: MEGACO : / : \ : : MEGACO : / : \ :
skipping to change at page 36, line 34 skipping to change at line 2039
: MEGACO : / : \ : : MEGACO : / : \ :
: : / +-----+ \ : : : / +-----+ \ :
: : / | NMS | \ : : : / | NMS | \ :
: : | +-----+ | : : : | +-----+ | :
: : | | : : : | | :
+--------------+ +----+ | bandwidth pipe (SLS) | +----+ +--------------+ +----+ | bandwidth pipe (SLS) | +----+
| PSTN network |--| MG |--|ER|======================|ER|-| MG |-- | PSTN network |--| MG |--|ER|======================|ER|-| MG |--
+--------------+ +----+ \ / +----+ +--------------+ +----+ \ / +----+
\ QoS network / \ QoS network /
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
Figure 2: PSTN trunking gateway scenario Figure 2: PSTN trunking gateway scenario
In the fourth scenario multiple transport domains are involved. In In the fourth scenario multiple transport domains are involved. In
the originating network either the MGC may have an overview on the the originating network either the MGC may have an overview on the
resources of the overlay network or a separate QoS Controller will resources of the overlay network or a separate QoS Controller will
have the overview. Hence, depending on this either the MGC or the have the overview. Hence, depending on this either the MGC or the
QoS Controller of the originating domain will contact the QoS QoS Controller of the originating domain will contact the QoS
Controller of the next domain. The MGC always acts as a QoS Controller of the next domain. The MGC always acts as a QoS
Initiator and may also be acting as a QoS Controller in the first Initiator and may also be acting as a QoS Controller in the first
domain. domain.
8.10 Scenario: Application request end-to-end QoS path from the 8.10 Scenario: Application request end-to-end QoS path from the
network network
This is actually the most easy case, nevertheless might be most This is actually the most easy case, nevertheless might be most
often used in terms of number of users. So multimedia application often used in terms of number of users. So multimedia application
requests a guaranteed service from an IP network. We assume here requests a guaranteed service from an IP network. We assume here
that the application is somehow able to specify the network service. that the application is somehow able to specify the network service.
The characteristics here are that many hosts might do it, but that The characteristics here are that many hosts might do it, but that
the requested service is low capacity (bounded by the access line). the requested service is low capacity (bounded by the access line).
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002
Additionally, we assume no mobility and standard devices. Additionally, we assume no mobility and standard devices.
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 37]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
9 Acknowledgments 9 Acknowledgments
Quite a number of people have been involved in the discussion of the Quite a number of people have been involved in the discussion of the
draft, adding some ideas, requirements, etc. We list them without a draft, adding some ideas, requirements, etc. We list them without a
guarantee on completeness: Changpeng Fan (Siemens), Krishna Paul guarantee on completeness: Changpeng Fan (Siemens), Krishna Paul
(NEC), Maurizio Molina (NEC), Mirko Schramm (Siemens), Andreas (NEC), Maurizio Molina (NEC), Mirko Schramm (Siemens), Andreas
Schrader (NEC), Hannes Hartenstein (NEC), Ralf Schmitz (NEC), Schrader (NEC), Hannes Hartenstein (NEC), Ralf Schmitz (NEC),
Juergen Quittek (NEC), Morihisa Momona (NEC), Holger Karl (Technical Juergen Quittek (NEC), Morihisa Momona (NEC), Holger Karl (Technical
University Berlin), Xiaoming Fu (Technical University Berlin), Hans- University Berlin), Xiaoming Fu (Technical University Berlin), Hans-
Peter Schwefel (Siemens), Mathias Rautenberg (Siemens), Christoph Peter Schwefel (Siemens), Mathias Rautenberg (Siemens), Christoph
Niedermeier (Siemens), Andreas Kassler (University of Ulm), Ilya Niedermeier (Siemens), Andreas Kassler (University of Ulm), Ilya
Freytsis. Freytsis.
skipping to change at page 37, line 18 skipping to change at line 2077
Quite a number of people have been involved in the discussion of the Quite a number of people have been involved in the discussion of the
draft, adding some ideas, requirements, etc. We list them without a draft, adding some ideas, requirements, etc. We list them without a
guarantee on completeness: Changpeng Fan (Siemens), Krishna Paul guarantee on completeness: Changpeng Fan (Siemens), Krishna Paul
(NEC), Maurizio Molina (NEC), Mirko Schramm (Siemens), Andreas (NEC), Maurizio Molina (NEC), Mirko Schramm (Siemens), Andreas
Schrader (NEC), Hannes Hartenstein (NEC), Ralf Schmitz (NEC), Schrader (NEC), Hannes Hartenstein (NEC), Ralf Schmitz (NEC),
Juergen Quittek (NEC), Morihisa Momona (NEC), Holger Karl (Technical Juergen Quittek (NEC), Morihisa Momona (NEC), Holger Karl (Technical
University Berlin), Xiaoming Fu (Technical University Berlin), Hans- University Berlin), Xiaoming Fu (Technical University Berlin), Hans-
Peter Schwefel (Siemens), Mathias Rautenberg (Siemens), Christoph Peter Schwefel (Siemens), Mathias Rautenberg (Siemens), Christoph
Niedermeier (Siemens), Andreas Kassler (University of Ulm), Ilya Niedermeier (Siemens), Andreas Kassler (University of Ulm), Ilya
Freytsis. Freytsis.
Some text and/or ideas for text, requirements, scenarios have been Some text and/or ideas for text, requirements, scenarios have been
taken from a draft written by the following authors: David Partain taken from a draft written by the following authors: David Partain
(Ericsson), Anders Bergsten (Telia Research), Marc Greis (Nokia), (Ericsson), Anders Bergsten (Telia Research), Marc Greis (Nokia),
Georgios Karagiannis (Ericsson), Jukka Manner (University of Georgios Karagiannis (Ericsson), Jukka Manner (University of
Helsinki), Ping Pan (Juniper), Vlora Rexhepi (Ericsson), Lars Helsinki), Ping Pan (Juniper), Vlora Rexhepi (Ericsson), Lars
Westberg (Ericsson), Haihong Zheng (Nokia). Westberg (Ericsson), Haihong Zheng (Nokia). Some of those have
actively contributed new text to the draft as well.
Another draft impacting this draft has been written by Sven Van den
Bosch, Maarten Buchli, and Danny Goderis. These people contributed
also with new text.
10 Author's Addresses 10 Author's Addresses
Marcus Brunner (Editor) Marcus Brunner (Editor)
NEC Europe Ltd. NEC Europe Ltd.
Network Laboratories Network Laboratories
Adenauerplatz 6 Adenauerplatz 6
D-69115 Heidelberg D-69115 Heidelberg
Germany Germany
E-Mail: brunner@ccrle.nec.de (contact) E-Mail: brunner@ccrle.nec.de (contact)
Robert Hancock, Eleanor Hepworth Robert Hancock, Eleanor Hepworth
Roke Manor Research Ltd Roke Manor Research Ltd
Romsey, Hants, SO51 0ZN Romsey, Hants, SO51 0ZN
United Kingdom United Kingdom
E-Mail: [robert.hancock|eleanor.hepworth]@roke.co.uk E-Mail: [robert.hancock|eleanor.hepworth]@roke.co.uk
Cornelia Kappler Cornelia Kappler
Siemens AG Siemens AG
Berlin 13623 Berlin 13623
Germany Germany
E-Mail: cornelia.kappler@icn.siemens.de E-Mail: cornelia.kappler@icn.siemens.de
Hannes Tschofenig Hannes Tschofenig
Siemens AG Siemens AG
Otto-Hahn-Ring 6 Otto-Hahn-Ring 6
81739 Munchen 81739 Munchen
Germany Germany
Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@mchp.siemens.de Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@mchp.siemens.de
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 38]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
skipping to change at page 38, line 27 skipping to change at line 2145
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English. English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDIN TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDIN
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Open Issues/To Dos Open Issues/To Dos
1) (OPEN) add Scenarios 1) (OPEN) add Scenarios
Do we need to add, remove, or change the scenarios? Do we need to add, remove, or change the scenarios?
- added scenario on QoS signalling between PSTN gateways and - added scenario on QoS signalling between PSTN gateways and
backbone routers backbone routers
- added: Application request end-to-end QoS path from the network - added: Application request end-to-end QoS path from the network
We can what ever scenario we want. The more the better to understand We can what ever scenario we want. The more the better to understand
the issues. Nevertheless, we have to take care that we are future the issues. Nevertheless, we have to take care that we are future
prove as well. prove as well.
2) (OPEN) Sender/receiver initiation 2) (OPEN) Sender/receiver initiation
What is the requirement concerning data sender or data receiver or What is the requirement concerning data sender or data receiver or
both to initiate a QoS request. both to initiate a QoS request.
- does it matter who pays?
- terminology text added Terminology text added
open issue, what is a potential req (currently we say "both must be open issue, what is a potential req (currently we say "both must be
possible") possible")
Proposals:
1)should be optimized for sender initiated
2) remove the requirement, because it is not relevant if we allow
for third party QoS initiators
3) SHOULD support sender initiated, MAY support reciever initiated
Issues:
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 39]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
- does it matter who pays?
- for sender initiated, can we support implicit signaling
(bundling the QoS requests with other signaling - registration,
etc.)?
- For reciever initiated, do we need protection against spamming -
how do we protect against unwanted changes?
3) (CLOSED) Draft organization 3) (CLOSED) Draft organization
The proposed changes include The proposed changes include
- put all the scenarios into an appendix - put all the scenarios into an appendix
- In Section 6 add text describing 3 different "parts of the - In Section 6 add text describing 3 different "parts of the
network" network"
-Host to first hop -Host to first hop
-access network -access network
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002
-core networks -core networks
better names are welcome, but I don't want to be religious about better names are welcome, but I don't want to be religious about
it it
- Prioritize the requirements according to the "parts of the - Prioritize the requirements according to the "parts of the
network" (This means the the tables in Section 6 of the current network" (This means the the tables in Section 6 of the current
draft will get three colums with the MUST, SHOULDs, and MAYs for draft will get three colums with the MUST, SHOULDs, and MAYs for
each requirement each requirement
4) (OPEN) MUSTs, SHOULDs, MAY needs discussion 4) (OPEN) MUSTs, SHOULDs, MAY needs discussion
5) (CLOSED) Framework text. 5) (CLOSED) Framework text.
The figures have been removed, because they seamed to be misleading. The figures have been removed, because they seamed to be misleading.
the text has been revisited. I regard the issue closed until we have the text has been revisited. I regard the issue closed until we have
a clear picture about what the NSIS framework draft is about. a clear picture about what the NSIS framework draft is about.
6) (CLOSED) The requirement organization 6) (CLOSED) The requirement organization
I heard some voices on the list that the grouping should be more I heard some voices on the list that the grouping should be more
along the lines of host-to-edge, edge to edge etc. along the lines of host-to-edge, edge to edge etc.
So far I have not changed it, because I though that the requirements So far I have not changed it, because I though that the requirements
heavily depend on the scenario we are looking at. heavily depend on the scenario we are looking at.
closed, by the change in the draft organisation (issue 3) closed, by the change in the draft organisation (issue 3)
7) (OPEN) Hemant Chaskar: Section 3.1, items 1) Handoff decision and 7) (OPEN) Hemant Chaskar: Section 3.1, items 1) Handoff decision and
2) Trigger sources: The handoff decision and trigger sources should 2) Trigger sources: The handoff decision and trigger sources should
be out of scope of NSIS. NSIS should rather focus only on be out of scope of NSIS. NSIS should rather focus only on
"establishing" QoS along the packet path after handoff. "establishing" QoS along the packet path after handoff.
needs more WG discussion, potentially even cross-WG needs more WG discussion, potentially even cross-WG
8) (OPEN) bi-directional data path setup with one QoS request 8) (OPEN) bi-directional data path setup with one QoS request
I have not seen consensus on whether to require bi-directional data I have not seen consensus on whether to require bi-directional data
path setup with QoS. path setup with QoS.
- How can we actually perform bi-directional reservations when the
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 40]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
Q: How can we actually perform bi-directional reservations when the
forward and reverse paths are not reciprocal, with respect to forward and reverse paths are not reciprocal, with respect to
routing topology and routing policy of network domains between routing topology and routing policy of network domains between
sender and receiver? sender and receiver?
A: bi-directional data path setup does not need to use the same
return path as the forwarding path. The only requirement to achieve
a bi-directional reservation is that the sender for the forwarding
path is also the receiver for the return path and that the receiver
for the forwarding path is also the sender for the return path.
- The need to ensure that the return path is the same as the - The need to ensure that the return path is the same as the
forwarding path is one of the problems with RSVP, particularly in a forwarding path is one of the problems with RSVP, particularly in a
mobile environment. mobile environment.
9) (CLOSED) Potential requirement: must be implementable in user 9) (CLOSED) Potential requirement: must be implementable in user
space (on end hosts) space (on end hosts)
has not been included in the req list because it seams to be has not been included in the req list because it seams to be
implementation specific. implementation specific.
10) (CLOSED) Potential requirement: must provide support for 10) (CLOSED) Potential requirement: must provide support for
globally defined services as well as private services (Ruediger) globally defined services as well as private services (Ruediger)
replaced by issue 17 and 18, closed replaced by issue 17 and 18, closed
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002
11) (CLOSED) Potential requirement: Flexibility in the granularity 11) (CLOSED) Potential requirement: Flexibility in the granularity
of reservation (I don't remember who brought it up, but I assume it of reservation (I don't remember who brought it up, but I assume it
refers to the flexibility in terms of what size the flow has. Where refers to the flexibility in terms of what size the flow has. Where
size can be bandwidth etc.) size can be bandwidth etc.)
The assumption that QoS classes as well as service definitions are The assumption that QoS classes as well as service definitions are
out of scope for this draft, also the flexibility is. out of scope for this draft, also the flexibility is.
12) (CLOSED) text replacing scalability reqs 12) (CLOSED) text replacing scalability reqs
"The nsis architecture should give the ability to constrain the load "The nsis architecture should give the ability to constrain the load
(CPU load, memory space, signaling bandwidth consumption and (CPU load, memory space, signaling bandwidth consumption and
signaling intensity) on devices where it is needed. This can be signaling intensity) on devices where it is needed. This can be
achieved by many different methods, for example message aggregation, achieved by many different methods, for example message aggregation,
by ignoring signaling message, header compression or minimizing by ignoring signaling message, header compression or minimizing
functionality. The architecture may choose any of these methods as functionality. The architecture may choose any of these methods as
long as the requirement is met." long as the requirement is met."
Editor: added the above text, but did not remove scalability reqs
Editor: added the draft text, but did not remove scalability reqs
13) (CLOSED) add operator req "Ability to assign transport quality 13) (CLOSED) add operator req "Ability to assign transport quality
to signaling messages" to signaling messages"
"The nsis architecture should allow the network operator to assign "The nsis architecture should allow the network operator to assign
the nsis protocol messages a certain transport quality. As signaling the nsis protocol messages a certain transport quality. As signaling
opens up for possible denial-of-service attacks, this requirement opens up for possible denial-of-service attacks, this requirement
gives the network operator a mean, but also the obligation, to gives the network operator a mean, but also the obligation, to
trade-off between signaling latency and the impact (from the trade-off between signaling latency and the impact (from the
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 41]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
signaling messages) on devices within his/her network. From protocol signaling messages) on devices within his/her network. From protocol
design this requirement states that the protocol messages should be design this requirement states that the protocol messages should be
detectable, at least where the control and assignment of the detectable, at least where the control and assignment of the
messages priority is done." messages priority is done."
text has been added text has been added
14) (OPEN, dependend on resolution of bi-directional) proposal to 14) (OPEN, dependend on resolution of bi-directional) proposal to
add "support grouping of microflows (possibly only for feedback)" add "support grouping of microflows (possibly only for feedback)"
"As a consequence of the optimization for the interactive multimedia "As a consequence of the optimization for the interactive multimedia
services, the signaling should allow one unique request for several services, the signaling should allow one unique request for several
micro flows having the same origination and destination IP micro flows having the same origination and destination IP
addresses. This is usually the case for multimedia SIP calls where addresses. This is usually the case for multimedia SIP calls where
the voice and video micro flows follow the same path. This grouping the voice and video micro flows follow the same path. This grouping
of requests allows optimization of the QoS processing. Note that of requests allows optimization of the QoS processing. Note that
this may be detrimental for the call setup time. The use of grouping this may be detrimental for the call setup time. The use of grouping
for microflows may be restricted to teardown and/or notification for microflows may be restricted to teardown and/or notification
skipping to change at page 40, line 43 skipping to change at line 2309
add "support grouping of microflows (possibly only for feedback)" add "support grouping of microflows (possibly only for feedback)"
"As a consequence of the optimization for the interactive multimedia "As a consequence of the optimization for the interactive multimedia
services, the signaling should allow one unique request for several services, the signaling should allow one unique request for several
micro flows having the same origination and destination IP micro flows having the same origination and destination IP
addresses. This is usually the case for multimedia SIP calls where addresses. This is usually the case for multimedia SIP calls where
the voice and video micro flows follow the same path. This grouping the voice and video micro flows follow the same path. This grouping
of requests allows optimization of the QoS processing. Note that of requests allows optimization of the QoS processing. Note that
this may be detrimental for the call setup time. The use of grouping this may be detrimental for the call setup time. The use of grouping
for microflows may be restricted to teardown and/or notification for microflows may be restricted to teardown and/or notification
messages when call setup time is a concern." messages when call setup time is a concern."
open issue: first resolve the bi-directional issue which is somewhat open issue: first resolve the bi-directional issue which is somewhat
related, because it seams to be an optimization as well related, because it seams to be an optimization as well
Should not be restrict to teardown and/or notification, it might be
useful also for the procedure that refreshes reservation states
15) (CLOSED) Support for preemption of sessions 15) (CLOSED) Support for preemption of sessions
-might play into the fault/ error handling case -might play into the fault/ error handling case
-is regarded as service-specific, whether existing sessions can be -is regarded as service-specific, whether existing sessions can be
pre-empted pre-empted
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002
Conclusion: it is network policy to determine how to do pre-emption, Conclusion: it is network policy to determine how to do pre-emption,
not a protocol issue. not a protocol issue.
16) (OPEN) Req: 5.1.9 change provisioning into better term, since 16) (OPEN) Req: 5.1.9 change provisioning into better term, since
different people understand different thing with provisioning different people understand different thing with provisioning
open action for Anders open action for Anders
17) (CLOSED) add assumption that QoS classes/service definitions are 17) (CLOSED) add assumption that QoS classes/service definitions are
already known to all the parties involved in signaling before hand already known to all the parties involved in signaling before hand
(before a signalling session even starts (before a signalling session even starts
added text in Section 4.1 added text in Section 4.1
18) (CLOSED) add exclusion of methods, protocols, and ways to 18) (CLOSED) add exclusion of methods, protocols, and ways to
express QoS express QoS
Even so, this might be covered by saying that we are independent of Even so, this might be covered by saying that we are independent of
QoS classes and service description etc. (see issue 17), I added two QoS classes and service description etc. (see issue 17), I added two
points to the exclusion Section 4.2. points to the exclusion Section 4.2.
Implications: issue 20, 23, Implications: issue 20, 23,
19) (CLOSED) remove req 5.2.5 IP fragmentation 19) (CLOSED) remove req 5.2.5 IP fragmentation
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 42]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
20) (CLOSED) remove req 5.3.2 Ability to signal life-time of a 20) (CLOSED) remove req 5.3.2 Ability to signal life-time of a
reservation reservation
is regarded service-specific therefore part of the service is regarded service-specific therefore part of the service
description description
added some reservation life time text service description assumption added some reservation life time text service description assumption
text and removed the req text and removed the req
21) (CLOSED) remove req 5.5.4 Aggregation method specification 21) (CLOSED) remove req 5.5.4 Aggregation method specification
Concerns Concerns
-QI not able to know the impact of aggregation -QI not able to know the impact of aggregation
-to far down the implementation/ service definition road -to far down the implementation/ service definition road
-leave it to the provider how a service is realized -leave it to the provider how a service is realized
removed removed
22) (CLOSED) remove 5.3.7 Automatic notification on available 22) (CLOSED) remove 5.3.7 Automatic notification on available
resources not been granted before resources not been granted before
regarded to complex and is heavily dependend on the service regarded to complex and is heavily dependend on the service
description description
removed removed
23) (CLOSED) remove 5.5.3 Simple mapping to lower-layer QoS 23) (CLOSED) remove 5.5.3 Simple mapping to lower-layer QoS
provisioning parameters provisioning parameters
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002
this heavily depends on service definition and therefore is out of this heavily depends on service definition and therefore is out of
scope of this document scope of this document
removed removed
24) (CLOSED) Replacing req 5.3.6 "Feedback about the actually 24) (CLOSED) Replacing req 5.3.6 "Feedback about the actually
received level of QoS guarantees" with two requirements: 1) the received level of QoS guarantees" with two requirements: 1) the
feedback of a request MUST include yes and no (MUST respond yes or feedback of a request MUST include yes and no (MUST respond yes or
no) 2) in case of no it MAY include an opaque service-specific no) 2) in case of no it MAY include an opaque service-specific
information about what would be possible information about what would be possible
It is still only one requirement, but the text has been replaced. It is still only one requirement, but the text has been replaced.
25) (CLOSED) remove req 5.10.3 Combination with Mobility management 25) (CLOSED) remove req 5.10.3 Combination with Mobility management
However the integration should not be a priori excluded, there is However the integration should not be a priori excluded, there is
explicitly no statemant about independence of mobility management. explicitly no statemant about independence of mobility management.
There is more discussion for the mobility case needed anyway. There is more discussion for the mobility case needed anyway.
26) (OPEN) interaction of NSIS with seamoby (context transfer and 26) (OPEN) interaction of NSIS with seamoby (context transfer and
CAR discovery) CAR discovery)
27) (CLOSED) remove req 5.5.10 QoS conformance specification 27) (CLOSED) remove req 5.5.10 QoS conformance specification
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 43]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
Motivation: this heavily depends on the service definition and is Motivation: this heavily depends on the service definition and is
therefore out of scope therefore out of scope
removed removed
28) (OPEN) new requirement on "asynchronous events from the network" 28) (OPEN) new requirement on "asynchronous events from the network"
The content of the message might be very service specific, but the The content of the message might be very service specific, but the
protocol support for asynchronous events from the network might be a protocol support for asynchronous events from the network might be a
valuable requirement. valuable requirement. We have something about notification in case
of errors/failures.
29) (OPEN) NSIS in case of handovers 29) (OPEN) NSIS in case of handovers
The whole mobility area needs to be defined
30) (CLOSED) remove 5.1.7 Avoid modularity with large overhead (in 30) (CLOSED) remove 5.1.7 Avoid modularity with large overhead (in
various dimensions) various dimensions)
removed because it seams to be obvious removed because it seams to be obvious
31) (CLOSED) remove 5.1.8 Possibility to use the signaling protocol 31) (CLOSED) remove 5.1.8 Possibility to use the signaling protocol
for existing local technologies for existing local technologies
It is contradictory to 5.1.9 and the intention behind the It is contradictory to 5.1.9 and the intention behind the
requirement is covered by the requierement that the QoS controller requirement is covered by the requierement that the QoS controller
can be placed wherever needed. can be placed wherever needed.
32) (CLOSED) add assumption: there are means for discovery of nsis 32) (CLOSED) add assumption: there are means for discovery of nsis
entities in order to know the signaling peers (solutions include entities in order to know the signaling peers (solutions include
static configuration, or automatically discovered etc.) static configuration, or automatically discovered etc.)
33) (OPEN) add req " highest possible network utilization"
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002 33) (CLOSED) add req " highest possible network utilization"
"There are networking environments that require high network "There are networking environments that require high network
utilization for various reasons, and the signaling protocol should utilization for various reasons, and the signaling protocol should
to its best ability support high resource utilization while to its best ability support high resource utilization while
maintaining appropriate QoS. maintaining appropriate QoS.
In networks where resources are very expensive (as is the case for In networks where resources are very expensive (as is the case for
many wireless networks), efficient network utilization is of many wireless networks), efficient network utilization is of
critical financial importance. On the other hand there are other critical financial importance. On the other hand there are other
parts of the network where high utilization is not required. parts of the network where high utilization is not required.
" "
34) (OPEN)_difference between "UMTS access scenario" "cellular
req added
34) (CLOSED)_difference between "UMTS access scenario" "cellular
network scenario", and "Wired part of wireless network" (Section network scenario", and "Wired part of wireless network" (Section
8.2, 8.3, and 8.4) 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4)
currently all three are included
what are the essential issues? all three are included.
35) (OPEN) difference between the two PSTN gateway scenarios The only common point between the three scenarios is that they are
related to cellular networks. Section 8.4 is introducing the
scenario used in the radio access network of cellular networks.
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 44]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
Sections 8.2 and Section 8.3 are discussing other parts of the
cellular network.
35) (CLOSED) difference between the two PSTN gateway scenarios
(Section 8.8 and 8.9) (Section 8.8 and 8.9)
currently both are included
what are the essential issues? currently both are included, they might be merged, sionce one seams
36) req "Independence of reservation identifier" to be more general than the other
36) (OPEN) req "Independence of reservation identifier"
issue here is that this might only be valuable in mobile issue here is that this might only be valuable in mobile
environments, and complicate the protocol for other environemnts. environments, and complicate the protocol for other environemnts.
there related issues (37,38,
37) ownership of a reservation there are related issues (37,38,
37) (OPEN) ownership of a reservation
The issue here is that a known party owns reservations done in the The issue here is that a known party owns reservations done in the
network. (which might include that the party also pays). The network. (which might include that the party also pays). The
question arose who is allowed to tear-down, receive asynchronous question arose who is allowed to tear-down, receive asynchronous
notifications in case of network initiated tear-down, etc. notifications in case of network initiated tear-down, etc.
This also relates to how certain service granted is This also relates to how certain service granted is
named/identified. named/identified.
38) (OPEN) definition of security threats 38) (OPEN) definition of security threats
39) (OPEN) simplify security requirements section 39) (OPEN) simplify security requirements section
40) (OPEN) add mobility related requirements 40) (OPEN) add mobility related requirements
41) (CLOSED) remove req 5.5.1 Mutability information on parameters 41) (CLOSED) remove req 5.5.1 Mutability information on parameters
removed because it is service-specific removed because it is service-specific
42) (OPEN) add an assumption that QoS nmonitoring is application- 42) (OPEN) add an assumption that QoS nmonitoring is application-
specific and with it out of scope of the WG specific and with it out of scope of the WG
43) (OPEN) asynchronous notification of QoS Initiator, Controller, 43) (OPEN) asynchronous notification of QoS Initiator, Controller,
Receiver, there are security issues related. Basically, an ownership Receiver, there are security issues related. Basically, an ownership
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002
issue. Nevertheless, an asynch notifcation in case of an error, issue. Nevertheless, an asynch notifcation in case of an error,
network failure etc. is specifically in areas, where longer lived network failure etc. is specifically in areas, where longer lived
sessions are setup, essential in order to notify upper layes sessions are setup, essential in order to notify upper layes
(appluications etc. as well. (appluications etc. as well.
44) (OPEN) req 5.1.2 resource availability info on request come back 44) (OPEN) req 5.1.2 resource availability info on request come back
to it as soon as we have a more clear idea about service description to it as soon as we have a more clear idea about service description
issue issue
45) (OPEN) 5.3.4 Possibility for automatic re-setup of resources 45) (OPEN) 5.3.4 Possibility for automatic re-setup of resources
after recovery after recovery
- more thoughts in failure conditions potentially - more thoughts in failure conditions potentially
- better text - better text
- operation under overload - operation under overload
plays into issue 46) plays into issue 46)
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 45]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
46) (OPEN) we need multiple scenario for failure and recovery cases 46) (OPEN) we need multiple scenario for failure and recovery cases
to derive requirements. Or a list failre cases might be a start as to derive requirements. Or a list failre cases might be a start as
well. well.
47) (OPEN) traffic engineering and route pinning 47) (OPEN) traffic engineering and route pinning
I assume this would result in operational type of requirements I assume this would result in operational type of requirements
Opinions on that? Opinions on that?
48) (CLOSED) req 5.5.5 remove Multiple levels of detail 48) (CLOSED) req 5.5.5 remove Multiple levels of detail
"The QSC should allow for multiple levels of detail in description. "The QSC should allow for multiple levels of detail in description.
(Motivation: someone interpreting the request can tune its own level (Motivation: someone interpreting the request can tune its own level
of complexity by going down to more or less levels of detail. A of complexity by going down to more or less levels of detail. A
lightweight implementation within the core could consider only the lightweight implementation within the core could consider only the
coarsest level.)" coarsest level.)"
removed, because it is service-specific removed, because it is service-specific
49) (CLOSED) remove req 5.5.9 Signaling must support quantitative, 49) (CLOSED) remove req 5.5.9 Signaling must support quantitative,
qualitative, and relative QoS specifications qualitative, and relative QoS specifications
removed because it is service-specific removed because it is service-specific
50) (CLOSED) req 5.5.6 remove Ranges in specification 50) (CLOSED) req 5.5.6 remove Ranges in specification
The QSC should allow for specification of minimum required QoS The QSC should allow for specification of minimum required QoS
and/or desirable QoS. (Motivation: The QoS Service Classes should and/or desirable QoS. (Motivation: The QoS Service Classes should
allow for ranges to be indicated, to minimize negotiation latency allow for ranges to be indicated, to minimize negotiation latency
and suppress error notifications during handover events.) and suppress error notifications during handover events.)
removed, is service specific removed, is service specific
51) (OPEN) remove 5.1.6 Avoid duplication of [sub]domain signaling
51) (CLOSED) remove 5.1.6 Avoid duplication of [sub]domain signaling
functions functions
we might to use the text somewhere else
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002 we might use the requirement text somewhere else:
Heading: Avoid duplication of [sub]domain signaling functions
The specification of the NSIS signaling protocol should be optimized
to avoid duplication of existing [sub]domain QoS signaling and to
minimize the overall complexity. (Motivation: we don't want to
introduce duplicate feedback or negotiation mechanisms, or
complicate the work by including all possible existing QoS signaling
in some form. The function will be placed in the new part if it has
to be end-to-end, universal to all network types
('simple/lightweight'), or if it has to be protected by upper layer
security mechanisms.)
The point here is that the QoS technology (lower layer stuff) gets
re-used unchanged, and we have new signaling above it. But, in many
cases the local QoS technology will contain equivalent functions to
the NSIS-required ones, just in a technology specific form. Examples
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 46]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
of these functions would be error/QoS violation notifications,
ability to query for resources and so on. So, there is a danger that
our 'lightweight' signaling ends up trying to carry all this
information all over again, and (even worse) that the
initiator/controller functions have to weigh up nearly equivalent
information coming from two directions. However, the basic problem
here is that the boundary between new and re-used stuff is pretty
shaky. The requirement is trying to scope our problem (a) to
eliminate the potential overlap, and (b) to keep the new NSIS stuff
simple.
However, we are aware that it is very difficult to judge what is
duplicated, if we want to run the protocol in various environments.
52) (OPEN) New requirement: interaction with policy 52) (OPEN) New requirement: interaction with policy
this most likely is covered by an opaque token for authentication this most likely is covered by an opaque token for authentication
dependency on security changes dependency on security changes
53) (OPEN) add req 5.1.16. of draft-partain-...-00 Error handling
and redundancy considerations 53) (OPEN) Section 5.3. Error handling
Border nodes should be able to notify the users if there is an error
inside the network. There are two types of network errors:
- Recoverable errors: this type error can be locally repaired
by the network nodes. The network nodes do not have to
notify the users of the error immediately.
- Unrecoverable errors: the network nodes cannot handle this
type of error, and have to notify the users as soon as
possible.
Comments: Comments:
1) notification of user in case of unrecoverable errors (has been 1) notification of user in case of unrecoverable errors (has been
done by notification req, or will be done by asynch notification done by notification requirement, or will be done by asynch
2) recoverable error (might need to be added) req 5.3.4 is going notification, issue 43)
into this direction A description of both types of errors (recoverable, unrecoverable)
3) what does this mean for different parts of the network are listed in Section 5.3.4.
in different parts of the network)
4) hop-by-hop? OR right to the end? 2) hop-by-hop? OR right to the end?
3) What is potential value to notify about recoverable errors?
Proposal: not hop by hop, but QoS controller to QoS initiator
54) (CLOSED) add req 5.1.17. to assumption "Identification 54) (CLOSED) add req 5.1.17. to assumption "Identification
requirement" requirement"
assumption say that the discovery of QI, QC, QR is out-of-scope of assumption say that the discovery of QI, QC, QR is out-of-scope of
the draft the draft
55) (OPEN) 5.2.2. Allow local QoS information exchange between two
border nodes 55) (CLOSED) add from draft-partain-nsis-requirements-00.txt req
5.2.2. Allow local QoS information exchange between two border
nodes
"The QoS signalling protocol must be able to exchange local QoS "The QoS signalling protocol must be able to exchange local QoS
information between edge nodes. Local QoS information might, for information between edge nodes. Local QoS information might, for
example, be IP addresses, severe congestion notification, example, be IP addresses, severe congestion notification,
notification of succesful or erroneous processing of QoS signalling notification of succesful or erroneous processing of QoS signalling
messages at one border node. messages at one border node.
In some domains, the NSIS QoS signalling protocol MAY carry In some domains, the NSIS QoS signalling protocol MAY carry
identification of the ingress and egress edge between the ingress- identification of the ingress and egress edge between the ingress-
egress edges. However, the identification of edges should not be egress edges. However, the identification of edges should not be
visible to the end host and only applies within one QoS visible to the end host and only applies within one QoS
administrative domain. administrative domain.
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 47]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
" "
Comments: Comments:
- service mapping is more service-specific (layering,tunneling) - service mapping is more service-specific (layering,tunneling)
- the scenario to look at is a complicated service description -> in - the scenario to look at is a complicated service description -> in
part of the network you want to change the message to something more part of the network you want to change the message to something more
easy, and at the other end go back to the more complicated part. easy, and at the other end go back to the more complicated part.
-QI being everywhere might be enough -QI being everywhere might be enough
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002
-and we have already a requirement saying that intermediate node -and we have already a requirement saying that intermediate node
MUST be able to add/remove domain-specific information to/from MUST be able to add/remove domain-specific information to/from
signaling messages signaling messages
56) (CLOSED) add req 5.3.1.3 of draft-partain-..-00 56) (CLOSED) add req 5.3.1.3 of draft-partain-..-00
-already added a req to the scalability section (issue ???), which -already added a req to the scalability section (issue ???), which
has been provided by Anders has been provided by Anders
57) (OPEN) potentially better title for text from issue 56) e.g.
(?minimal impact on core?) 57) (CLOSED) potentially better title for text from issue 56) e.g.
(˘minimal impact on core÷)
58) (CLOSED) add req 5.3.2 from draft-partain-...-00 58) (CLOSED) add req 5.3.2 from draft-partain-...-00
- the fast establishment req is handled by the low setup latency - the fast establishment req is handled by the low setup latency
req, and the scalability in handover req req, and the scalability in handover req
- added the text to the teminal mobility scenario - added the text to the teminal mobility scenario
- added text " time scale (e.g., handover in mobile environments),"
to req
59) (OPEN) add req: ability to deal with severe congestion (req 59) (OPEN) add req: ability to deal with severe congestion (req
5.3.4 of draft-partain-..-00 5.3.4 of draft-partain-..-00
issues are: issues are:
- the use in highly utilized networks - occurs in a highly utilised network and if it is not solved very
fast then the network performance will quickly collapse
- deos it belong to failure recovery (I would assume from a service - deos it belong to failure recovery (I would assume from a service
point of view this is failure point of view this is failure
- hop by hop problem (issue from Jorge) - hop by hop problem (issue from Jorge)
60) (OPEN) add req 5.4.3. from draft-partain-...-00 "Allow efficient - What difference does it make (from the QoS perspective) if the
QoS re-establishment after handover" provided QoS degraded due to hardware failure on a device or due to
congestion caused by failures on some other devices? What is
required from the protocol is to signal this failure to other
participants (QCs or QI) in the hope that they can do something
meaningful (e.g. re-routing) to correct the problem or tear down the
flow.
60) (CLOSED) add req 5.4.3. from draft-partain-...-00 "Allow
efficient QoS re-establishment after handover"
"Handover is an essential function in wireless networks. After "Handover is an essential function in wireless networks. After
handover, QoS may need to be completely or partially re-established handover, QoS may need to be completely or partially re-established
due to route changes. The re-establishment may be requested by the due to route changes. The re-establishment may be requested by the
mobile node itself or triggered by the access point that the mobile mobile node itself or triggered by the access point that the mobile
node is attached to. In the first case, the QoS signalling should node is attached to. In the first case, the QoS signalling should
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 48]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
allow efficient QoS re-establishment after handover. Re- allow efficient QoS re-establishment after handover. Re-
establishment of QoS after handover should be as quick as possible establishment of QoS after handover should be as quick as possible
so that the mobile node does not experience service interruption or so that the mobile node does not experience service interruption or
QoS degradation. The re-establishment should be localized, and not QoS degradation. The re-establishment should be localized, and not
require end-to-end signalling, if possible." require end-to-end signalling, if possible."
most likely it is already cover, please check again, whether there
- most likely it is already cover, please check again, whether there
is something missing is something missing
- added it again under the mobility requiremments
61) (OPEN) add req: 6.1.8 from draft-bucheli-...-00 on multicast 61) (OPEN) add req: 6.1.8 from draft-bucheli-...-00 on multicast
"Multicast consideration should not impact the protocol complexity "Multicast consideration should not impact the protocol complexity
for unicast flows. Multicast support is not considered as a for unicast flows. Multicast support is not considered as a
priority, because the targeted interactive multimedia services are priority, because the targeted interactive multimedia services are
mainly unicast. For this reason, if considered in the solution, mainly unicast. For this reason, if considered in the solution,
multicast should not bring complexity in the unicast scenario." multicast should not bring complexity in the unicast scenario."
Opinions? Opinions?
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols April 2002
---------------------------------------------------
starting from -02 version
---------------------------------------------------
62) (OPEN) Request to add VPN scenario
- Related to issue 1)
- Difference of VPN scenario compared to what we already have is
missing
63) (CLOSED) added Sven Van den Bosch, Maarten Buchli, and Danny
Goderis to acknowledgement section.
64) (OPEN) Request to add req: Backwards compatibility
A later version of an NSIS protocol must be backwards compatible
with earlier versions of an NSIS protocol.
65) (OPEN) Request to add req: Unexpected situations and error
restistance
An NSIS protocol must define behaviour of NSIS signaling units
during unexpected situations. Unexpected situtions are unknown
messages, parameters and parameter settings as well as receiption of
unexpected messages (e.g. a "Reservation Confirmation" without prior
"Reservation Request").
Related to Open issues (53) and requirement 5.3.4.
This requirement is emphasizing to many details that might not be
necessary
Req 5.3.4 refers to behaviour in the case of problems in the data
plane. My suggestion here is about unexpected events/errors in the
control plane. If you think that this point carries to many details,
let's split it up in several individual requirements.
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 49]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
66) (OPEN) Request to add req: Default behaviour
An NSIS protocol must define default behaviours and parameter
settings wherever applicable.
67) (OPEN) Request to add req: Extendability
An NSIS protocol must provide means to enhance a protocol with
future procedures, messages, parameters and parameter settings.
This was refering mostly to the service specific part of the
protocol.
could be a part of the modularity requirement 5.1.3
68) (OPEN) Request to add req: Preventation of stale state
An NSIS signalling protocol must provide means for an NSIS signaling
unit to discover and remove local stale state. This may for example
be done by means like soft state and periodic flooding or by a
polling mechanism and hard state signaling.
Might already be covered in other requirements, could also be that
the solutions known are solutions for different problems. I think
distributed garbage collection could also be a solution.
69) (OPEN) Request to add req: Reliable Communication
NSIS signaling procedures, connectivity between units involved in
NSIS signaling as well as the basic transport protocol used by NSIS
must provide a maximum of communication reliability. Procedures must
define how an NSIS signaling systems behaves if some kind of request
it sent stays without answer (this could require e.g. be timers,
number of message retransmits and release messages).
An NSIS signaling unit must be able to check its connectivity to an
adjacent NSIS signaling unit at any time (this requirement must
however not result in a DoS attack tool - the frequency of these
checks must be limited, and flow control may be useful).
The basic transport protocol to be used between adjacent NSIS units
must ensure message integrity and reliable transport.
MUST/SHOULD ensure error- and loss free transmission of signaling
information.
Do we really require this? Isn't this a soft state versus hard state
issue?
70) (OPEN) Request to add req: Smooth breakdown
A unit participating in NSIS signaling must no cause further damage
to other systems involved in NSIS signaling when it has to go out of
service.
71) (CLOSED) Changed text "5.6.8: Ability to constrain load on
devices" to
The NSIS architecture should give the ability to constrain the load
(CPU load, memory space, signaling bandwidth consumption and
signaling intensity) on devices where it is needed. This can be
achieved by many different methods. Examples, and this are only
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 50]
Requirements for QoS Signaling Protocols May 2002
examples, include message aggregation, by ignoring signaling
message, header compression, or minimizing functionality. The
framework may choose any method as long as the requirement is met.
72) (OPEN) request to add "Error notification and error location"
"An NSIS signaling node rejecting or releasing a reservation must
indicate its identity. NSIS signalling should indicate why a
requested resource is not or no longer available. "
Compared to 5.3.4 this is about problems on the control plane
------------------------------------------------------
Change Log Version 01 -> 02
- added issues 62-72
- added some discussion text to open issues
- req " highest possible network utilization" added (issue 33,
closed)
- issues closed: 34 (UMTS scenarios), 35 (PSTN gatway scenarios),
- removed req "Avoid duplication of [sub]domain signaling
functions", issue 51
- Section 5.3.4: added explanation of recoverable and unrecoverable
errors (issue 53)
- added the following requirement: (closed issue 55) Allow local QoS
information exchange between nodes of the saeme administrative
domain
The QoS signaling protocol must be able to exchange local QoS
information between QoS controllers located within one single
domain. Local QoS information might, for example, be IP addresses,
severe congestion notification, notification of successful or
erroneous processing of QoS signaling messages.
In some cases, the NSIS QoS signalling protocol may carry
identification of the QoS controllers located at the boundaries of a
domain. However, the identification of edge should not be visible to
the end host (QoS initiator) and only applies within one QoS
administrative domain.
- closed issue 57: add text about "Minimal impact on interior (core)
nodes" to requirement 5.6.8 "Ability to constrain load on devices"
- added requirement "Allow efficient QoS re-establishment after
handover", closed issue 60.
- changed text in 5.3.2
Brunner, et al. Informational [Page 51]
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.23, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/