draft-ietf-rap-rsvp-ext-02.txt   draft-ietf-rap-rsvp-ext-03.txt 
Internet Draft Shai Herzog Internet Draft Shai Herzog
Expiration: July 1999 IPHighway Expiration: August 1999 IPHighway
File: draft-ietf-rap-rsvp-ext-02.txt File: draft-ietf-rap-rsvp-ext-03.txt
RSVP Extensions for Policy Control RSVP Extensions for Policy Control
January 22, 1999 February 13, 1999
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet Draft. Internet Drafts are working This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its Areas, and all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
its Working Groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working
documents as Internet Drafts.
Internet Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Internet Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
documents at any time. It is not appropriate to use Internet Drafts as other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
reference material or to cite them other than as a "working draft" or Drafts.
"work in progress".
To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
1id-abstracts.txt listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
Directories on ftp.ietf.org, nic.nordu.net, ftp.isi.edu, or at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
munnari.oz.au. reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
A revised version of this draft document will be submitted to the RFC The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
editor as a Proposed Standard for the Internet Community. Discussion http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
and suggestions for improvement are requested. This document will
expire at the expiration date listed above. Distribution of this draft The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
is unlimited. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract Abstract
This memo presents a set of extensions for supporting generic policy This memo presents a set of extensions for supporting generic policy
based admission control in RSVP. It should be perceived as an extension based admission control in RSVP. It should be perceived as an
to the RSVP functional specifications [RSVP] extension to the RSVP functional specifications [RSVP]
These extensions include the standard format of POLICY_DATA objects, These extensions include the standard format of POLICY_DATA objects,
and a description of RSVP's handling of policy events. and a description of RSVP's handling of policy events.
This document does not advocate particular policy control mechanisms; This document does not advocate particular policy control
mechanisms;
however, a Router/Server Policy Protocol description for these however, a Router/Server Policy Protocol description for these
extensions can be found in [RAP, COPS, COPS-RSVP]. extensions can be found in [RAP, COPS, COPS-RSVP].
Table of Contents Table of Contents
Abstract...............................................................1 Abstract.............................................................1
Table of Contents......................................................2 Table of Contents....................................................2
1. Introduction........................................................3 1 Introduction.......................................................3
2. Policy Data Object Format...........................................3 2 Policy Data Object Format..........................................3
2.1. Base Format.......................................................4 2.1 Base Format.....................................................4
2.2. Options...........................................................4 2.2 Options.........................................................4
2.2.1.Native RSVP Options..............................................5 2.3 Native RSVP Options.............................................5
2.2.2.Other Options....................................................6 2.3.1 Other Options..................................................6
2.3. Policy Elements...................................................7 2.4 Policy Elements.................................................7
3. Processing Rules....................................................7 3 Processing Rules...................................................7
3.1. Basic Signaling...................................................7 3.1 Basic Signaling.................................................7
3.2. Default Handling..................................................7 3.2 Default Handling................................................7
3.3. Error Signaling...................................................8 3.3 Error Signaling.................................................8
4. IANA Considerations.................................................8 4 IANA Considerations................................................9
5. References..........................................................9 5 References.........................................................9
6. Acknowledgments.....................................................9 6 Acknowledgments....................................................9
7. Author Information..................................................9 7 Author Information.................................................9
A. Appendix: Policy Error Codes.......................................10 A. Appendix: Policy Error Codes......................................10
1. Introduction 1 Introduction
RSVP, by definition, discriminates between users, by providing some RSVP, by definition, discriminates between users, by providing some
users with better service at the expense of others. Therefore, it is users with better service at the expense of others. Therefore, it is
reasonable to expect that RSVP be accompanied by mechanisms for reasonable to expect that RSVP be accompanied by mechanisms for
controlling and enforcing access and usage policies. Historically, controlling and enforcing access and usage policies. Historically,
when RSVP Ver. 1 was developed, the knowledge and understanding of when RSVP Ver. 1 was developed, the knowledge and understanding of
policy issues was in its infancy. As a result, Ver. 1 of the RSVP policy issues was in its infancy. As a result, Ver. 1 of the RSVP
Functional Specifications [RSVP] left a place holder for policy support Functional Specifications [RSVP] left a place holder for policy
in the form of POLICY_DATA objects. However, it deliberately refrained support in the form of POLICY_DATA objects. However, it deliberately
from specifying mechanisms, message formats, or providing insight into refrained from specifying mechanisms, message formats, or providing
how policy enforcement should be carried out. This document is intended insight into how policy enforcement should be carried out. This
to fill in this void. document is intended to fill in this void.
The current RSVP Functional Specification describes the interface to The current RSVP Functional Specification describes the interface to
admission (traffic) control that is based "only" on resource admission (traffic) control that is based "only" on resource
availability. In this document we describe a set of extensions to RSVP availability. In this document we describe a set of extensions to
for supporting policy based admission control as well. The scope of RSVP for supporting policy based admission control as well. The
this document is limited to these extensions and does not advocate scope of this document is limited to these extensions and does not
specific architectures for policy based controls. advocate specific architectures for policy based controls.
For the purpose of this document we do not differentiate between Policy For the purpose of this document we do not differentiate between
Decision Point (PDP) and Local Decision Point (LDPs) as described in Policy Decision Point (PDP) and Local Decision Point (LDPs) as
[RAP]. The term PDP should be assumed to include LDP as well. described in [RAP]. The term PDP should be assumed to include LDP as
well.
2. Policy Data Object Format 2 Policy Data Object Format
The following replaces section A.13 in [RSVP]. The following replaces section A.13 in [RSVP].
POLICY_DATA objects are carried by RSVP messages and contain policy POLICY_DATA objects are carried by RSVP messages and contain policy
information. All policy-capable nodes (at any location in the network) information. All policy-capable nodes (at any location in the
can generate, modify, or remove policy objects, even when senders or network) can generate, modify, or remove policy objects, even when
receivers do not provide, and may not even be aware of policy data senders or receivers do not provide, and may not even be aware of
objects. policy data objects.
The exchange of POLICY_DATA objects between policy-capable nodes along The exchange of POLICY_DATA objects between policy-capable nodes
the data path, supports the generation of consistent end-to-end along the data path, supports the generation of consistent end-to-
policies. Furthermore, such policies can be successfully deployed end policies. Furthermore, such policies can be successfully
across multiple administrative domains when border nodes manipulate and deployed across multiple administrative domains when border nodes
translate POLICY_DATA objects according to established sets of manipulate and translate POLICY_DATA objects according to
bilateral agreements. established sets of bilateral agreements.
2.1. Base Format 2.1 Base Format
POLICY_DATA class=14 POLICY_DATA class=14
o Type 1 POLICY_DATA object: Class=14, C-Type=1 o Type 1 POLICY_DATA object: Class=14, C-Type=1
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Length | POLICY_DATA | 1 | | Length | POLICY_DATA | 1 |
+---------------------------+-------------+-------------+ +---------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| Data Offset | 0 (reserved) | | Data Offset | 0 (reserved) |
+---------------------------+-------------+-------------+ +---------------------------+-------------+-------------+
skipping to change at page 4, line 36 skipping to change at page 4, line 36
The offset in bytes of the data portion (from the first The offset in bytes of the data portion (from the first
byte of the object header). byte of the object header).
Reserved: 16 bits Reserved: 16 bits
Always 0. Always 0.
Option List: Variable length Option List: Variable length
The list of options and their usage is defined in Section 2.2. The list of options and their usage is defined in Section
2.2.
Policy Element List: Variable length Policy Element List: Variable length
The contents of policy elements is opaque to RSVP. See more The contents of policy elements is opaque to RSVP. See more
details in Section 2.3. details in Section 2.4.
2.2. Options 2.2 Options
This section describes a set of options that may appear in POLICY_DATA This section describes a set of options that may appear in
objects. All policy options appear as RSVP objects; some use their POLICY_DATA objects. All policy options appear as RSVP objects; some
valid original format while others appear as NULL objects. use their valid original format while others appear as NULL objects.
2.2.1. Native RSVP Options 2.3 Native RSVP Options
The following objects retain the same format specified in [RSVP] The following objects retain the same format specified in [RSVP]
however, they gain different semantics when used inside POLICY_DATA however, they gain different semantics when used inside POLICY_DATA
objects. objects.
FILTER_SPEC object (list) or SCOPE object FILTER_SPEC object (list) or SCOPE object
The set of senders associated with the POLICY_DATA object. If none is The set of senders associated with the POLICY_DATA object. If none
provided, the policy information is assumed to be associated with all is provided, the policy information is assumed to be associated with
the flows of the session. These two types of objects are mutually all the flows of the session. These two types of objects are
exclusive, and cannot be mixed. mutually exclusive, and cannot be mixed.
This option is only useful for WF or SE reservation styles, where This option is only useful for WF or SE reservation styles, where
merged reservations may have originally been intended for different merged reservations may have originally been intended for different
subsets of senders. It can also be used to prevent “policy loops” in a subsets of senders. It can also be used to prevent “policy loops” in
manner similar to the usage of RSVP’s SCOPE object. Using this option a manner similar to the usage of RSVP’s SCOPE object. Using this
may have significant impact on scaling and size of POLICY_DATA objects option may have significant impact on scaling and size of
and therefore should be taken with care. POLICY_DATA objects and therefore should be taken with care.
Originating RSVP_HOP Originating RSVP_HOP
The RSVP_HOP object identifies the neighbor/peer policy-capable node The RSVP_HOP object identifies the neighbor/peer policy-capable node
that constructed the policy object. When policy is enforced at border that constructed the policy object. When policy is enforced at
nodes, peer policy nodes may be several RSVP hops away from each other border nodes, peer policy nodes may be several RSVP hops away from
and the originating RSVP_HOP is the basis for the mechanism that allows each other and the originating RSVP_HOP is the basis for the
them to recognize each other and communicate safely and directly. mechanism that allows them to recognize each other and communicate
safely and directly.
If no RSVP_HOP object is present, the policy data is implicitly assumed If no RSVP_HOP object is present, the policy data is implicitly
to have been constructed by the RSVP_HOP indicated in the RSVP message assumed to have been constructed by the RSVP_HOP indicated in the
itself (i.e., the neighboring RSVP node is policy-capable). RSVP message itself (i.e., the neighboring RSVP node is policy-
capable).
Destination RSVP_HOP Destination RSVP_HOP
A second RSVP_HOP object may follow the originating RSVP_HOP object. A second RSVP_HOP object may follow the originating RSVP_HOP object.
This second RSVP_HOP identifies the destination policy node. This is This second RSVP_HOP identifies the destination policy node. This is
used to ensure the POLICY_DATA object is delivered to targeted policy used to ensure the POLICY_DATA object is delivered to targeted
nodes. It may be used to emulate unicast delivery in multicast Path policy nodes. It may be used to emulate unicast delivery in
messages. It may also help prevent using a policy object in other parts multicast Path messages. It may also help prevent using a policy
of the network (replay attack). object in other parts of the network (replay attack).
On the receiving side, a policy node should ignore any POLCY_DATA that On the receiving side, a policy node should ignore any POLCY_DATA
includes a destination RSVP_HOP that doesn’t match its own IP address. that includes a destination RSVP_HOP that doesn’t match its own IP
address.
INTEGRITY Object INTEGRITY Object
The INTEGRITY object provides guarantees that the object was not The INTEGRITY object provides guarantees that the object was not
compromised. It follows the rules from [MD5], and is calculated over compromised. It follows the rules from [MD5], and is calculated over
the POLICY_DATA object, the SESSION object, and the message type field the POLICY_DATA object, the SESSION object, and the message type
(byte, padded with zero to 32 bit) as if they formed one continuous in- field (byte, padded with zero to 32 bit) as if they formed one
order message. This concatenation is designed to prevent copy and continuous in-order message. This concatenation is designed to
replay attacks of POLICY_DATA objects from other sessions, flows, prevent copy and replay attacks of POLICY_DATA objects from other
message types or even other network locations. sessions, flows, message types or even other network locations.
2.2.2. Other Options 2.3.1 Other Options
All options that do not use a valid RSVP object format, should use the All options that do not use a valid RSVP object format, should use
NULL RSVP object format with different CType values. This document the NULL RSVP object format with different C-Type values. This
defines only one such option, however, several other may be considered document defines only one such option, however, several other may be
in future versions. (e.g., Fragmentation, NoChange, etc.). considered in future versions. (e.g., Fragmentation, NoChange,
etc.).
o Policy Refresh Period (PRP) o Policy Refresh Period (PRP)
The Policy Refresh Period (PRP) option is used slow down policy refresh The Policy Refresh Period (PRP) option is used slow down policy
frequency for policies that have looser timing constraints compared refresh frequency for policies that have looser timing constraints
with RSVP. If the PRP option is present, policy refreshes can be compared with RSVP. If the PRP option is present, policy refreshes
withheld as long as at least one refresh is sent before the policy can be withheld as long as at least one refresh is sent before the
refresh timer expires (PRP must be bigger than R). policy refresh timer expires (PRP must be bigger than R).
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 8 | NULL | 1 | | 8 | NULL | 1 |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Policy Refresh Period (PRP) (in seconds) | | Policy Refresh Period (PRP) (in seconds) |
+-------------+-------------+---------------------------+ +-------------+-------------+---------------------------+
It is recommended that this infrequent policy refresh would be It is recommended that this infrequent policy refresh would be
piggybacked with normal RSVP refreshes. Given an RSVP refresh R, the piggybacked with normal RSVP refreshes. Given an RSVP refresh R, the
policy must be refreshed at least once in N RSVP refreshes, where policy must be refreshed at least once in N RSVP refreshes, where
N=Floor(PRP/R) and the Floor function provides the integer portion of N=Floor(PRP/R) and the Floor function provides the integer portion
the result. of the result.
In effect, state cleanup rules apply specifically to the POLICY_DATA In effect, state cleanup rules apply specifically to the POLICY_DATA
object as if the RSVP refresh period was N*R. object as if the RSVP refresh period was N*R.
Any RSVP update must include the full policy information. For example, Any RSVP update must include the full policy information. For
a policy being refreshed at time T, T+N, T+2N,... may encounter a route example, a policy being refreshed at time T, T+N, T+2N,... may
change detected at T+X such that T < T+X < T+N. The update event would encounter a route change detected at T+X such that T < T+X < T+N.
force an immediate update of the policy and change its refresh times to The update event would force an immediate update of the policy and
T+X, T+X+N, T+X+2N,... change its refresh times to T+X, T+X+N, T+X+2N,...
When network nodes restart, it is possible that an RSVP message in When network nodes restart, it is possible that an RSVP message in
between policy refreshes would be rejected since it arrives to a node between policy refreshes would be rejected since it arrives to a
that did not receive the original POLICY_DATA object. This error node that did not receive the original POLICY_DATA object. This
situation would clear with the next periodic policy refresh or by an error situation would clear with the next periodic policy refresh or
update triggered by ResvErr or PathErr messages. by an update triggered by ResvErr or PathErr messages.
This option is especially useful to combine strong (high overhead) and This option is especially useful to combine strong (high overhead)
weak (low overhead) authentication certificates. In such schemes the and weak (low overhead) authentication certificates. In such schemes
weak certificate supports admitting a reservation only for a limited the weak certificate supports admitting a reservation only for a
time, after which the strong certificate is required. limited time, after which the strong certificate is required.
This approach may reduce the overhead of POLICY_DATA processing. Strong This approach may reduce the overhead of POLICY_DATA processing.
certificates could be transmitted less frequently, while weak Strong certificates could be transmitted less frequently, while weak
certificates could be included in every RSVP refresh. certificates could be included in every RSVP refresh.
2.3. Policy Elements 2.4 Policy Elements
The content of policy elements is opaque to RSVP; their internal format The content of policy elements is opaque to RSVP; their internal
is understood by policy peers e.g. an RSVP Local Decision Point (LDP) format is understood by policy peers e.g. an RSVP Local Decision
or a Policy Decision Point (PDP) [RAP]. A registry of policy element Point (LDP) or a Policy Decision Point (PDP) [RAP]. A registry of
codepoints and their meaning is maintained by [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS] policy element codepoints and their meaning is maintained by [IANA-
(also see Section 4). CONSIDERATIONS] (also see Section 4).
Policy Elements have the following format: Policy Elements have the following format:
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Length | P-Type | | Length | P-Type |
+---------------------------+---------------------------+ +---------------------------+---------------------------+
| | | |
// Policy information (Opaque to RSVP) // // Policy information (Opaque to RSVP) //
| | | |
+-------------------------------------------------------+ +-------------------------------------------------------+
3. Processing Rules 3 Processing Rules
These sections describe the minimal required policy processing rules These sections describe the minimal required policy processing rules
for RSVP. for RSVP.
3.1. Basic Signaling 3.1 Basic Signaling
It is generally agreed that policy control should only be enforced for It is generally agreed that policy control should only be enforced
Path, Resv, PathErr, and ResvErr. PathTear and ResvTear and assumed not for Path, Resv, PathErr, and ResvErr. PathTear and ResvTear and
to require policy control based on two assumptions: First, that assumed not to require policy control based on two assumptions:
Integrity verification [MD5] guarantee that the Tear is received from First, that Integrity verification [MD5] guarantee that the Tear is
the same node that sent the installed reservation, and second, that it received from the same node that sent the installed reservation, and
is functionally equivalent to that node holding-off refreshes for this second, that it is functionally equivalent to that node holding-off
reservation. refreshes for this reservation.
3.2. Default Handling 3.2 Default Handling
It is generally assumed that policy enforcement (at least in its It is generally assumed that policy enforcement (at least in its
initial stages) is likely to concentrate on border nodes between initial stages) is likely to concentrate on border nodes between
autonomous systems. Consequently, policy objects transmitted at one autonomous systems. Consequently, policy objects transmitted at one
edge of an autonomous cloud may traverse intermediate policy ignorant edge of an autonomous cloud may traverse intermediate policy
RSVP nodes (PINs). A PIN is required at a minimum to forward the ignorant RSVP nodes (PINs). A PIN is required at a minimum to
received POLICY_DATA objects in the appropriate outgoing messages forward the received POLICY_DATA objects in the appropriate outgoing
according to the following rules: messages according to the following rules:
o POLICY_DATA objects are to be forwarded as is, without any o POLICY_DATA objects are to be forwarded as is, without any
modifications. modifications.
o Multicast merging (splitting) nodes: o Multicast merging (splitting) nodes:
In the upstream direction: In the upstream direction:
When multiple POLICY_DATA objects arrive from downstream, the When multiple POLICY_DATA objects arrive from downstream, the
RSVP node should concatenate all of them and forward them with RSVP node should concatenate all of them and forward them
the outgoing (upstream) message. with the outgoing (upstream) message.
On the downstream direction: On the downstream direction:
When a single incoming POLICY_DATA object arrives from When a single incoming POLICY_DATA object arrives from
upstream, it should be forwarded (copied) to all downstream upstream, it should be forwarded (copied) to all downstream
branches of the multicast tree. branches of the multicast tree.
The same rules apply to unrecognized policies (sub-objects) within the The same rules apply to unrecognized policies (sub-objects) within
POLICY_DATA object. However, since this can only occur in a policy- the POLICY_DATA object. However, since this can only occur in a
capable node, it is the responsibility of the PDP and not RSVP. policy-capable node, it is the responsibility of the PDP and not
RSVP.
3.3. Error Signaling 3.3 Error Signaling
Policy errors are reported by either ResvErr or PathErr messages with a Policy errors are reported by either ResvErr or PathErr messages
policy failure error code in the ERROR_SPEC object. Policy error with a policy failure error code in the ERROR_SPEC object. Policy
message must include a POLICY_DATA object; the object contains details error message must include a POLICY_DATA object; the object contains
of the error type and reason in a P-Type specific format. details of the error type and reason in a P-Type specific format.
If a multicast reservation fails due to policy reasons, RSVP should not If a multicast reservation fails due to policy reasons, RSVP should
attempt to discover which reservation caused the failure (as it would not attempt to discover which reservation caused the failure (as it
do for Blockade State). Instead, it should attempt to deliver the would do for Blockade State). Instead, it should attempt to deliver
policy ResvErr to ALL downstream hops, and have the PDP (or LDP) decide the policy ResvErr to ALL downstream hops, and have the PDP (or LDP)
where messages should be sent. This mechanism allows the PDP to limit decide where messages should be sent. This mechanism allows the PDP
the error distribution by deciding which "culprit" next-hops should be to limit the error distribution by deciding which "culprit" next-
informed. It also allows the PDP to prevent further distribution of hops should be informed. It also allows the PDP to prevent further
ResvErr or PathErr messages by performing local repair (e.g. distribution of ResvErr or PathErr messages by performing local
substituting the failed POLICY_DATA object with a different one). repair (e.g. substituting the failed POLICY_DATA object with a
different one).
Error codes are described in Appendix A. Error codes are described in Appendix A.
4. IANA Considerations 4 IANA Considerations
RSVP Policy Elements RSVP Policy Elements
Following the policies outlined in [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS],numbers 0- Following the policies outlined in [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS],numbers 0-
49151 are allocated as standard policy elements by IETF Consensus 49151 are allocated as standard policy elements by IETF Consensus
action, numbers in the range 49152-53247 are allocated as vendor action, numbers in the range 49152-53247 are allocated as vendor
specific (one per vendor) by First Come First Serve, and numbers 53248- specific (one per vendor) by First Come First Serve, and numbers
65535 are reserved for private use and are not assigned by IANA. 53248-65535 are reserved for private use and are not assigned by
IANA.
5. References 5 References
[RAP] Yavatkar, R., et al., "A Framework for Policy Based Admission [RAP] Yavatkar, R., et al., "A Framework for Policy Based Admission
Control",IETF <draft-ietf-rap-framework-02.txt>, Jan., 1999. Control",IETF <draft-ietf-rap-framework-02.txt>, Jan., 1999.
[COPS] Boyle, J., Cohen, R., Durham, D., Herzog, S., Raja,n R., Sastry, [COPS] Boyle, J., Cohen, R., Durham, D., Herzog, S., Raja,n R.,
A., "The COPS (Common Open Policy Service) Protocol", IETF Sastry, A., "The COPS (Common Open Policy Service) Protocol",
<draft-ietf-rap-cops-05.txt>, Jan. 1999. IETF <draft-ietf-rap-cops-05.txt>, Jan. 1999.
[RSVP] Braden, R. ed., "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) - [RSVP] Braden, R. ed., "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -
Functional Specification.", IETF RFC 2205, Proposed Standard, Functional Specification.", IETF RFC 2205, Proposed Standard,
Sep. 1997. Sep. 1997.
[MD5] Baker, F., Linden B., Talwar, M. “RSVP Cryptographic [MD5] Baker, F., Linden B., Talwar, M. “RSVP Cryptographic
Authentication" Internet-Draft, <draft-ietf-rsvp-md5-07.txt>, Authentication" Internet-Draft, <draft-ietf-rsvp-md5-07.txt>,
Nov. 1998. Nov. 1998.
[IANA-CONSIDERATIONS] Alvestrand, H. and T. Narten, "Guidelines for [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS] Alvestrand, H. and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 2434, Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 2434,
October 1998. October 1998.
6. Acknowledgments 6 Acknowledgments
This document incorporates inputs from Lou Berger, Bob Braden, Deborah This document incorporates inputs from Lou Berger, Bob Braden,
Estrin, Roch Guerin, Timothy O'Malley, Dimitrios Pendarakis, Raju Deborah Estrin, Roch Guerin, Timothy O'Malley, Dimitrios Pendarakis,
Rajan, Scott Shenker, Andrew Smith, Raj Yavatkar, and many others. Raju Rajan, Scott Shenker, Andrew Smith, Raj Yavatkar, and many
others.
7. Author Information 7 Author Information
Shai Herzog, IPHighway Shai Herzog, IPHighway
Parker Plaza, Suite 1500 Parker Plaza, Suite 1500
400 Kelby St. 400 Kelby St.
Fort-Lee, NJ 07024 Fort-Lee, NJ 07024
(201) 585-0800 (201) 585-0800
herzog@iphighway.com herzog@iphighway.com
A. Appendix: Policy Error Codes A. Appendix: Policy Error Codes
This Appendix expends the list of error codes described in Appendix B This Appendix expends the list of error codes described in Appendix
of [RSVP]. B of [RSVP].
Note that Policy Element specific errors are reported as described in Note that Policy Element specific errors are reported as described
Section 3.3 and cannot be reported through RSVP (using this mechanism). in Section 3.3 and cannot be reported through RSVP (using this
However, this mechanism provides a simple, less secure mechanism for mechanism). However, this mechanism provides a simple, less secure
reporting generic policy errors. Most likely the two would be used in mechanism for reporting generic policy errors. Most likely the two
concert such that a generic error code is provided by RSVP, while would be used in concert such that a generic error code is provided
Policy Element specific errors are encapsulated in a return POLICY_DATA by RSVP, while Policy Element specific errors are encapsulated in a
object (as in Section 3.3). return POLICY_DATA object (as in Section 3.3).
ERROR_SPEC class = 6 ERROR_SPEC class = 6
Error Code = 02: Policy Control failure Error Code = 02: Policy Control failure
Error Value: 16 bit Error Value: 16 bit
0 = ERR_INFO : Information reporting 0 = ERR_INFO : Information reporting
1 = ERR_WARN : Warning 1 = ERR_WARN : Warning
2 = ERR_UNKNOWN : Reason unknown 2 = ERR_UNKNOWN : Reason unknown
3 = ERR_REJECT : Generic Policy Rejection 3 = ERR_REJECT : Generic Policy Rejection
4 = ERR_EXCEED : Quota or Accounting violation 4 = ERR_EXCEED : Quota or Accounting violation
5 = ERR_PREEMPT : Flow was preempted 5 = ERR_PREEMPT : Flow was preempted
6 = ERR_EXPIRED : Previously installed policy expired (not refreshed) 6 = ERR_EXPIRED : Previously installed policy expired (not
7 = ERR_REPLACED: Previous policy data was replaced & caused rejection refreshed)
7 = ERR_REPLACED: Previous policy data was replaced & caused
rejection
8 = ERR_MERGE : Policies could not be merged (multicast) 8 = ERR_MERGE : Policies could not be merged (multicast)
9 = ERR_PDP : PDP down or non functioning 9 = ERR_PDP : PDP down or non functioning
10= ERR_SERVER : Third Party Server (e.g., Kerberos) unavailable 10= ERR_SERVER : Third Party Server (e.g., Kerberos) unavailable
11= ERR_PD_SYNTX: POLICY_DATA object has bad syntax 11= ERR_PD_SYNTX: POLICY_DATA object has bad syntax
12= ERR_PD_INTGR: POLICY_DATA object failed Integrity Check 12= ERR_PD_INTGR: POLICY_DATA object failed Integrity Check
13= ERR_PE_BAD : POLICY_ELEMENT object has bad syntax 13= ERR_PE_BAD : POLICY_ELEMENT object has bad syntax
14= ERR_PD_MISS : Mandatory PE Missing (Empty PE is in the PD object) 14= ERR_PD_MISS : Mandatory PE Missing (Empty PE is in the PD
object)
15= ERR_NO_RSC : PEP Out of resources to handle policies. 15= ERR_NO_RSC : PEP Out of resources to handle policies.
16= ERR_RSVP : PDP encountered bad RSVP objects or syntax 16= ERR_RSVP : PDP encountered bad RSVP objects or syntax
17= ERR_SERVICE : Service type was rejected 17= ERR_SERVICE : Service type was rejected
18= ERR_STYLE : Reservation Style was rejected 18= ERR_STYLE : Reservation Style was rejected
19= ERR_FL_SPEC : FlowSpec was rejected (too large) 19= ERR_FL_SPEC : FlowSpec was rejected (too large)
Values between 2^15 and 2^16-1 can be used for site and/or vendor error Values between 2^15 and 2^16-1 can be used for site and/or vendor
values. error values.
 End of changes. 

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