Internet DRAFT - draft-carlberg-dime-priority-avps
draft-carlberg-dime-priority-avps
Diameter Maintenance and K. Carlberg, Ed.
Extensions (DIME) G11
Internet-Draft H. Tschofenig
Intended status: Standards Track Nokia Siemens Networks
Oct 19, 2009
Diameter Priority Attribute Value Pairs
<draft-carlberg-dime-priority-avps-00.txt>
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Abstract
This document defines various priority parameters for use with
Diameter and the AAA framework. These parameters are defined in
several different protocols that operate at either the network or
application layer.
Carlberg & Tschofenig Expires April 19, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet Drafts Resource Priority Attribute Oct 19, 2009
1. Introduction
This document defines a number of priority parameters that can be
reused for conveying priority labeled information within the Diameter
protocol [RFC3588]. It defines an initial priority profile
containing a set of Diameter encoded Attribute Value Pairs (AVPs)
described using a modified version of the Augmented Backus-Naur Form
(ABNF), see [RFC3588]. The data types are also taken from [RFC3588].
Priority influences the distribution of resources. This influence
may be probabilistic ranging between (but not including) 0% and 100%,
or it may be binary (in the form of a guarantee to either receive or
not receive the resource).
The influence attributed to prioritization may also affect QoS, but
it is not to be confused as QoS. As an example, if packets of two or
more flows are contending for the same shared resources,
prioritization helps determine which packet receives the resource.
However, this allocation of resource does not correlate directly to
any specific delay or loss bounds that have been associated with the
packet.
One can also argue that the lack of contention (or congested state)
of the shared resource implies that packets of flow(s) are forwarded
at the same rate (minus a constant processing overhead) they are
received with no appreciable difference in QoS experienced by any
packet.
A third example of how prioritization can be realized is articulated
in Appendix A.3 (the priority by-pass model) of [draft.rsvp-
priority-extension]. In this case, prioritized flows may grant
access to resources that are never shared with non-prioritized flows.
2. Terminology and Abbreviations
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [RFC2119].
3. Priority Parameter Encoding
3.1. Dual-Priority AVP
The Dual-Priority AVP is a grouped AVP consisting of two AVPs, the
Preemption-Priority and the Defending-Priority AVP, which are derived
from the corresponding priority fields in the Signaled Policy Element
Carlberg & Tschofenig Expires April 19, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet Drafts Resource Priority Attribute Oct 19, 2009
[rfc3181] of RSVP [rfc2205]. The Defending-Priority is set when the
reservation has been admitted. The Preemption-Priority of a newly
requested reservation and is compared with the Defending Priority of
a previously admitted flow. Actions taken upon this comparison is a
function of local policy.
Dual-Priority ::= < AVP Header: TBD >
{ Preemption-Priority }
{ Defending-Priority }
3.1.1. Preemption-Priority AVP
The Preemption-Priority AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32.
Higher values represent higher priority.
3.1.2. Defending-Priority AVP
The Defending-Priority AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32.
Higher values represent higher priority.
3.2. Admission-Priority AVP
The Admission-Priority AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32.
The admission control priority of the flow used to increase the
probability of session establishment to selected flows. Higher
values represent higher priority. A given admission priority is
encoded in this information element using the same value as when
encoded in the admission priority parameter defined in Section 3.1 of
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp].
3.3. ALRP AVP
The Application-Level Resource Priority (ALRP) AVP is a grouped AVP
consisting of two AVPs, the ALRP-Namespace and the ALRP-Priority AVP.
A description of the semantic of the parameter values can be found in
[RFC4412] and in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp]. The coding for
parameter is as follows:
ALRP ::= < AVP Header: TBD >
{ ALRP-Namespace }
{ ALRP-Priority }
3.3.1. ALRP-Namespace AVP
The ALRP-Namespace AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32.
Carlberg & Tschofenig Expires April 19, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet Drafts Resource Priority Attribute Oct 19, 2009
3.3.2. ALRP-Priority AVP
The ALRP-Priority AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32.
[RFC4412] defines a resource priority header and established the
initial registry. That registry was later extended by [I-D.ietf-
tsvwg-emergency-rsvp].
3.4. SIP-RPH AVP
The SIP-RPH AVP is a grouped AVP consisting of two AVPs, the SIP-
Namespace and the SIP-Value AVP, which are derived from the
corresponding optional header fields in [rfc4412]. The SIP-Namespace
identifies a particular set of priorities. The SIP-Value identifies
a specific priority associated with the SIP-Namespace.
SIP-RPH ::= <AVP Header: TBD> { SIP-Namespace }
{ SIP-Value }
3.4.1. SIP-Namespace AVP
The SIP-Namespace AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type UTF8String.
3.4.2 SIP-Value AVP
The SIP-Value AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type UTF8String.
4. IANA Considerations
4.1. AVP Codes
IANA is requested to allocate AVP codes for the following AVPs that
are defined in this document.
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| AVP Section |
|AVP Name Code Defined Data Type |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Dual-Priority TBD 3.1 Grouped |
|Preemption-Priority TBD 3.1.1 Unsigned32 |
|Defending-Priority TBD 3.1.2 Unsigned32 |
|Admission-Priority TBD 3.2 Unsigned32 |
|ALRP TBD 3.3 Grouped |
|ALRP-Namespace TBD 3.3.1 Unsigned32 |
|ALRP-Priority TBD 3.3.2 Unsigned32 |
|SIP-RPH TBD 3.4 Grouped |
|SIP-Namespace TBD 3.4.1 UTF8String |
|SIP-Value TBD 3.4.2 UTF8String |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
Carlberg & Tschofenig Expires April 19, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet Drafts Resource Priority Attribute Oct 19, 2009
4.2. QoS Profile
IANA is requested to allocate a new value from the registry defined
in [I-D.ietf-dime-qos-parameters] for the QoS profile defined in this
document.
5. Examples
+--------+ +--------+
|Diameter| | SIP |
| server | | server |
+--------+ +--------+
| |
| |
| |
1. SIP INVITE w/ RPH |
------------------------------>|
| 2. MAR w/ SIP-RPH AVP |
|<----------------------|
| 3. MAA. |
|---------------------->| 8. SIP INVITE
| |---------------->
| | 9. SIP 200 (OK)
10. SIP 200 (OK) |<----------------
<------------------------------|
| |
6. Security Considerations
TBD
7. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Lars Eggert, Jan Engelhardt, Francois
LeFaucheur, John Loughney, An Nguyen, Dave Oran, James Polk, Martin
Stiemerling, and Magnus Westerlund for their help with resolving
problems regarding the Admission Priority and the ALRP parameter.
Additionally, we would like to thank Martin Dolly and Viqar Shaikh
for their feedback.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-dime-qos-parameters]
Korhonen, J., Tschofenig, H., and E. Davies, "Quality of
Service Parameters for Usage with Diameter",
Carlberg & Tschofenig Expires April 19, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet Drafts Resource Priority Attribute Oct 19, 2009
draft-ietf-dime-qos-parameters-11 (work in progress)
May 2009.
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp]
Faucheur, F., Polk, J., and K. Carlberg, "Resource
ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) Extensions for Emergency
Services", draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp-12 (work in
progress), May 2009.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3181] Herzog, S., "Signaled Preemption Priority Policy Element",
RFC 3181, October 2001.
[RFC3588] Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J.
Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, September 2003.
[RFC4124] Le Faucheur, F., "Protocol Extensions for Support of
Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4124,
June 2005.
[RFC4412] Schulzrinne, H. and J. Polk, "Communications Resource
Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
RFC 4412, February 2006.
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-nsis-qspec]
Bader, A., Kappler, C., and D. Oran, "QoS NSLP QSPEC
Template", draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-21 (work in progress),
November 2008.
[RFC3564] Le Faucheur, F. and W. Lai, "Requirements for Support of
Differentiated Services-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering",
RFC 3564, July 2003.
Authors' Addresses
Ken Carlberg (editor) Hannes Tschofenig
G11 Nokia Siemens Networks
1601 Clarendon Dr Linnoitustie 6 Espoo 02600
Arlington, VA 22209 Finland
United States Phone: +358 (50) 4871445
Email: carlberg@g11.org.uk Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net
URI:http://www.tschofenig.priv.at
Carlberg & Tschofenig Expires April 19, 2010 [Page 6]
