Discovery of Network Rate-Limit Policies (NRLPs)
draft-brw-scone-rate-policy-discovery-02
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Mohamed Boucadair , Dan Wing , Tirumaleswar Reddy.K , Sridharan Rajagopalan , Gyan Mishra , Markus Amend , Luis M. Contreras | ||
| Last updated | 2024-12-16 (Latest revision 2024-12-05) | ||
| Replaces | draft-brw-sconepro-rate-policy-discovery | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-brw-scone-rate-policy-discovery-02
scone M. Boucadair
Internet-Draft Orange
Intended status: Standards Track D. Wing
Expires: 19 June 2025 Cloud Software Group
T. Reddy
Nokia
S. Rajagopalan
Cloud Software Group
G. Mishra
Verizon Inc
M. Amend
Deutsche Telekom
L. Contreras
Telefonica
16 December 2024
Discovery of Network Rate-Limit Policies (NRLPs)
draft-brw-scone-rate-policy-discovery-02
Abstract
This document specifies mechanims for hosts to dynamically discover
Network Rate-Limit Policies (NRLPs). This information is then passed
to applications that might adjust their behaviors accordingly.
Networks already support mechanisms to advertize a set of network
properties to hosts (e.g., link MTU (RFC 4861) and PREFIX64 (RFC
8781)). This document complements these tools and specifies a
Neighbor Discovery option to be used in Router Advertisements (RAs)
to communicate NRLPs to hosts. For address family parity, a new DHCP
option is also defined. The document also discusses how Provisioning
Domains (PvD) can be used to notify hosts with NRLPs.
Discussion Venues
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/boucadair/draft-xxx-ac-rate-policy-discovery.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 19 June 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Rate-Limit Policies Discovery December 2024
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 19 June 2025.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Common NLRP Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Instance Flags (IF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Traffic Category (TC) & Throughput Parameters . . . . . . 5
4. IPv6 RA NRLP Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Option Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. IPv6 Host Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. DHCP NRLP Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Option Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. DHCPv4 Client Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Provisioning Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. ND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2. DHCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.1. Neighbor Discovery Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.2. DHCP Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.3. DHCP Options Permitted in the RADIUS DHCPv4-Options
Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Boucadair, et al. Expires 19 June 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Rate-Limit Policies Discovery December 2024
8.4. Provisioning Domains Split DNS Additional Information . . 12
8.5. New PvD Network Rate-Limit Policies (NRLPs) Registry . . 13
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix A. Example of Authentication, Authorization, and
Accounting (AAA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction
To optimally deliver connectivity services via a network attachment,
networks advertize a set of network properties [RFC9473] to connected
hosts such as:
Link Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU): For example, the 3GPP
[TS-23.501] specifies that "the link MTU size for IPv4 is sent to
the UE by including it in the PCO (see TS 24.501). The link MTU
size for IPv6 is sent to the UE by including it in the IPv6 Router
Advertisement message (see RFC 4861)".
Section 2.10 of [RFC7066] indicates that a cellular host should
honor the MTU option in the Router Advertisement (Section 4.6.4 of
[RFC4861]) given that the 3GPP system architecture uses extensive
tunneling in its packet core network below the 3GPP link, and this
may lead to packet fragmentation issues.
MTU is cited as an example of path properties in Section 4 of
[RFC9473].
Prefixes of Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
clients to IPv4 servers (NAT64) [RFC8781]: This option is useful to
enable local DNSSEC validation, support networks with no DNS64,
support IPv4 address literals on an IPv6-only host, etc.
NAT is cited as an example of path properties (see "Service
Function" bullet in Section 4 of [RFC9473]).
Traffic exchanged over a network may be subject to rate-limit
policies for various operational reasons.
[I-D.brw-scone-throughput-advice-blob] specifies a generic object
(called, Throughput Advice) that can be used by mechanims for hosts
to dynamically discover these network rate-limit policies. This
information can then passed to applications that might adjust their
behaviors accordingly.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 19 June 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Rate-Limit Policies Discovery December 2024
Given that all IPv6 hosts and networks are required to support
Neighbor Discovery [RFC4861], this document specifies a Neighbor
Discovery option to be used in Router Advertisements (RAs) to
communicate rate-limit policies to hosts (Section 4). The main
motivations for the use of ND for such a discovery are listed in
Section 3 of [RFC8781]:
* Fate sharing
* Atomic configuration
* Updatability: change the policy at any time
* Deployability
For address family parity, a DHCP option [RFC2132] is also defined
for IPv4 in Section 5. Section 6 describes a discovery approach
using Provisioning Domains (PvDs) [RFC8801].
These options are called: Network Rate-Limit Policy (NRLP).
Whether host-to-network, network-to-host, or both policies are
returned in an NRLP is deployment specific. All these combinations
are supported in this document. Also, the design supports returning
one more NRLP instances for a given traffic direction.
Applications will have access to all available NRLPs and will, thus,
adjust their behavior as a function of scope and traffic category
indicated in a policy. Likewise, a host with multiple network
attachments may use the discovered NRLPs to decide how to distribute
its flows over these network attachments (prefer a network attachment
to place an application session, migrate connection, etc.). That's
said, this document does not make any recommendation about how a
receiving host uses the discovered policies.
Networks that advertize NLRPs are likely to maintain the policing in
place within the network because of the trust model (hosts are not
considered as trusted devices). Per-subscriber rate-limit policies
are generally recommended to protect nodes against Denial of Service
(DoS) attacks (e.g., Section 9.3 of [RFC8803]). Discussion about
conditions under which such a trust model can be relaxed is out of
scope of this document.
To enhance flexibility in applying rate-limiting policies and better
accommodate diverse endpoint performance requirements, mechanisms
such as solicited Router Advertisements (RAs) [RFC8273] and endpoint-
specific DHCP responses can be used. These unicast responses enable
granular signaling of rate-limit policies to individual endpoints,
Boucadair, et al. Expires 19 June 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Rate-Limit Policies Discovery December 2024
facilitating differentiated rate-limit configurations. However, this
document does not prescribe how resources should be partitioned
within local networks, as such considerations fall outside its scope.
This document does not assume nor preclude that other mechanisms,
e.g., Low Latency, Low Loss, and Scalable Throughput (L4S) [RFC9330],
are enabled in a bottleneck link. The reader may refer to I-D.brw-
scone-manageability for a list of relevant mechanisms.
Refer to [NRLP-WIRE] for configuration examples to use NRLP.
2. Conventions and Definitions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
This document uses the terms defined in
[I-D.brw-scone-throughput-advice-blob].
3. Common NLRP Parameters
The following common fields are present in all NRLP options:
3.1. Instance Flags (IF)
The format of this 8-bit flags is shown in Figure 1. This field is
used to express some generic properties of the advice.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|U|U|R|R|D|D|S|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Flow flags Field
See Section 5 of [I-D.brw-scone-throughput-advice-blob] for the
meaning of the R/D/S flags.
U are unassigned bits. These bits MUST be set to zero by senders and
MUST be ignored by receivers.
3.2. Traffic Category (TC) & Throughput Parameters
The following parameters are used:
Boucadair, et al. Expires 19 June 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Rate-Limit Policies Discovery December 2024
TC: See Section 5 of [I-D.brw-scone-throughput-advice-blob].
Committed Information Rate (CIR) (Mbps): See Section 5 of [I-D.brw-s
cone-throughput-advice-blob].
This is a mandatory parameter.
Committed Burst Size (CBS) (bytes): See Section 5 of [I-D.brw-scone-
throughput-advice-blob].
This is a mandatory parameter.
4. IPv6 RA NRLP Option
4.1. Option Format
The format of the IPv6 RA NRLP option, with only mandatory fields
included, is illustrated in Figure 2.
MSB LSB
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Instance Flags| TC |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Committed Information Rate (CIR) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Committed Burst Size (CBS) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: NRLP Option Format
The fields of the option shown in Figure 2 are as follows:
Type: 8-bit identifier of the NRLP option as assigned by IANA (TBD1)
(see Section 8.1).
Length: 8-bit unsigned integer. The length of the option (including
the Type and Length fields) is in units of 8 octets.
Refer to Section 3 for the meaning of the other parameters.
4.2. IPv6 Host Behavior
The procedure for rate-limit configuration is the same as it is with
any other Neighbor Discovery option [RFC4861].
Boucadair, et al. Expires 19 June 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Rate-Limit Policies Discovery December 2024
The host MUST be prepared to receive multiple NRLP options in RAs;
each with distinct scope and/or application group.
If the host receives multiple NRLP options with overlapping scope/TC,
the host MUST silently discard all these options.
If the receiving host has LAN capabilities (e.g., mobile CE or mobile
handset with tethering), the following behavior applies:
* If an RA NRLP is advertised from the network, and absent local
rate-limit policies, the device should send RAs to the downstream
attached LAN devices with the same NRLP values received from the
network.
* If local rate-limit policies are provided to the device, the
device may change the scope or values received from the network to
accommodate these policies. The device may decide to not relay
received RAs to internal nodes if local policies were already
advertized using RAs and those policies are consistent with the
network policies.
Applications running over a host can learn the bitrates associated
with a network attachment by invoking a dedicated API. The exact
details of the API is OS-specific and, thus, out of scope of this
document.
5. DHCP NRLP Option
Note that the base DHCP can only signal a rate policy change when
the client first joins the network or renews its lease, whereas
IPv6 ND can update the rate policy at the network's discretion.
[RFC6704] specifies an approach for forcing reconfiguration of
individual hosts without suffering from the limitations of the
FORCERENEW design in [RFC3203].
5.1. Option Format
The format of the DHCP NRLP option is illustrated in Figure 3.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 19 June 2025 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Rate-Limit Policies Discovery December 2024
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OPTION_V4_NRLP| Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ NRLP Instance Data #1 ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ---
. ... . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ optional
~ NRLP Instance Data #n ~ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ---
Figure 3: NRLP DHCP Option Format
The fields of the option shown in Figure 3 are as follows:
Code: OPTION_V4_NRLP (TBD2). (see Section 8.2).
Length: Indicates the length of the enclosed data in octets.
NRLP Instance Data: Includes a network rate-limit policy. The
format of this field with only mandatory parameters is shown in
Figure 4.
When several NRLPs are to be included, the "NRLP Instance Data"
field is repeated.
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NRLP Instance Data Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Instance Flags | TC |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Committed Information Rate |
| (CIR) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Committed Burst Size (CBS) |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: NRLP Instance Data Format with Mandatory Fields
The fields shown in Figure 4 are as follows:
NRLP Instance Data Length: Length of all following data in octets.
This field is set to '8' when only the nominal bitrate is provided
for an NLRP instance.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 19 June 2025 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Rate-Limit Policies Discovery December 2024
Refer to Section 3 for the meaning of the other parameters.
OPTION_V4_NRLP is a concatenation-requiring option. As such, the
mechanism specified in [RFC3396] MUST be used if OPTION_V4_NRLP
exceeds the maximum DHCP option size of 255 octets.
OPTION_V4_NRLP is permitted to be included in the RADIUS
DHCPv4-Options Attribute [RFC9445].
5.2. DHCPv4 Client Behavior
To discover a network rate-limit policy, the DHCP client includes
OPTION_V4_NRLP in a Parameter Request List option [RFC2132].
The DHCP client MUST be prepared to receive multiple "NRLP Instance
Data" field entries in the OPTION_V4_NRLP option; each instance is to
be treated as a separate network rate-limit policy.
6. Provisioning Domains
PvD may also be used as a mechanism to discover NRLP. Typically, the
network will configured to set the H-flag so clients can request PvD
Additional Information (Section 4.1 of [RFC8801]).
Figure 5 provides an example of the returned "application/pvd+json"
to indicate a network-to-host NRLP for all subscriber traffic. The
NRLP list may include multiple instances if distinct policies are to
be returned for distinct traffic categories.
{
"nrlp":[
{
"direction":0,
"scope":0,
"tc":0,
"cir":50,
"cbs":10000,
"ebs":20000
}
]
}
Figure 5: NRLP Example with PvD
Boucadair, et al. Expires 19 June 2025 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Rate-Limit Policies Discovery December 2024
7. Security Considerations
The techniques discussed in the document offer the following security
benefit: An OS can identify the type of application (background,
foreground, streaming, real-time, etc.) and enforce appropriate
network policies, even if a misbehaving application tries to evade
the rate-limit policies. If an application attempts to bypass rate-
limiting by changing its 5-tuple or creating multiple flows, the OS
can detect this and manage the application's traffic accordingly.
7.1. ND
As discussed in [RFC8781], because RAs are required in all IPv6
configuration scenarios, RAs must already be secured, e.g., by
deploying an RA-Guard [RFC6105]. Providing all configuration in RAs
reduces the attack surface to be targeted by malicious attackers
trying to provide hosts with invalid configuration, as compared to
distributing the configuration through multiple different mechanisms
that need to be secured independently.
RAs are already used in mobile networks to advertize the link MTU.
The same security considerations for MTU discovery apply for the NRLP
discover.
An attacker who has access to the RAs exchanged over an AC may:
Decrease the bitrate: This may lower the perceived QoS if the host
aggressively lowers its transmission rate.
Increase the bitrate value: The AC will be overloaded, but still the
rate-limit at the network will discard excess traffic.
Drop RAs: This is similar to the current operations, where no NRLP
RA is shared.
Inject fake RAs: The implications are similar to the impacts of
tweaking the values of a legitimate RA.
7.2. DHCP
An attacker who has access to the DHCP exchanged over an AC may do a
lot of harm (e.g., prevent access to the network).
The following mechanisms may be considered to mitigate spoofed or
modified DHCP responses:
DHCPv6-Shield [RFC7610]: The network access node (e.g., a border
Boucadair, et al. Expires 19 June 2025 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Rate-Limit Policies Discovery December 2024
router, a CPE, an Access Point (AP)) discards DHCP response
messages received from any local endpoint.
Source Address Validation Improvement (SAVI) solution for DHCP
[RFC7513]: The network access node filters packets with forged
source IP addresses.
The above mechanisms would ensure that the endpoint receives the
correct NRLP information, but these mechanisms cannot provide any
information about the DHCP server or the entity hosting the DHCP
server.
8. IANA Considerations
8.1. Neighbor Discovery Option
This document requests IANA to assign the following new IPv6 Neighbor
Discovery Option type in the "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Option Formats"
sub-registry under the "Internet Control Message Protocol version 6
(ICMPv6) Parameters" registry maintained at [IANA-ND].
+======+=============+===============+
| Type | Description | Reference |
+======+=============+===============+
| TBD1 | NRLP Option | This-Document |
+------+-------------+---------------+
Table 1: Neighbor Discovery NRLP
Option
Note to the RFC Editor: Please replace all "TBD1" occurrences with
the assigned value.
8.2. DHCP Option
This document requests IANA to assign the following new DHCP Option
Code in the "BOOTP Vendor Extensions and DHCP Options" registry
maintained at [IANA-BOOTP].
+======+================+=============+=============+===============+
| Tag | Name | Data Length | Meaning | Reference |
+======+================+=============+=============+===============+
| TBD2 | OPTION_V4_NRLP | N | NRLP | This-Document |
| | | | Option | |
+------+----------------+-------------+-------------+---------------+
Table 2: DHCP NRLP Option
Boucadair, et al. Expires 19 June 2025 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Rate-Limit Policies Discovery December 2024
Note to the RFC Editor: Please replace all "TBD2" occurrences with
the assigned value.
8.3. DHCP Options Permitted in the RADIUS DHCPv4-Options Attribute
This document requests IANA to add the following DHCP Option Code to
the "DHCP Options Permitted in the RADIUS DHCPv4-Options Attribute"
registry maintained at [IANA-BOOTP].
+======+================+===============+
| Tag | Name | Reference |
+======+================+===============+
| TBD2 | OPTION_V4_NRLP | This-Document |
+------+----------------+---------------+
Table 3: New DHCP Option Permitted in
the RADIUS DHCPv4-Options Attribute
Registry
8.4. Provisioning Domains Split DNS Additional Information
IANA is requested to add the following entry to the "Additional
Information PvD Keys" registry under the "Provisioning Domains
(PvDs)" registry group [IANA-PVD]:
JSON key: "nrlp"
Description: "Network Rate-Limit Policies (NRLPs)"
Type: Array of Objects
Example:
{
"nrlp":[
{
"scope":0,
"direction":0,
"tc":0,
"cir":50,
"cbs": 10000
}
]
}
Reference: This-Document
Boucadair, et al. Expires 19 June 2025 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Rate-Limit Policies Discovery December 2024
8.5. New PvD Network Rate-Limit Policies (NRLPs) Registry
IANA is requested to create a new registry "PvD Rate-Limit Policies
(NRLPs)" registry, within the "Provisioning Domains (PvDs)" registry
group.
The initial contents of this registry are provided in Table 4.
+=============+================+=========+=========+===============+
| JSON key | Description | Type | Example | Reference |
+=============+================+=========+=========+===============+
| scope | Specifies | Boolean | 1 | This-Document |
| | whether the | | | |
| | policy is per | | | |
| | host (when set | | | |
| | to "1") or per | | | |
| | subscriber | | | |
| | (when set to | | | |
| | "0) | | | |
+-------------+----------------+---------+---------+---------------+
| direction | Indicates the | integer | 1 | This-Document |
| | traffic | | | |
| | direction to | | | |
| | which a policy | | | |
| | applies | | | |
+-------------+----------------+---------+---------+---------------+
| reliability | Specifies | integer | 1 | This-Document |
| | whether the | | | |
| | policy is for | | | |
| | both reliable | | | |
| | and unreliable | | | |
| | traffic (when | | | |
| | set to "0"), | | | |
| | for reliable | | | |
| | (when set to | | | |
| | "1"), or for | | | |
| | unreliable | | | |
| | traffic (when | | | |
| | set to "2") | | | |
+-------------+----------------+---------+---------+---------------+
| tc | Specifies a | Integer | 0 | This-Document |
| | traffic | | | |
| | category to | | | |
| | which this | | | |
| | policy applies | | | |
+-------------+----------------+---------+---------+---------------+
| cir | Committed | Integer | 50 | This-Document |
| | Information | | | |
Boucadair, et al. Expires 19 June 2025 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Rate-Limit Policies Discovery December 2024
| | Rate (CIR) | | | |
+-------------+----------------+---------+---------+---------------+
| cbs | Committed | Integer | 10000 | This-Document |
| | Burst Size | | | |
| | (CBS) | | | |
+-------------+----------------+---------+---------+---------------+
Table 4: Initial PvD Network Rate-Limit Policies (NRLPs)
Registry Content
Assignments must not be added directly to the "PvD Network Rate-Limit
Policies (NRLPs)" registry. When a new attribute is added to the
"SCONE Rate-Limit Policy Objects" Registry Group created by
[I-D.brw-scone-throughput-advice-blob], a new JSON key is mirrored in
the "PvD Network Rate-Limit Policies (NRLPs)" registry.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[I-D.brw-scone-throughput-advice-blob]
Boucadair, M., Wing, D., Reddy.K, T., Rajagopalan, S., and
L. M. Contreras, "Throughput Advice Object for SCONE",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-brw-scone-
throughput-advice-blob-02, 13 December 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-brw-scone-
throughput-advice-blob-02>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC2132] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor
Extensions", RFC 2132, DOI 10.17487/RFC2132, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2132>.
[RFC3396] Lemon, T. and S. Cheshire, "Encoding Long Options in the
Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4)", RFC 3396,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3396, November 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3396>.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4861>.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 19 June 2025 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Rate-Limit Policies Discovery December 2024
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
[RFC8801] Pfister, P., Vyncke, É., Pauly, T., Schinazi, D., and W.
Shao, "Discovering Provisioning Domain Names and Data",
RFC 8801, DOI 10.17487/RFC8801, July 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8801>.
[RFC9445] Boucadair, M., Reddy.K, T., and A. DeKok, "RADIUS
Extensions for DHCP-Configured Services", RFC 9445,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9445, August 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9445>.
9.2. Informative References
[IANA-BOOTP]
IANA, "BOOTP Vendor Extensions and DHCP Options",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters/>.
[IANA-ND] IANA, "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Option Formats",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters/>.
[IANA-PVD] IANA, "Provisioning Domains (PvDs)",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/pvds/>.
[NRLP-WIRE]
"Examples of Wire Format Options",
<https://github.com/boucadair/draft-xxx-ac-rate-policy-
discovery/blob/main/example-nrlp-wire-format.md>.
[RFC2865] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson,
"Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)",
RFC 2865, DOI 10.17487/RFC2865, June 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2865>.
[RFC3203] T'Joens, Y., Hublet, C., and P. De Schrijver, "DHCP
reconfigure extension", RFC 3203, DOI 10.17487/RFC3203,
December 2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3203>.
[RFC6105] Levy-Abegnoli, E., Van de Velde, G., Popoviciu, C., and J.
Mohacsi, "IPv6 Router Advertisement Guard", RFC 6105,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6105, February 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6105>.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 19 June 2025 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Rate-Limit Policies Discovery December 2024
[RFC6704] Miles, D., Dec, W., Bristow, J., and R. Maglione,
"Forcerenew Nonce Authentication", RFC 6704,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6704, August 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6704>.
[RFC7066] Korhonen, J., Ed., Arkko, J., Ed., Savolainen, T., and S.
Krishnan, "IPv6 for Third Generation Partnership Project
(3GPP) Cellular Hosts", RFC 7066, DOI 10.17487/RFC7066,
November 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7066>.
[RFC7513] Bi, J., Wu, J., Yao, G., and F. Baker, "Source Address
Validation Improvement (SAVI) Solution for DHCP",
RFC 7513, DOI 10.17487/RFC7513, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7513>.
[RFC7610] Gont, F., Liu, W., and G. Van de Velde, "DHCPv6-Shield:
Protecting against Rogue DHCPv6 Servers", BCP 199,
RFC 7610, DOI 10.17487/RFC7610, August 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7610>.
[RFC8273] Brzozowski, J. and G. Van de Velde, "Unique IPv6 Prefix
per Host", RFC 8273, DOI 10.17487/RFC8273, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8273>.
[RFC8781] Colitti, L. and J. Linkova, "Discovering PREF64 in Router
Advertisements", RFC 8781, DOI 10.17487/RFC8781, April
2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8781>.
[RFC8803] Bonaventure, O., Ed., Boucadair, M., Ed., Gundavelli, S.,
Seo, S., and B. Hesmans, "0-RTT TCP Convert Protocol",
RFC 8803, DOI 10.17487/RFC8803, July 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8803>.
[RFC9330] Briscoe, B., Ed., De Schepper, K., Bagnulo, M., and G.
White, "Low Latency, Low Loss, and Scalable Throughput
(L4S) Internet Service: Architecture", RFC 9330,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9330, January 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9330>.
[RFC9473] Enghardt, R. and C. Krähenbühl, "A Vocabulary of Path
Properties", RFC 9473, DOI 10.17487/RFC9473, September
2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9473>.
[TS-23.501]
3GPP, "TS 23.501: System architecture for the 5G System
(5GS)", 2024,
<https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/
SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=3144>.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 19 June 2025 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Rate-Limit Policies Discovery December 2024
Appendix A. Example of Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting
(AAA)
Figure 6 provides an example of the exchanges that might occur
between a DHCP server and an Authentication, Authorization, and
Accounting (AAA) server to retrieve the per-subscriber NRLPs.
This example assumes that the Network Access Server (NAS) embeds both
Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS) [RFC2865] client
and DHCP server capabilities.
.-------------. .-------------. .-------.
| Host | | NAS | | AAA |
| DHCP Client | | DHCP Server | |Server |
| | |RADIUS Client| | |
'------+------' '------+------' '---+---'
| | |
o------DHCPDISCOVER------>| |
| o----Access-Request ---->|
| | |
| |<----Access-Accept------o
| | DHCPv4-Options |
|<-----DHCPOFFER----------o (OPTION_V4_NRLP) |
| (OPTION_V4_NRLP) | |
| | |
o-----DHCPREQUEST-------->| |
| (OPTION_V4_NRLP) | |
| | |
|<-------DHCPACK----------o |
| (OPTION_V4_NRLP) | |
| | |
DHCP RADIUS
Figure 6: An Example of RADIUS NRLP Exchanges
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Tommy Pauly for the comment on PvD.
Authors' Addresses
Mohamed Boucadair
Orange
Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Boucadair, et al. Expires 19 June 2025 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Rate-Limit Policies Discovery December 2024
Dan Wing
Cloud Software Group Holdings, Inc.
United States of America
Email: danwing@gmail.com
Tirumaleswar Reddy
Nokia
India
Email: kondtir@gmail.com
Sridharan Rajagopalan
Cloud Software Group Holdings, Inc.
United States of America
Email: sridharan.girish@gmail.com
Gyan Mishra
Verizon Inc
United States of America
Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com
Markus Amend
Deutsche Telekom
Germany
Email: markus.amend@telekom.de
Luis M. Contreras
Telefonica
Spain
Email: luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com
Boucadair, et al. Expires 19 June 2025 [Page 18]