Diameter Applications Design Guidelines
draft-ietf-dime-app-design-guide-17
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (dime WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Lionel Morand , Victor Fajardo , Hannes Tschofenig | ||
| Last updated | 2013-05-29 | ||
| Replaces | draft-fajardo-dime-app-design-guide | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text xml htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| Reviews |
SECDIR Early review
(of
-19)
Has Nits
|
||
| Stream | WG state | WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up | |
| Document shepherd | Jouni Korhonen | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-dime-app-design-guide-17
Diameter Maintenance and Extensions (DIME) L. Morand, Ed.
Internet-Draft Orange Labs
Intended status: Informational V. Fajardo
Expires: November 30, 2013 H. Tschofenig
Nokia Siemens Networks
May 29, 2013
Diameter Applications Design Guidelines
draft-ietf-dime-app-design-guide-17
Abstract
The Diameter Base protocol provides facilities for protocol
extensibility enabling to define new Diameter applications or modify
existing applications. This document is a companion document to the
Diameter base protocol that further explains and clarifies the rules
to extend the Diameter base protocol. It is meant as a guidelines
document and therefore it does not add, remove or change existing
rules.
Requirements Language
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].
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 http://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 November 30, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Morand, et al. Expires November 30, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines May 2013
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Reusing Existing Diameter Applications . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Adding a New Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Deleting an Existing Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Reusing Existing Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3.1. Adding AVPs to a Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3.2. Deleting AVPs from a Command . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4. Reusing Existing AVPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4.1. Setting of the AVP Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4.2. Reuse of AVP of Type Enumerated . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Defining New Diameter Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Defining New Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3. Use of Application-Id in a Message . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.4. Application-Specific Session State Machines . . . . . . . 11
5.5. Session-Id AVP and Session Management . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.6. AVPs Defined as Boolean Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.7. Application-Specific Message Routing . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.8. About Translation Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.9. End-to-End Application Capabilities Exchange . . . . . . 14
5.10. Diameter Accounting Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.11. Diameter Security Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. Defining Generic Diameter Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1. Introduction
Morand, et al. Expires November 30, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines May 2013
The Diameter base protocol provides facilities to extend the Diameter
base protocol (see Section 1.3 of [RFC6733]) for supporting new
functionalities. In the context of this document, extending Diameter
means one of the following:
1. Addition of a new functionality to an existing Diameter
application without defining a new application.
2. Addition of a new functionality to an existing Diameter
application that requires the definition of a new application.
3. The definition of a new Diameter application to provide a set of
functionalities not supported by existing applications.
4. The definition of a new generic functionality that can be reused
across different applications.
All of these choices are design decisions that can be done by any
combination of reusing existing or defining new commands, AVPs or AVP
values. However, application designers do not have total freedom
when making their design. A number of rules have been defined in
[RFC6733] and place constraints on when an extension requires the
allocation of a new Diameter application identifier or a new command
code value. The objective of this document is the following:
o Clarify updated Diameter extensibility rules in the Diameter base
protocol.
o Clarify usage of certain Diameter functionalities that are not
explicitly described in the Diameter Base specification.
o Discuss design choices and provide guidelines when defining new
applications.
o Present trade-off of design choices.
2. Terminology
This document reuses the terminology used in [RFC6733].
3. Overview
As designed, the Diameter base protocol [RFC6733] can be seen as a
two-layer protocol. The lower layer is mainly responsible for
managing connections between neighboring peers and for message
routing. The upper layer is where the Diameter applications reside.
Morand, et al. Expires November 30, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines May 2013
This model is in line with a Diameter node having an application
layer and a peer-to-peer delivery layer. The Diameter base protocol
document defines the architecture and behavior of the message
delivery layer and then provides the framework for designing Diameter
applications on the application layer. This framework includes
definitions of application sessions and accounting support (see
Section 8 and 9 of [RFC6733]). Accordingly, a Diameter node is seen
in this document as a single instance of a Diameter message delivery
layer and one or more Diameter applications using it.
The Diameter base protocol is designed to be extensible and the
principles are described in the section 1.3 of [RFC6733]. Extending
Diameter can mean either the definition of a completely new Diameter
application or the reuse of commands, AVPs and AVP values in any
combination for the purpose of inheriting the features of an existing
Diameter application. The recommendation for re-using as much as
possible existing implementations is meaningful as most of the
requirements defined for a new application are likely already
fulfilled by existing applications.
However, when reusing existing applications, there is a greater
likelihood of ambiguity on how much of the existing application can
be enhanced without being distorted too much and therefore requiring
the definition of a new application.
The impacts of extending existing applications can be categorized as
follow:
Minor Extension: Enhancing the functional scope of an existing
application by the addition of optional features to support. Such
enhancement has no backward compatibility issue with the existing
application. A typical example would be the definition of a new
optional AVP to use in an existing command. Diameter
implementations supporting the existing application but not the
new AVP will simply ignore it, without major consequences on the
Diameter message handling. In general, this includes everything
that is not covered by the next category. The standardization
effort will be fairly small.
Morand, et al. Expires November 30, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines May 2013
Major Extension: Enhancing the functional scope of an existing
application in such a way that this implies backward compatible
change to the existing application and then requires the
definition of a new Diameter application. Typical examples would
be the creation of a new command for providing functionality not
supported by existing applications or the definition of a new AVP
with M-bit set to carry in an existing command. For such
extension, a significant specification effort is required and a
careful approach is recommended.
The rules outlined in the section 1.3 of [RFC6733] indicate when an
extension requires a new command code to be registered and when new
Diameter applications have to be defined. The subsequent sections
further explain and clarify the rules to extend the Diameter base
protocol. It is meant as a guidelines document and therefore it does
not add, remove or change existing rules.
4. Reusing Existing Diameter Applications
When selecting the Diameter base protocol to support new
functionalities, protocol designers are advised to reuse as much as
possible existing Diameter applications in order to simplify
standardization, implementation and avoid potential interoperability
issues. However, existing application needs to be adapted to support
new requirements and these modifications can be at the command level
and/or at the AVP level. The following sections describe the
possible modifications that can be performed on existing applications
and their related impacts.
4.1. Adding a New Command
Adding a new command is considered as a major extension and requires
a new Diameter application to be defined. Adding a new command to an
application means either defining a completely new command or
importing the command's CCF syntax specification from another
application whereby the new application inherits some or all of the
functionality of the application where the command came from. In the
former case, the decision to create a new application is
straightforward since this is typically a result of adding a new
functionality that does not exist yet. For the latter, the decision
to create a new application will depend on whether importing the
command in a new application is more suitable than simply using the
existing application as it is in conjunction with any other
application. Therefore, a case by case study of each application
requirement should be applied.
An illustrative example is the command pair defined in Diameter EAP
application [RFC4072] that can be re-used conjointly with any other
Morand, et al. Expires November 30, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines May 2013
application (e.g. the Diameter NASREQ application [RFC4005]) as soon
as standard EAP-based authentication procedures need to be supported
by the implementation. It may therefore not be required to import
the command pair in the new defined application.
However, in general, it is difficult to come to a hard guideline, and
so a case-by-case study of each application requirement should be
applied. Before adding or importing a command, application designers
should consider the following:
o Can the new functionality be fulfilled by creating a new command
independent from any existing command? In this case, the
resulting new application and the existing application can work
independent of, but cooperating with each other.
o Can the existing command be reused without major extensions and
therefore without the need for the definition of a new
application, e.g. new functionality introduced by the creation of
new optional AVPs.
o Care should be taken to avoid a liberal method of importing an
existing command's CCF syntax specification. This would result in
a monolithic and hard to manage application supporting too many
different functionalities and can cause interoperability issues
between the different applications.
4.2. Deleting an Existing Command
Although this process is not typical, removing a command from an
application requires a new Diameter application to be defined. This
is due to the fact that the reception of the deleted command would
systematically result in a protocol error
(DIAMETER_COMMAND_UNSUPPORTED).
It is unusual to delete an existing command from an application for
the sake of deleting it or the functionality it represents. This
normally indicates of a flawed design. An exception might be if the
intent of the deletion is to create a newer version of the same
application that is somehow simpler than the previous version.
4.3. Reusing Existing Commands
This section discusses rules in adding and/or deleting AVPs from an
existing command of an existing application. The cases described in
this section may not necessarily result in the creation of new
applications.
Morand, et al. Expires November 30, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines May 2013
It is worth to note that the strong recommendation to re-use existing
commands in the [RFC3588] was to prevent rapid scarcity of code
values available for vendor-specific commands. [RFC6733] relaxes the
policy with respect to the allocation of command codes for vendor-
specific uses and enlarges the range of available code values for
vendor-specific applications. Although reuse of existing commands is
still recommended, protocol designers can consider defining a new
command when it provides a solution more suitable than the twisting
of an existing command's use and applications.
4.3.1. Adding AVPs to a Command
Based on the rules in [RFC6733], AVPs that are added to an existing
command can be categorized into:
o Mandatory (to understand) AVPs. As defined in [RFC6733], these
are AVPs with the M-bit flag set, which means that a Diameter node
receiving them is required to understand not only their values but
their semantics. Failure to do so will cause an message handling
error. This is regardless of whether these AVPs are required or
optional as specified by the command's CCF syntax specification.
o Optional (to understand) AVPs. As defined in [RFC6733], these are
AVPs with the M-bit flag cleared, which mean that a Diameter node
receiving these AVPs can simply ignore them if not supported in
the process of the received command.
The rules are strict in the case where the AVPs to be added are
mandatory to understand i.e. with the M-bit set. A mandatory AVP
cannot be added to an existing command without defining a new
Diameter application, as stated in [RFC6733]. This falls into the
"Major Extensions" category. Despite the clarity of the rule,
ambiguity still arises when evaluating whether a new AVP being added
should be mandatory to begin with. Application designers should
consider the following questions when deciding to set the M-bit for a
new AVP:
o Would it be required for the receiving side to be able to process
and understand the AVP and its content?
o Would the new AVPs change the state machine of the application?
o Would the presence of the new AVP lead to a different number of
round-trips, effectively changing the state machine of the
application?
Morand, et al. Expires November 30, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines May 2013
o Would the new AVP be used to differentiate between old and new
versions of the same application whereby the two versions are not
backward compatible?
o Would the new AVP have duality in meaning i.e. be used to carry
application-related information as well as be used to indicate
that the message is for a new application?
When one of the above questions can be answered in the affirmative
then the M-bit has to be set for the new AVP. This list of questions
is non-exhaustive and other criteria can be taken into account in the
decision process.
If application designers are instead contemplating the use of
optional AVPs i.e. with the M-bit cleared, then the following are
some of the pitfalls that should be avoided:
o Use of optional AVPs with intersecting meaning. One AVP has
partially the same usage and meaning as another AVP. The presence
of both can lead to confusion.
o An optional AVPs with dual purpose, i.e. to carry application
data as well as to indicate support for one or more features.
This has a tendency to introduce interpretation issues.
o Adding one or more optional AVPs and indicating (usually within
descriptive text for the command) that at least one of them has to
be present in the command. This essentially circumventing the
ABNF and is equivalent to adding a mandatory AVP to the command.
These practices generally result in interoperability issues and
should be avoided as much as possible.
4.3.2. Deleting AVPs from a Command
The impacts of deleting an AVP from a command depend on its command
code format specification and M-bit setting:
o Deleting an AVP that is indicated as { AVP } in the command's CCF
syntax specification, whatever the setting of the M-bit set. This
means the definition of a new command. In this case, a new
command code and subsequently a new Diameter application have to
be specified.
o Deleting an AVP with M-bit set that is indicated as [ AVP ] in the
command's CCF syntax specification. No new command code has to be
specified but the definition of a new Diameter application is
required.
Morand, et al. Expires November 30, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines May 2013
o Deleting an AVP with the M-bit cleared that is indicated as [ AVP
] in the command's CCF syntax specification. In this case, the
AVP can be deleted without consequences.
If possible application designers should attempt the reuse the
command's CCF syntax specification without modification and simply
ignore (but not delete) any optional AVP that will not be used. This
is to maintain compatibility with existing applications that will not
know about the new functionality as well as maintain the integrity of
existing dictionaries.
4.4. Reusing Existing AVPs
This section discusses rules in reusing existing AVP when reusing an
existing command or defining a new command in a new application.
4.4.1. Setting of the AVP Flags
When reusing AVPs in a new application, the AVP flag setting, such as
the mandatory flag ('M'-bit), has to be re-evaluated for a new
Diameter application and, if necessary, even for every command within
the application. In general, for AVPs defined outside of the
Diameter base protocol, its mandatory characteristics are tied to its
role within an application and command.
All other AVP flags shall remain unchanged.
4.4.2. Reuse of AVP of Type Enumerated
When modifying the set of values supported by an AVP of type
Enumerated, this means defining a new AVP. Modifying the set of
Enumerated values includes adding a value or deprecating the use of a
value defined initially for the AVP. Defining a new AVP will avoid
interoperability issues.
5. Defining New Diameter Applications
5.1. Introduction
The general recommendation for Diameter extensibility is to reuse
commands, AVPs and AVP values as much as possible. However, some of
the extensibility rules described in the previous sections also apply
to scenarios where a designer is trying to define a completely new
Diameter application.
This section discusses the case where new applications have
requirements that cannot be filled by existing applications and would
require definition of completely new commands, AVPs and/or AVP
Morand, et al. Expires November 30, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines May 2013
values. Typically, there is little ambiguity about the decision to
create these types of applications. Some examples are the interfaces
defined for the IP Multimedia Subsystem of 3GPP, i.e. Cx/Dx
([TS29.228] and [TS29.229]), Sh ([TS29.328] and [TS29.329]) etc.
Application designers should also follow the theme of Diameter
extensibility, which in this case means to import existing AVPs and
AVP values for any newly defined commands. In certain cases where
accounting will be used, the models described in Section 5.10 should
also be considered. Though some decisions may be clear, designers
should also consider certain aspects of defining a new application.
Some of these aspects are described in following sections.
5.2. Defining New Commands
As a general recommendation, reusing as much as possible of existing
material is encouraged when defining new commands. Protocol
designers can thus usefully benefit from the experience gained with
the implementation of existing commands. This includes good
practices to reuse but also known mistakes not to repeat. Therefore
it is advisable to avoid the definition of a command from scratch and
rather take as an example an existing command that would be
functionally close to command under definition.
Moreover, the new command's CCF should be carefully defined when
considering applicability and extensibility of the application. If
most of the AVPs contained in the command are indicated as fixed or
required, it might be difficult to reuse the same command and
therefore the same application if the context has slightly changed
and some AVPs become obsolete. Defining a command with most of the
AVPs indicated as optional must not be seen as a sub-optimal design
introducing too much flexibility in the protocol. The protocol
designers are only advised to clearly state the condition of presence
of these AVPs and properly define the corresponding behaviour of the
Diameter nodes when these AVPs are absent from the command.
In the same way, the CCF should be defined in a way that it will be
possible to add any arbitrary optional AVPs with the M-bit cleared
(including vendor-specific AVPs) without modifying the application.
For this purpose, it is strongly recommended to add "* [AVP]" in the
command's CCF that will allow the addition of any arbitrary AVP as
described in [RFC6733].
Morand, et al. Expires November 30, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines May 2013
5.3. Use of Application-Id in a Message
When designing new applications, designers should specify that the
application ID carried in all session-level messages must be the
application ID of the application using those messages. This
includes the session-level messages defined in Diameter base
protocol, i.e., RAR/RAA, STR/STA, ASR/ASA and possibly ACR/ACA in the
coupled accounting model, see Section 5.10. Existing specifications
may not adhere to this rule for historical or other reasons.
However, this scheme should be followed to avoid possible routing
problems for these messages.
In general, when a new application has been allocated with a new
application id and it also reuses existing commands with or without
modifications (Sec 4.1), it must use the newly allocated application
id in the header and in all relevant application id AVPs (Auth-
Application-Id or Acct-Application-Id) present in the commands
message body.
Additionally, application designs using Vendor-Specific-Application-
Id AVP should not use the Vendor-Id AVP to further dissect or
differentiate the vendor-specification application id. Diameter
routing is not based on the Vendor-Id. As such, the Vendor-ID should
not be used as an additional input for routing or delivery of
messages. In general, the Vendor-Id AVP is an informational AVP only
and kept for backward compatibility reasons.
5.4. Application-Specific Session State Machines
Section 8 of [RFC6733] provides session state machines for
authentication, authorization and accounting (AAA) services and these
session state machines are not intended to cover behavior outside of
AAA. If a new application cannot clearly be categorized into any of
these AAA services, it is recommended that the application define its
own session state machine. Support for server-initiated request is a
clear example where an application-specific session state machine
would be needed, for example, the Rw interface for ITU-T push model
(cf.[Q.3303.3]).
5.5. Session-Id AVP and Session Management
Diameter applications are usually designed with the aim of managing
user sessions, e.g. network access session (NASREQ application
[RFC4005]) or specific service access session (Diameter SIP
application [RFC4740]). In the Diameter base protocol, the session
management is based on the Session-Id AVP that it used to identify a
given session and all the Diameter messages including the same
Session-Id will be bound to the same session. Diameter-based session
Morand, et al. Expires November 30, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines May 2013
management also implies that both Diameter client and server (and
potentially proxy agents in the diameter path) are maintaining
session state information associated with the Session-Id contained in
the Diameter messages.
However, some applications may not need to rely on the Session-Id to
identify and manage user sessions because other information can be
used instead to correlate Diameter messages. Indeed, the User-Name
AVP or any other specific AVP can be present in every Diameter
message and used therefore for message correlation. There might even
be applications for which the notion of Diameter session management
would not be required at all. For such applications, the Auth-
Session-State AVP is usually set to NO_STATE_MAINTAINED in all the
Diameter messages and these applications are therefore designed as a
set of stand-alone transactions. Even if an explicit access session
termination is required, application-specific commands are defined
and used instead of the Session-Termination-Request/Answer (STR/STA)
or Abort-Session-Request/Answer (ASR/ASA) defined in the Diameter
base protocol. In such a case, the Session-Id is not significant.
Based on these considerations, protocol designers should carefully
appraise whether the application currently defined relies on the
concept of session management and whether the Session-Id defined in
the Diameter base protocol would be used for correlation of messages
related to the same session. If not, the protocol designers could
decide to define application commands without the Session-Id AVP. If
any session management concept is supported by the application, the
application documentation must clearly specify how the session is
handled between client and server (as possibly Diameter agents in the
path).
5.6. AVPs Defined as Boolean Flag
The type Enumerated was initially defined to provide a list of valid
values for an AVP with their respective interpretation described in
the specification. For instance, AVPs of type Enumerated can be used
to provide further information on the reason for the termination of a
session or a specific action to perform upon the reception of the
request.
However, AVPs of type Enumerated are too often used as a simple
Boolean flag, indicating for instance a specific permission or
capability, and therefore only two values are defined e.g. TRUE/
FALSE, AUTORIZED/UNAUTHORIZED or SUPPORTED/UNSUPPORTED. This is a
sub-optimal design since it limits the extensibility of the
application: any new capability/permission would have to be supported
by a new AVP or new Enumerated value of the already defined AVP,
causing backwards compatibility issues with existing implementations.
Morand, et al. Expires November 30, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines May 2013
Instead of using an Enumerated AVP for a Boolean flag, protocol
designers are encouraged to use Unsigned32 or Unsigned64 AVP type as
bit mask whose bit settings are described in the relevant Diameter
application specification. Such AVPs can be reused and extended
without major impact on the Diameter application. The bit mask
should leave room for future additions. Examples of bit mask AVP are
the Session-Binding AVP defined in [RFC6733] and the MIP6-Feature-
Vector AVP defined in [RFC5447]
5.7. Application-Specific Message Routing
Diameter request message routing usually relies on the Destination-
Realm AVP and the Application Id present in the request message
header. However, some applications may need to rely on the User-Name
AVP or any other application-specific AVP present in the request to
determine the final destination of a request e.g. find the target
AAA server hosting the authorization information for a given user
when multiple AAA servers are addressable in the realm.
In such a context, basic routing mechanisms described in [RFC6733]
are not fully suitable, and additional application-level routing
mechanisms have to be described in the application documentation to
provide such specific AVP-based routing. Such functionality will be
basically hosted by an application-specific Proxy agent that will be
responsible for routing decisions based on the received specific
AVPs.
Example of such application-specific routing functions can be found
in the Cx/Dx applications ([TS29.228] and [TS29.229]) of the 3GPP IP
Multimedia Subsystem, in which the proxy agent (Subscriber Location
Function aka SLF) uses specific application-level identities found in
the request to determine the final destination of the message.
Whatever the criteria used to establish the routing path of the
request, the routing of the answer should follow the reverse path of
the request, as described in [RFC6733], with the answer being sent to
the source of the received request, using transaction states and hop-
by-hop identifier matching. In particular, this ensures that the
Diameter Relay or Proxy agents in the request routing path will be
able to release the transaction state upon receipt of the
corresponding answer, avoiding unnecessary failover. Application
designers are strongly dissuaded from modifying the answer-routing
principles described in [RFC6733] when defining a new application.
5.8. About Translation Agent
Morand, et al. Expires November 30, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines May 2013
As defined in [RFC6733], a translation agent is a device that
provides interworking between Diameter and another protocol (e.g.
RADIUS, TACACS+).
In the case of RADIUS, it was initially thought that defining the
translation function would be straightforward by adopting few basic
principles e.g. use of a shared range of code values for RADIUS
attributes and Diameter AVPs. Guidelines for implementing a RADIUS-
Diameter translation agent were put into RFC 4005 ([RFC4005]).
However, it was acknowledged that such translation mechanism was not
so obvious and deeper protocol analysis was required to ensure
efficient interworking between RADIUS and Diameter. Moreover, the
interworking requirements depend on the functionalities provided by
the Diameter application under specification, and a case-by-case
analysis will be required.
Therefore, protocol designers cannot assume the availability of a
"standard" Diameter-to-RADIUS gateways agent when planning to
interoperate with the RADIUS infrastructure. They should specify the
required translation mechanism along with the Diameter application.
This recommendation applies for any kind of translation (e.g.
Diameter/MAP).
5.9. End-to-End Application Capabilities Exchange
New Diameter applications can rely on optional AVPs to exchange
application-specific capabilities and features. These AVPs can be
exchanged on an end-to-end basis at the application layer. Examples
of this can be found in [RFC5447] and [RFC5777].
The end-to-end capabilities AVPs formalize the addition of new
optional functionality to existing applications by announcing support
for it. Applications that do not understand these AVPs can discard
them upon receipt. Recevers of these AVPs can discover the addional
functionalities supported the end-point orignating the request and
behave accordingly when processing the request. Senders of these
AVPs can safely assume the receiving end-point does not support any
functionality carried by the AVP if it is not present in
corresponding response. This is useful in cases where deployment
choices are offered, and the generic design can be made available for
a number of applications.
When used in a new application, protocol designers should clearly
specify this end-to-end capabilities exchange and the corresponding
behaviour of the Diameter nodes supporting the application.
Morand, et al. Expires November 30, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines May 2013
It is also important to note that this end-to-end capabilities
exchange relying on the use of optional AVPs is not meant as a
generic mechanism to support extensibility of Diameter applications
with arbitrary functionalities. When the added features drastically
change the Diameter application or when Diameter agents have to be
upgraded to support the new features, a new application should be
defined.
5.10. Diameter Accounting Support
Accounting can be treated as an auxiliary application that is used in
support of other applications. In most cases, accounting support is
required when defining new applications. This document provides
two(2) possible models for using accounting:
Split Accounting Model
In this model, the accounting messages will use the Diameter base
accounting application ID (value of 3). The design implication
for this is that the accounting is treated as an independent
application, especially during Diameter routing. This means that
accounting commands emanating from an application may be routed
separately from the rest of the other application messages. This
may also imply that the messages end up in a central accounting
server. A split accounting model is a good design choice when:
* The application itself will not define its own unique
accounting commands.
* The overall system architecture permits the use of centralized
accounting for one or more Diameter applications.
Centralizing accounting may have advantages but there are also
drawbacks. The model assumes that the accounting server can
differentiate received accounting messages. Since the received
accounting messages can be for any application and/or service, the
accounting server has to have a method to match accounting
messages with applications and/or services being accounted for.
This may mean defining new AVPs, checking the presence, absence or
contents of existing AVPs, or checking the contents of the
accounting record itself. But in general, there is no clean and
generic scheme for sorting these messages. Therefore, the use of
this model is recommended only when all received accounting
messages can be clearly identified and sorted. For most cases,
the use of Coupled Accounting Model is recommended.
Coupled Accounting Model
Morand, et al. Expires November 30, 2013 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines May 2013
In this model, the accounting messages will use the application ID
of the application using the accounting service. The design
implication for this is that the accounting messages are tightly
coupled with the application itself; meaning that accounting
messages will be routed like any other application messages. It
would then be the responsibility of the application server
(application entity receiving the ACR message) to send the
accounting records carried by the accounting messages to the
proper accounting server. The application server is also
responsible for formulating a proper response (ACA). A coupled
accounting model is a good design choice when:
* The system architecture or deployment will not provide an
accounting server that supports Diameter.
* The system architecture or deployment requires that the
accounting service for the specific application should be
handled by the application itself.
* The application server is provisioned to use a different
protocol to access the accounting server; e.g., via LDAP, SOAP
etc. This includes attempting to support older accounting
systems that are not Diameter aware.
In all cases above, there will generally be no direct Diameter
access to the accounting server.
These models provide a basis for using accounting messages.
Application designers may obviously deviate from these models
provided that the factors being addressed here have also been taken
into account. Though it is not recommended, examples of other
methods might be defining a new set of commands to carry application-
specific accounting records.
5.11. Diameter Security Mechanisms
As specified in [RFC6733], the Diameter message exchange should be
secured by using TLS/TCP or DTLS/SCTP. However, IPsec can also be
deployed to secure connections between Diameter peers. When IPsec is
used instead of TLS or DTLS, the following recommendations apply.
IPsec ESP 5.3 [RFC4301] in transport mode with non-null encryption
and authentication algorithms is used to provide per-packet
authentication, integrity protection and confidentiality, and support
the replay protection mechanisms of IPsec. The version 2 of IKE
(IKEv2) [RFC5996] is recommended for performing mutual authentication
and establishing and maintaining security associations (SAs).
Morand, et al. Expires November 30, 2013 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines May 2013
IKEv1 [RFC2409] was used in [RFC3588] and for easier migration from
IKEv1 based implementations both RSA Digital Signatures and pre-
shared keys should be used in IKEv2. However, if IKEv1 is used,
implementers should follow the guidelines given in section 13.1 in
RFC3588 [RFC3588].
6. Defining Generic Diameter Extensions
Generic Diameter extensions are AVPs, commands or applications that
are designed to support other Diameter applications. They are
auxiliary applications meant to improve or enhance the Diameter
protocol itself or Diameter applications/functionality. Some
examples include the extensions to support auditing and redundancy
(see [I-D.calhoun-diameter-res-mgmt]), improvements in duplicate
detection scheme (see [I-D.asveren-dime-dupcons]), and piggybacking
of QoS attributes (see [RFC5777]).
Since generic extensions can cover many aspects of Diameter and
Diameter applications, it is not possible to enumerate all the
probable scenarios in this document. However, some of the most
common considerations are as follows:
o Backward compatibility: Dealing with existing applications that do
not understand the new extension. Designers also have to make
sure that new extensions do not break expected message delivery
layer behavior.
o Forward compatibility: Making sure that the design will not
introduce undue restrictions for future applications. Future
applications attempting to support this feature should not have to
go through great lengths to implement any new extensions.
o Trade-off in signaling: Designers may have to choose between the
use of optional AVPs piggybacked onto existing commands versus
defining new commands and applications. Optional AVPs are simpler
to implement and may not need changes to existing applications.
However, this ties the sending of extension data to the
application's transmission of a message. This has consequences if
the application and the extensions have different timing
requirements. The use of commands and applications solves this
issue, but the trade-off is the additional complexity of defining
and deploying a new application. It is left up to the designer to
find a good balance among these trade-offs based on the
requirements of the extension.
In practice, generic extensions often use optional AVPs because they
are simple and non-intrusive to the application that would carry
them. Peers that do not support the generic extensions need not
Morand, et al. Expires November 30, 2013 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines May 2013
understand nor recognize these optional AVPs. However, it is
recommended that the authors of the extension specify the context or
usage of the optional AVPs. As an example, in the case that the AVP
can be used only by a specific set of applications then the
specification must enumerate these applications and the scenarios
when the optional AVPs will be used. In the case where the optional
AVPs can be carried by any application, it is should be sufficient to
specify such a use case and perhaps provide specific examples of
applications using them.
In most cases, these optional AVPs piggybacked by applications would
be defined as a Grouped AVP and it would encapsulate all the
functionality of the generic extension. In practice, it is not
uncommon that the Grouped AVP will encapsulate an existing AVP that
has previously been defined as mandatory ('M'-bit set) e.g., 3GPP IMS
Cx/Dx interfaces ([TS29.228] and [TS29.229]).
7. IANA Considerations
This document does not require actions by IANA.
8. Security Considerations
This document provides guidelines and considerations for extending
Diameter and Diameter applications. It does not define nor address
security-related protocols or schemes.
9. Contributors
The content of this document was influenced by a design team created
to revisit the Diameter extensibility rules. The team consisting of
the members listed below was formed in February 2008 and finished its
work in June 2008.
o Avi Lior
o Glen Zorn
o Jari Arkko
o Lionel Morand
o Mark Jones
o Victor Fajardo
o Tolga Asveren
Morand, et al. Expires November 30, 2013 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines May 2013
o Jouni Korhonen
o Glenn McGregor
o Hannes Tschofenig
o Dave Frascone
We would like to thank Tolga Asveren, Glenn McGregor, and John
Loughney for their contributions as co-authors to earlier versions of
this document.
10. Acknowledgments
We greatly appreciate the insight provided by Diameter implementers
who have highlighted the issues and concerns being addressed by this
document. The authors would also like to thank A. Jean Mahoney and
Ben Campbell for their invaluable detailed review and comments on
this document.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3588] Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J.
Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, September 2003.
[RFC6733] Fajardo, V., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn,
"Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 6733, October 2012.
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.asveren-dime-dupcons]
Asveren, T., "Diameter Duplicate Detection Cons.", draft-
asveren-dime-dupcons-00 (work in progress), August 2006.
[I-D.calhoun-diameter-res-mgmt]
Calhoun, P., "Diameter Resource Management Extensions",
draft-calhoun-diameter-res-mgmt-08.txt (work in progress),
March 2001.
[Q.3303.3]
3rd Generation Partnership Project, "ITU-T Recommendation
Q.3303.3, "Resource control protocol no. 3 (rcp3):
Protocol at the Rw interface between the Policy Decision
Morand, et al. Expires November 30, 2013 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines May 2013
Physical Entity (PD-PE) and the Policy Enforcement
Physical Entity (PE-PE): Diameter"", 2008.
[RFC2409] Harkins, D. and D. Carrel, "The Internet Key Exchange
(IKE)", RFC 2409, November 1998.
[RFC4005] Calhoun, P., Zorn, G., Spence, D., and D. Mitton,
"Diameter Network Access Server Application", RFC 4005,
August 2005.
[RFC4072] Eronen, P., Hiller, T., and G. Zorn, "Diameter Extensible
Authentication Protocol (EAP) Application", RFC 4072,
August 2005.
[RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.
[RFC4740] Garcia-Martin, M., Belinchon, M., Pallares-Lopez, M.,
Canales-Valenzuela, C., and K. Tammi, "Diameter Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) Application", RFC 4740, November
2006.
[RFC5447] Korhonen, J., Bournelle, J., Tschofenig, H., Perkins, C.,
and K. Chowdhury, "Diameter Mobile IPv6: Support for
Network Access Server to Diameter Server Interaction", RFC
5447, February 2009.
[RFC5777] Korhonen, J., Tschofenig, H., Arumaithurai, M., Jones, M.,
and A. Lior, "Traffic Classification and Quality of
Service (QoS) Attributes for Diameter", RFC 5777, February
2010.
[RFC5996] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., and P. Eronen,
"Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)", RFC
5996, September 2010.
[TS29.228]
3rd Generation Partnership Project, "3GPP TS 29.228;
Technical Specification Group Core Network and Terminals;
IP Multimedia (IM) Subsystem Cx and Dx Interfaces;
Signalling flows and message contents", ,
<http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/29272.htm>.
[TS29.229]
Morand, et al. Expires November 30, 2013 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines May 2013
3rd Generation Partnership Project, "3GPP TS 29.229;
Technical Specification Group Core Network and Terminals;
Cx and Dx interfaces based on the Diameter protocol;
Protocol details", ,
<http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/29229.htm>.
[TS29.328]
3rd Generation Partnership Project, "3GPP TS 29.328;
Technical Specification Group Core Network and Terminals;
IP Multimedia (IM) Subsystem Sh interface; signalling
flows and message content", ,
<http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/29328.htm>.
[TS29.329]
3rd Generation Partnership Project, "3GPP TS 29.329;
Technical Specification Group Core Network and Terminals;
Sh Interface based on the Diameter protocol; Protocol
details", ,
<http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/29329.htm>.
Authors' Addresses
Lionel Morand (editor)
Orange Labs
Email: lionel.morand@orange.com
Victor Fajardo
Email: vf0213@gmail.com
Hannes Tschofenig
Nokia Siemens Networks
Linnoitustie 6
Espoo 02600
Finland
Phone: +358 (50) 4871445
Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net
URI: http://www.tschofenig.priv.at
Morand, et al. Expires November 30, 2013 [Page 21]