Network Working Group F. Dressler
Internet-Draft University of Erlangen
Expires: June 4, 2005 G. Carle
University of Tuebingen
J. Quittek
NEC
C. Kappler
H. Tschofenig
Siemens AG
December 2004
NSLP for Metering Configuration Signaling
<draft-dressler-nsis-metering-nslp-01.txt>
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
of Section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each
author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of
which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of
which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3668.
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.
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 4, 2005.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
Abstract
Dressler, et al. draft-dressler-nsis-metering-nslp-01.txt [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Metering NSLP December 2004
Monitoring, metering and accounting of packets are increasingly
important functionality that needs to be provided in the Internet.
This document proposes the definition of a new NSIS Signaling Layer
Protocol (NSLP), named Metering NSLP, which allows the dynamic
configuration of Metering Entities on the data path. An accompanying
document [I-D.ietf-fessi-nsis-m-nslp-framework] makes a problem
statement, describes scenarios for charging, Quality of Service
monitoring, and monitoring for network security issues such as
intrusion detection, elaborates requirements and discusses the
applicability of NSIS to the problem. This document suggests a
Metering NSIS protocol design, outlines protocol operation, discusses
commonalities and differences to other NSLPs, and defines Metering
NSLP messages.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Basic Protocol Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1 Model of operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2 Protocol overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.1 Message types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.2 Design Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3 Examples of operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4 Implications for GIMPS API . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.5 Mapping onto M-NSLP Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. M-SPEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Open issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 17
Dressler, et al. draft-dressler-nsis-metering-nslp-01.txt [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Metering NSLP December 2004
1. Introduction
Monitoring, metering and accounting of packets is an important
functionality in many networks today. Several working groups have
described mechanisms to collect and report usage data for resource
consumption in a network by a particular entity. For example, the
IPFIX WG defines a protocol to collect such data. RADIUS (see
[RFC2865] and [RFC2866]) and DIAMETER (see [RFC3588] and
[I-D.ietf-aaa-diameter-cc]) are also protocols which provide
information about consumed resources. The Meter MIB [RFC2720] is a
MIB for collecting flow information. However, it is also necessary
to configure and coordinate the entities doing the metering. In more
complex network topologies and architectures these entities are not
only located at the edges of a network. Instead, these Metering
Entities are distributed along the data path. While it is possible
to configure these entities with protocols such as RADIUS or DIAMETER
(or SNMP for the Meter MIB), it is also cumbersome.
Scenarios and requirements for Metering NSLP are described in
[I-D.ietf-fessi-nsis-m-nslp-framework].
This draft introduces a new NSLP protocol, the Metering NSLP, for
configuration and coordination of Metering Entities in a path-coupled
fashion.
2. Terminology
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].
Furthermore, this document uses the following terms:
Metering Data
Metering Data describe utilized resources concerning a particular
flow or service for a later charging process. Examples for such
data are packet counter, time information, and information
describing users or hosts.
Metering Record
A Metering Record represents aggregated and/or correlated Metering
Data.
Dressler, et al. draft-dressler-nsis-metering-nslp-01.txt [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Metering NSLP December 2004
Monitoring Probe
A monitoring probe is an entity that examines the data flow in
order to gather Metering Data. This Metering Data is exported to
an Metering Entity.
Metering Entity
An Metering Entity produces Metering Data describing the resource
utilization of a particular flow or service. Typically, this
information is collected from accociated monitoring probes.
Collector
A collector receives Metering Data from one or multiple Metering
Entities. This Metering Data is aggregated, correlated, and
stored in form of Metering Records.
Metering Configuration State
State used/kept by the Metering Manager to configure the Metering
Entity and Monitoring Probes.
Metering Manager
A unit in the Metering Entity that communicates with M-NSLP
processing. It holds Metering Configuration State which is used
to Configure Monitoring Probes and the Metering Entity.
MNE
An NSIS Entity (NE) which supports the Metering NSLP.
MNI
The first node in the sequence of MNEs that issues a configuration
message for a flow or aggregate.
MNR
The last node in the sequence of MNEs that receives a
configuration message for a flow or aggregate.
MNF
A MNE that is neither MNI nor MNR.
Dressler, et al. draft-dressler-nsis-metering-nslp-01.txt [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Metering NSLP December 2004
3. Basic Protocol Design
The basic design of a Metering NSLP and the processing of Metering
NSLP messages is quite similar to QoS NSLP. In fact much of the
subsequent text is modeled after the corresponding text in
[I-D.ietf-nsis-qos-nslp]. The main difference compared to QoS NSLP
is that Metering NSLP allows individual Metering NEs (MNEs) to pull
out of a signaling session.
3.1 Model of operation
Figure 1 shows an example logical model of the operation of Metering
NSLP and the associated metering mechanism in a MNE.
Dressler, et al. draft-dressler-nsis-metering-nslp-01.txt [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Metering NSLP December 2004
+---------------+ ^
| Local | *
| Management | *
+---------------+ *
^ *
V *
+----------+ +----------+ +---------+ *
| M-NSLP | | Metering | | Policy | *
|Processing|<<<<>>>>>|Management|<<>>| Control | *
+----------+ +----------+ +---------+ *
. ^ | V V *
| ^ . V V ................
| V . V >>>>>>. Metering .
| V . V . Entity .
+----------+ V . +---------+ .
| GIMPS | V . | Metering| .
|Processing| V *> . | Data | .
+----------+ V * . +---------+ .
| | V * ................
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
. . V *
+----------+ +-----------+ +------------+
<-.-| Input | | Outgoing |-.-| Monitoring |-.-.-.-.-.-.-.->
| Packet | | Interface | | Probe |
===>|Processing|====| |===| |===============>
+----------+ +-----------+ +------------+
<.-.-> = signalling flow
=====> = data flow (sender --> receiver)
<<<>>> = control and configuration operations
*****> = Measurement resp. Metering Data
Figure 1: Metering-NSLP in a Metering Entity
In this example, the MNE is collocated on a single node with a
Metering Entity and one Monitoring Probe (MP, cf.
[I-D.ietf-fessi-nsis-m-nslp-framework]). The MP collects Measurement
Data which is handed to the Metering Entity where it is processed to
become Metering Data. From the Metering Entity, Metering Data is
sent to a Collector.
A M-NSLP message transports metering configuration information. This
information is extracted by M-NSLP Processing and passed to the
Metering Manager, where it is interpreted and used to install
Metering Configuration State. The Metering Manager uses this state
to configure the Metering Entity and the Monitoring Probe. The
Policy Control determines whether the sender of the M-NSLP message
has administrative rights to configure the Metering Entity.
Dressler, et al. draft-dressler-nsis-metering-nslp-01.txt [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Metering NSLP December 2004
From the perspective of a single node, the request for configuration
of Metering Entities may result from processing a local management
request, or from processing an incoming M-NSLP message. The local
management may in turn be triggered by a local application, e.g. a
video being requested from a video server, or by a physically
separate knowledgeable network node.
3.2 Protocol overview
3.2.1 Message types
The Metering NSLP uses four message types:
CONFIGURE
The CONFIGURE message is the only message that manipulates M-NSLP
configuration state. It is used to create, refresh, modify and
remove such state. The CONFIGURE message is idempotent; the
resultant effect is the same whether a message is received once or
many times. In fact this message is equivalent to the QoS NSLP
RESERVE message.
QUERY
A QUERY message is used to request information about the current
configuration without changing it. The QUERY message is impotent,
because it does not cause any state to be installed or modified.
It is equivalent to the QoS NSLP QUERY message.
RESPONSE
The RESPONSE message is used to provide information about the
result of a previous M-NSLP message. This includes explicit
confirmation of the state manipulation signaled in the CONFIGURE
message, the response to a QUERY message or an error code if a MNE
is unable to provide the requested information or if the response
is negative. The RESPONSE message is impotent, and equivalent to
the QoS NSLP RESPONSE message.
NOTIFY
NOTIFY messages are used to convey information to a MNE. They
differ from RESPONSE messages in that they are sent asynchronously
and need not refer to any particular state or previously received
message. The information conveyed by a NOTIFY message is
typically related to error conditions. An example would be
notification to an upstream peer about state being torn.
Obviously it is equivalent to the QoS NSLP NOTIFY message.
Dressler, et al. draft-dressler-nsis-metering-nslp-01.txt [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Metering NSLP December 2004
Each protocol message has a common header which indicates the message
type and contains flags. Metering NSLP messages contain three types
of objects:
Control Information
Control information objects carry general information for the
M-NSLP Processing, such as sequence numbers or whether a response
is required.
Metering specification (MSpecs)
MSpec objects describe the actual Configuration information. They
are interpreted in the Metering Manager and opaque to M-NSLP
Processing.
Policy objects
Policy objects contain data used to authorize the configuration of
the MNEs. They are interpreted by Policy Control.
3.2.2 Design Decisions
3.2.2.1 Soft State
NSIS State is always soft state and needs to be refreshed. The
Control Information carries an object that determines the life time
of M-NSLP state. It is for further study whether life time of M-NSLP
state for a particular flow must be the same for all MNEs along the
signaling path as in NATFW-NSLP [I-D.ietf-nsis-nslp-natfw], or
whether it is a decision local to pairs of MNEs as in QoS-NSLP. In
fact the refreshment mechanism depends on the authorization model.
Currently, it is expected that the the authorization model follows
that in QoS NSLP ('New Jersey Turnpike', i.e. a chain-of-trust is
established by peering relationships between neighboring networks /
entities). Therefore, the refreshing model probably will be similar
to that of QoS NSLP.
3.2.2.2 Message Sequencing
The order in which CONFIGURE messages arrive influences the eventual
reservation state that will be stored at a MNE. Therefore M-NSLP
supports the detection of CONFIGURE message duplication by means of a
Configuration Sequence Number (CSN), which corresponds to the
Reservation Sequence Number (RSN) of QoS-NSLP.
Dressler, et al. draft-dressler-nsis-metering-nslp-01.txt [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Metering NSLP December 2004
3.2.2.3 Message Scoping
In order to realize the requirement of scoping of M-NSLP messages up
to certain types of Metering Entities, it is necessary to have an
abstract language that can name Metering Entity types. This
information travels in the MSpec and is hence interpreted in the
Metering Management. When the Metering Management recognizes it is
responsible for a Metering Entity of the type specified, it informs
M-NSLP processing to terminate the signaling.
3.2.2.4 Rerouting
M-NSLP automatically adapts to rerouting events because state along
the old path times out, and a refreshing CONFIGURE message will
install state along the new path. In QoS NSLP it is necessary to
detect a rerouting event in order establish state on the new path,
and to tear down reservations on the old path. To this end, QoS NSLP
introduces an additional object, the SII. When the SII received by a
QNE changes, a rerouting event has occurred.
For M-NSLP it is generally not important to quickly tear down
configuration state along the old path, however for some
applications, e.g. charging, it is vital to quickly configure MNEs
on the new path. Therefore an object equivalent to the SII is
needed.
3.2.2.5 Selection of MNEs
An interesting feature of M-NSLP is that only a subset of MNEs on the
data path might take part in the actual metering. Metering Entities
taking part in the metering process are determined based, for
example, on their type or number. This feature is the most striking
difference to QoS NSLP with a number of implications.
When the first CONFIGURE message is sent, each MNE on the data path
needs to determine whether it should take part in the metering
process or not by inspecting the MSpec object. Here we can reuse the
ability from above to abstractly name types of Metering Entities.
When the MNE finds out it is not involved in the metering it should
remove itself from the signaling session for this flow. This however
implies it is difficult to later update this signaling session to
again include the MNE, simply because it is not going to read the
updating CONFIGURE message. See the discussion on implications for
the GIMPS API in Section 3.4.
3.2.2.6 Aggregation
The metering configuration should allow aggregation of Metering Data
Dressler, et al. draft-dressler-nsis-metering-nslp-01.txt [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Metering NSLP December 2004
belonging to the same user or application. Such aggregation can be
done in two ways.
o A Metering Entity separately collects and reports data for each
micro flow (e.g., given for all different combinations of port
numbers) contained in the macro flow that is signalled by the
NTLP.
o A Metering Entity separately collects microflows but reports all
flows in a single record.
3.3 Examples of operation
The basic signaling sequences are very similar to QoS NSLP: To start
a configuration, the MNI constructs a CONFIGURE message with a MSpec
object, and sends it to the MNR. The message is interpreted by MNEs
on the data path. The MNR replies with a RESPONSE message.
+---+ CONFIGURE +---+ CONFIGURE +---+ CONFIGURE +---+
| |------------>| |------------>| |------------>| |
|MNI| |MNF| |MNF| |MNR|
| |<------------| |<------------| |<------------| |
+---+ RESPONSE +---+ RESPONSE +---+ RESPONSE +---+
Similarly, a QUERY message can be initiated by MNI or MNR, travels to
the MNR resp. MNI where a RESPONSE is issued and sent back. It
needs to be investigated whether there is a use case for enabling any
MNE to issue a QUERY which in this case would need to be sent both
upstream and downstream.
+---+ QUERY +---+ QUERY +---+ QUERY +---+
| |------------>| |------------>| |------------>| |
|MNI| |MNF| |MNF| |MNR|
| |<------------| |<------------| |<------------| |
+---+ RESPONSE +---+ RESPONSE +---+ RESPONSE +---+
3.4 Implications for GIMPS API
In [I-D.ietf-nsis-ntlp], an API is defined between GIMPS and NSLPs.
The requirement to flexibly select what Metering Entities become part
of a given signaling session implies requirements on the API that may
currently not be covered.
1. When a given MNE x discovers it is not part of a signaling
session it needs to be able to tell GIMPS to not install message
routing state. This needs to imply that the next MNE downstream
(which wants to participate in the signaling session) does not
Dressler, et al. draft-dressler-nsis-metering-nslp-01.txt [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Metering NSLP December 2004
invoke a Messaging Association with MNE_x but rather with the
next MNE upstream that participates in the session. In fact
something similar is also necessary for supporting stateless /
reduced state NSIS Entities. Therefore the API already defines a
message that asks GIMPS to not retain state. Whether this is
sufficient to cover M-NSLP requirements still needs to be worked
out in more detail.
2. The list of MNEs participating in a particular metering session
may be changed, particularly more, or other, types of Metering
Entities may have to be included. These entities however do not
participate currently in the ongoing signaling session.
Therefore means must be provided to include them at a later
point. One possibility is for M-NSLP to tell GIMPS a rerouting
event occurred, and message routing state needs to be updated.
This would prompt GIMPS to rediscover peers. However care needs
to be taken that GIMPS doesn't use this information to warn other
NSLPs about the assumed rerouting. Also here the problem and
possible solutions still need to be analyzed in more detail.
3.5 Mapping onto M-NSLP Requirements
With the design described above, the requirements from
[I-D.ietf-fessi-nsis-m-nslp-framework] are at this point satisfied as
follows:
o Extensibility. The actual configuration information is
encapsulated in the MSpec. Depending on how flexible the MSpec is
designed this requirement can be satisfied. Furthermore, M-NSLP
needs to be flexible regarding the message sequencing that is
possible. The current design is still open in that respect.
o Interoperability. Again, whether different accounting solutions
can interwork depends on how the MSpec is designed. In QoS NSLP,
the QSpec template design [I-D.ietf-nsis-qspec] aims at similar
extensibility and interoperability. It needs to be studied
whether or not the solutions chosen by the QSpec can also be
applied to the MSpec.
o Flexible metering models. As above, this is an issue of MSpec
design, and flexibility of message sequencing.
o Distinguishing flows. The aggregation feature detailed in this
requirement can be realized as described in Section 3.2.2.6.
o Flexible data collection. Another issue that needs to be fixed in
the MSpec.
o Location of Metering Entities. Location of Metering Entities.
MNEs, including MNI and MNR can be located anywhere on the data
path.
o Access parameters of the Collector Information. Access parameters
of the Collector Information on how to deliver flow records to the
Collector is coded in the MSpec.
Dressler, et al. draft-dressler-nsis-metering-nslp-01.txt [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Metering NSLP December 2004
o Configuration of Metering Entities. The protocol can configure
Metering Entities that are MNEs, or that are controlled by MNEs.
o Selection of Metering Entities. As described in Section 3.2.2.5,
a MNE should be able to decide to pull out of the metering
process. How this is realized regarding the interaction between
M-NSLP and GIMPS is not yet clarified in detail. Furthermore, an
MSpec template must provide a language to abstractly describe
types of Metering Entities that are (not) to become part of the
metering process.
o Metering Configuration State installation and removal. By means
of the CONFIGURE message, the protocol can install, refresh and
remove Metering Configuration State.
o Initiation and maintenance of metering tasks. Triggers and
correlation identifier are transported in the MSpec. The protocol
implicitly reacts to rerouting because a refreshing CONFIGURE
message installs state along the new route, as described in
Section 3.2.2.4.
o Collection of information on available Metering Entities. This
can be achieved by means of the QUERY message
o Scoping of configuration. The MSpec needs to provide sufficient
means for flexible scoping signaling messages.
Requirements not mentioned in this list are not yet addressed.
4. M-SPEC
compilation of M-SPEC parameters analyzed in the Metering NSLP
Scenarios Draft
5. Security considerations
The process of configuring entities to start and stop metering and to
transmit collected resource records to a third party introduces
security challenges.
First, the application domain needs to be considered. If a malicious
user is capable of stop metering of requested services then fraud is
possible. It must not be possible to configure Metering Entities in
such a way that other users are charged for the usage of a service
which they have not used.
Second, interworking between multiple domains causes authorization
problems. For example, network domain A might want to collect
resource records in network domain B to offer the user with a more
consistent bill covering both the price of the network resource
consumption and the application usage. A high degree of trust is
required to allow other domains to configure Metering Entities and to
collect the resource usage of particular users. In any case it needs
Dressler, et al. draft-dressler-nsis-metering-nslp-01.txt [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Metering NSLP December 2004
to be prevented that arbitrary resource records associated with users
are collected by other domains. It has to be noted that the process
of charging involves other states than only the collection of usage
records.
Third, it must be avoided that a denial of service attack is mounted
on either Collectors or Metering Entities. Metering Entities can be
subject to DoS attacks if a large number of resource have to be
collected or 'unlimited' per-flow states are created. Collectors can
be subject to DoS attacks if they are flooded with Metering Records.
The introduced mechanisms allow a number of entities to configure
metering entities. This might introduce some weaknesses compared to
a centralized approach where a single entity (or a few selected
entities) are authorized to perform this action. The authorization
configuration of a decentralized approach is more difficult to secure
since a single malicious entity is able to start/stop/modify the
process of Metering Record collection within a single domain or even
beyond this domain.
6. Open issues
Details need to be worked out how the configuration information in
the MSpec is expressed, and how it is interpreted.
For example, the the MSpec could specify exactly one Metering Entity
of a particular type X, e.g. one that is able to measure bandwidth
received, should participate in the metering. This implies
1. the first MNE (MNE_X) on the signaling path being of type X
should volunteer to take on this task
2. MNE_X needs to modify the MSpec to signal to subsequent MNEs that
a Metering Entity of type X has already been found.
However, appropriate action needs to be taken if the signaling
arrives at the MNR and no Metering Entity of type X was found.
Furthermore, when a rerouting event occurs, and MNE_X is no longer on
the signaling path, this needs to be detected, and a replacement must
be found. Support of such functionality is not necessary in QoS
NSLP. It is possible that on this basis more design differences
between QoS NSLP and M-NSLP will be detected in the future.
Additional open issues appear in the main body of the text.
7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Robert Hancock for valuable input.
Dressler, et al. draft-dressler-nsis-metering-nslp-01.txt [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Metering NSLP December 2004
8. References
8.1 Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", March 1997.
8.2 Informative References
[RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
June 1999.
[RFC2720] Brownlee, N., "Traffic Flow Measurement: Meter MIB",
October 1999.
[RFC2865] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A. and W. Simpson,
"Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)",
RFC 2865, June 2000.
[RFC2866] Rigney, C., "RADIUS Accounting", RFC 2866, June 2000.
[RFC3588] Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G. and J.
Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, September 2003.
[I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol]
Claise, B., "IPFIX Protocol Specifications",
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-05, August 2004.
[I-D.ietf-ipfix-info]
Meyer, J., Quittek, J. and S. Bryant, "Information Model
for IP Flow Information Export",
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ipfix-info-05, October 2004.
[RFC3917] Quittek, J., Zseby, T., Claise, B. and S. Zander,
"Requirements for IP Flow Information Export", RFC 3917,
October 2004.
[I-D.ietf-nsis-qos-nslp]
Van den Bosch, S., Karagiannis, G. and A. McDonald, "NSLP
for Quality-of-Service signaling",
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-nsis-qos-nslp-04, July 2004.
[I-D.ietf-nsis-fw]
Hancock, R., Karagiannis, G., Loughney, J. and S. Van den
Bosch, "Next Steps in Signaling: Framework",
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-nsis-fw-06, July 2004.
[I-D.ietf-nsis-nslp-natfw]
Dressler, et al. draft-dressler-nsis-metering-nslp-01.txt [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Metering NSLP December 2004
Stiemerling, M., Tschofenig, H., Martin, M. and C. Aoun,
"NAT/Firewall NSIS Signaling Layer Protocol (NSLP)",
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-nsis-nslp-natfw-03, July 2004.
[I-D.ietf-nsis-qspec]
Ash, J., Bader, A. and C. Kappler, "QoS-NSLP QSpec
Template", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-01,
October 2004.
[I-D.ietf-nsis-ntlp]
Schulzrinne, H. and R. Hancock, "GIMPS: General Internet
Messaging Protocol for Signaling",
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-nsis-ntlp-03, July 2004.
[I-D.ietf-fessi-nsis-m-nslp-framework]
Fessi, A., Kappler, C., Fan, C., Dressler, F. and A.
Klenk, "Metering NSLP Framework",
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-fessi-nsis-m-nslp-framework-00,
February 2005.
[I-D.ietf-aaa-diameter-cc]
Hakala, H., Mattila, L., Koskinen, J., Stura, M. and J.
Loughney, "Diameter Credit-control Application",
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-aaa-diameter-cc-06, August 2004.
[TS32.240]
3GPP, "Charging Architecture and Principles", 3GPP
Technical Specification TS32.240, December 2003.
Authors' Addresses
Falko Dressler
University of Erlangen
Department of Computer Science 7
Martensstr. 3
Erlangen 91058
Germany
Phone: +49 9131 85-27914
Email: dressler@informatik.uni-erlangen.de
URI: http://www7.informatik.uni-erlangen.de/
Dressler, et al. draft-dressler-nsis-metering-nslp-01.txt [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Metering NSLP December 2004
Georg Carle
University of Tuebingen
Wilhelm-Schickard-Institute for Computer Science
Auf der Morgenstelle 10C
Tuebingen 71076
Germany
Phone: +49 7071 29-70505
Email: carle@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de
URI: http://net.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/
Juergen Quittek
NEC
Kurfuersten-Anlage 36
Heidelberg 69115
Germany
Phone: +49 6221 90511-15
Email: quittek@netlab.nec.de
URI: http://www.netlab.nec.de/
Cornelia Kappler
Siemens AG
Siemensdamm 62
Berlin 13627
Germany
Phone: +49 30 386-32894
Email: cornelia.kappler@siemens.com
Hannes Tschofenig
Siemens AG
Otto-Hahn-Ring 6
Munich, Bayern 81739
Germany
Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@siemens.com
Dressler, et al. draft-dressler-nsis-metering-nslp-01.txt [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Metering NSLP December 2004
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Dressler, et al. draft-dressler-nsis-metering-nslp-01.txt [Page 17]