Diameter Maintenance and K. Carlberg, Ed.
Extensions (DIME) G11
Internet-Draft T. Taylor
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies
Feb 28, 2010
Diameter Priority Attribute Value Pairs
draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-00.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Abstract
This document defines Attribute-Value Pair (AVP) containers for
various priority parameters for use with Diameter and the AAA
framework. The parameters themselves are defined in several
different protocols that operate at either the network or application
Carlberg & Taylor Expires Aug 28, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet Drafts Resource Priority AVPs Feb 28, 2009
layer.
1. Introduction
This document defines a number of Attribute-Value Pairs (AVPs) that
can be used within the Diameter protocol [RFC3588] to convey a
specific set of priority parameters. The parameters themselves are
specified in other documents, but are described briefly below.
Priority influences the distribution of resources. This influence
may be probabilistic, ranging between (but not including) 0% and
100%, or it may be in the form of a guarantee to either receive or
not receive the resource.
The influence attributed to prioritization may also affect QoS, but
it is not to be confused with QoS. As an example, if packets of two
or more flows are contending for the same shared resources,
prioritization helps determine which packet receives the resource.
However, this allocation of resource does not correlate directly to
any specific delay or loss bounds that have been associated with the
packet.
Another example of how prioritization can be realized is articulated
in Appendix A.3 (the priority by-pass model) of [draft.rsvp-
priority-extension]. In this case, prioritized flows may gain access
to resources that are never shared with non-prioritized flows.
2. Terminology and Abbreviations
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [RFC2119].
3. Priority Parameter Encoding
This section defines a set of priority AVPs. This set is for use
with the DIAMETER QoS application and represents a continuation of
the list of AVPs defined in [RFC5624]. The syntax notation used is
that of [RFC3588].
3.1. Dual-Priority AVP
The Dual-Priority AVP is a grouped AVP consisting of two AVPs; the
Preemption-Priority and the Defending-Priority AVP. These AVPs are
derived from the corresponding priority fields in the Signaled
Carlberg & Taylor Expires Aug 28, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet Drafts Resource Priority AVPs Feb 28, 2009
Preemption Priority Policy Element [RFC3181] of RSVP [RFC2205]. The
Defending-Priority is set when the reservation has been admitted.
The Preemption-Priority of a newly requested reservation is compared
with the Defending Priority of a previously admitted flow. The
actions taken based upon the result of this comparison are a function
of local policy.
Dual-Priority ::= < AVP Header: TBD >
{ Preemption-Priority }
{ Defending-Priority }
3.1.1. Preemption-Priority AVP
The Preemption-Priority AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32.
Higher values represent higher priority. The value encoded in this
AVP is the same as the preemption priority value that would be
encoded in the signaled preemption priority policy element.
3.1.2. Defending-Priority AVP
The Defending-Priority AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32.
Higher values represent higher priority. The value encoded in this
AVP is the same as the defending priority value that would be encoded
in the signaled preemption priority policy element.
3.2. Admission-Priority AVP
The Admission-Priority AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32.
The admission priority of the flow is used to increase the
probability of session establishment for selected flows. Higher
values represent higher priority. A given admission priority is
encoded in this information element using the same value as when
encoded in the admission priority parameter defined in Section 3.1 of
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp].
3.3. SIP-RPH AVP
The SIP-RPH AVP is a grouped AVP consisting of two AVPs, the SIP-
Namespace and the SIP-Value AVP, which are derived from the
corresponding optional header fields in [rfc4412]. The SIP-Namespace
identifies a particular ordered set of priority values. The SIP-
Value identifies a specific priority value within the set identified
by the SIP-Namespace.
Carlberg & Taylor Expires Aug 28, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet Drafts Resource Priority AVPs Feb 28, 2009
SIP-RPH ::= < AVP Header: TBD >
{ SIP-Namespace }
{ SIP-Value }
3.3.1. SIP-Namespace AVP
The SIP-Namespace AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type UTF8String.
3.3.2 SIP-Value AVP
The SIP-Value AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type UTF8String.
3.4. App-Level-Resource-Priority AVP
The App-Level-Resource-Priority (ALRP) AVP is a grouped AVP
consisting of two AVPs, the ALRP-Namespace AVP and the ALRP-Priority
AVP.
A description of the semantics of the parameter values can be found
in [RFC4412] and in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp]. The registry
set up by [RFC4412] provided string values for both the priority
namespace and the priority values associated with that namespace.
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp] modifies that registry to assign
numerical values to both the namespace identifiers and the priority
values within them. Consequently, SIP-RPH and App-Level-Resource-
Priority AVPs convey the same priority semantics, but with differing
syntax. The coding for parameters is as follows:
App-Level-Resource-Priority ::= < AVP Header: TBD >
{ ALRP-Namespace }
{ ALRP-Priority }
3.3.1. ALRP-Namespace AVP
The ALRP-Namespace AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32.
3.3.2. ALRP-Priority AVP
The ALRP-Priority AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32.
4. IANA Considerations
4.1. AVP Codes
IANA is requested to allocate AVP codes for the following AVPs that
are defined in this document.
Carlberg & Taylor Expires Aug 28, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet Drafts Resource Priority AVPs Feb 28, 2009
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| AVP Section |
|AVP Name Code Defined Data Type |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Dual-Priority TBD 3.1 Grouped |
|Preemption-Priority TBD 3.1.1 Unsigned32 |
|Defending-Priority TBD 3.1.2 Unsigned32 |
|Admission-Priority TBD 3.2 Unsigned32 |
|SIP-RPH TBD 3.3 Grouped |
|SIP-Namespace TBD 3.3.1 UTF8String |
|SIP-Value TBD 3.3.2 UTF8String |
|App-Level-Resource-Priority TBD 3.4 Grouped |
|ALRP-Namespace TBD 3.4.1 Unsigned32 |
|ALRP-Priority TBD 3.4.2 Unsigned32 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
4.2. QoS Profile
IANA is requested to allocate a new value from the Authentication,
Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Parameters/QoS Profile registry
defined in [RFC5624] for the QoS profile defined in this document.
The name of the profile is "Resource priority parameters". The
reference is [RFCXXXX] (this document).
5. Examples
+--------+ +--------+
|Diameter| | SIP |
| server | | server |
+--------+ +--------+
| |
| |
| |
1. SIP INVITE w/ RPH |
------------------------------>|
| 2. MAR w/ SIP-RPH AVP |
|<----------------------|
| 3. MAA. |
|---------------------->| 8. SIP INVITE
| |---------------->
| | 9. SIP 200 (OK)
10. SIP 200 (OK) |<----------------
<------------------------------|
| |
6. Security Considerations
TBD
Carlberg & Taylor Expires Aug 28, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet Drafts Resource Priority AVPs Feb 28, 2009
7. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Lars Eggert, Jan Engelhardt, Francois
LeFaucheur, John Loughney, An Nguyen, Dave Oran, James Polk, Martin
Stiemerling, and Magnus Westerlund for their help with resolving
problems regarding the Admission Priority and the ALRP parameter.
Additionally, we would like to thank Martin Dolly and Viqar Shaikh
for their feedback on previous discussion related to the topic of
prioritization.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp]
Faucheur, F., Polk, J., and K. Carlberg, "Resource
ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) Extensions for Emergency
Services", draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp-14 (work in
progress), Nov 2009.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3181] Herzog, S., "Signaled Preemption Priority Policy Element",
RFC 3181, October 2001.
[RFC3588] Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J.
Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, September 2003.
[RFC4124] Le Faucheur, F., "Protocol Extensions for Support of
Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4124,
June 2005.
[RFC4412] Schulzrinne, H. and J. Polk, "Communications Resource
Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
RFC 4412, February 2006.
[RFC5624] Korhonen, J., Tschofenig, H., and E. Davies, "Quality of
Service Parameters for Usage with Diameter", RFC 5624,
Aug 2009.
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-nsis-qspec]
Bader, A., Kappler, C., and D. Oran, "QoS NSLP QSPEC
Template", draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-21 (work in progress),
Carlberg & Taylor Expires Aug 28, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet Drafts Resource Priority AVPs Feb 28, 2009
November 2008.
[RFC3564] Le Faucheur, F. and W. Lai, "Requirements for Support of
Differentiated Services-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering",
RFC 3564, July 2003.
Authors' Addresses
Ken Carlberg (editor) Tom Taylor
G11 Huawei Technologies
1601 Clarendon Dr 1852 Lorraine Ave
Arlington, VA 22209 Ottawa
United States Canada
Email: carlberg@g11.org.uk Email: tom111.taylor@bell.net
Carlberg & Taylor Expires Aug 28, 2010 [Page 7]
