IDR S. Shah
Internet-Draft K. Patel
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems
Expires: August 7, 2016 S. Bajaj
Juniper Network
L. Tomotaki
Verizon
M. Boucadair
Orange
February 4, 2016
Inter-domain SLA Exchange Attribute
draft-ietf-idr-sla-exchange-07.txt
Abstract
Network administrators typically enforce Quality of Service (QoS)
policies according to Service Level Agreement (SLA) with their
providers. The enforcement of such policies often relies upon
vendor-specific configuration language. Both learning of SLA, either
thru SLA documents or via some other out-of-band method, and
translating them to vendor specific configuration language is a
complex, often manual, process and prone to errors.
This document specifies an optional transitive attribute to signal
SLA parameters in-band, across administrative boundaries (considered
as Autonomous Systems (AS)), thus simplifying and facilitating some
of the complex provisioning tasks in situations where BGP is
available as a routing protocol.
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 August 7, 2016.
Shah, et al. Expires August 7, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Inter-domain SLA Exchange February 2016
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
(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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. QoS Attribute Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. SLA, QoS attribute sub-type, Definition . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. SLA SubType Value Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. SLA-Content per Event Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.1. Supported IPFIX values for Classifier Elements . . . 12
3.3.2. Traffic Class Service TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. Originating SLA Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.1. SLA Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.1.1. SLA Advertisement for Point-to-Point Connection . . . 21
4.1.2. SLA Advertisement for Destination AS Multiple Hops
Away . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5. SLA Attribute Handling at Forwarding Nodes . . . . . . . . . 22
5.1. BGP Node Capable of Processing QoS Attribute . . . . . . 22
5.2. SLA Attribute Handling at Receiver . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7. Traffic Class Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Shah, et al. Expires August 7, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Inter-domain SLA Exchange February 2016
1. Introduction
Typically there is a contractual Service Level Agreement (SLA) for
QoS established between a customer and a provider or between
providers [RFC7297]. This QoS SLA defines the nature of the various
traffic classes and services needed within each traffic class. The
contract may include full line-rate or sub line-rate without
additional traffic classes, or it may contain additional traffic
classes and service definitions for those traffic classes. Finer
granular traffic classes may be based on some standard code points
(e.g., based on DSCP (Differentiated Services Code Point)) or
specific set of prefixes.
Once the contractual QoS SLA is established, QoS SLA parameters are
enforced in some or all participating devices by deriving those
parameters into configuration information on respective devices. The
network administrator translates the QoS SLA to QoS policies using
router (vendor) specific provisioning language. In a multi-vendor
network, translating SLAs into technology-specific and vendor-
specific configuration requires the network administrator to consider
specific configuration of each vendor. There does not exist any
standard protocol to translate SLA agreements into technical clauses
and configurations and thus both the steps of out of band learning of
negotiated SLA and provisioning them in a vendor specific language
can be complex and error-prone.
SLA parameters may have to be exchanged through organizational
boundaries, thru SLA documents or via some other off-band method, to
an administrator provisioning actual devices.
For example, to provide voice services, the provider may negotiate
QoS parameters (like min/max rates) for such traffic classified under
the EF (Expedited Forwarding) codepoint in Diffserv-enabled [RFC2475]
networks. The Administrator at the CE (Customer Edge) not only will
have to know that provider's service for voice traffic is EF-based
but will also have to know how to implement DSCP EF classification
rule along with Low Latency Service, and possibly min/max rate
enforcement for the optimal use of bandwidth, as per vendor specific
provisioning language.
The Inter-domain exchange of QoS SLA exchange policy described in
this document does not require any specific method for the provider
in establishing SLAs. It only requires that the provider wishes to
send the QoS SLA policy via BGP UPDATE [RFC4271] messages from the
provider to a set of receivers (BGP peers) who will enact the policy.
In reaction to, a receiving router may translate that to relevant QoS
policy definition on the device.
Shah, et al. Expires August 7, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Inter-domain SLA Exchange February 2016
This document defines a new optional transitive BGP QoS attribute
which has as one of its sub-types the SLA policy. The BGP speakers
of the originating AS send the BGP Attribute for prefixes this QoS
SLA Policy applies to in a BGP UPDATE message that will be
distributed to a list of destination ASes. The QoS SLA policy can be
for inbound traffic to the advertising AS or outbound traffic from
the advertising AS, or both.
The SLA negotiation and assurance is outside the scope of this
document. In the future, other sub-types of the QoS Attribute may
deal with QoS other than SLA Policy for traffic.
Protocols and data models are being created to standardize setting
routing configuration parameters within networks. YANG data models
[RFC6020] are being developed so that NETCONF ([RFC6241] or RESTConf
([I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf]) can set these standardized in
configuration mechanisms. For ephemeral state, the I2RS protocol is
being developed to set ephemeral state. While these protocol provide
valid configuration within a domain or across domains, some providers
desire to exchange QoS parameters in-band utilizing BGP peering
relationships. This is similar to the distribution of Flow
Specification information via BGP peering relationships (see
[RFC5575] and [RFC7674]).
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].
3. QoS Attribute Definition
The QoS Attribute is an optional transitive attribute (TBD -
attribute code to be assigned by IANA). SLA is defined as one of the
sub-types in the QoS attribute. The QoS attribute is only applicable
to the NLRIs advertised in the BGP UPDATE message this attribute is
included in.
Shah, et al. Expires August 7, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Inter-domain SLA Exchange February 2016
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Attr flag | Attr type QoS | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
~ ~
| QoS Attr length/Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+..........................
Attribute flags
highest order bit (bit 0) -
MUST be set to 1, since this is an optional attribute
2nd higher order bit (bit 1) -
MUST be set to 1, since this is a transitive attribute
Figure 1 - QoS BGP attribute
3.1. SLA, QoS attribute sub-type, Definition
The value field of the QoS Attribute contains the following:
QoS Attribute flags, and
Tuple of (SLA sub-type, length, value).
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| QoS Attr flags| subType | subtype Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~
| SubType-Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+.........................+
Figure 2 - Format of BGP QoS Attribute
QoS Attr flags 1 octet. All the bits are currently un-used. The
space is provided for future use. All bits MUST be set to zero
when sent. The values (0x01-0xFF) are reserved, and MUST be
ignored when received.
SubType 1 octet field with the following values:
0x00 = reserved
Shah, et al. Expires August 7, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Inter-domain SLA Exchange February 2016
0x01 = SLA
0x02 - 0x0f = reserved for future use (Standards Action)
SubType length - 2 octet field with length of sub-type value.
SubType Value variable length field containing information about:
sender and receiver(s), and SLA parameters described in
Section 3.2.
3.2. SLA SubType Value Field
The format of SubType Value field is shown in Figure 3.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 32-bit Source AS (Advertiser) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 32-bit Destination AS count |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| variable list of destination AS |
~ .... ~
| .... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Event | SLA id | SLA length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SLA-Content per SLA Event |
~ ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3 - The format of SLA SubType of the BGP QoS attribute
Source AS: 32-bit source AS number. This is the AS that is
advertising SLA
0 = ignore Source and Destination AS list from this value field
Note that AS = 0, used in message outside of QoS attribute, is
illegal in normal BGP operations. AS = 0 inside the QoS
attribute may be used simply as a flag to indicate to the
receiver to ignore Source and Destination AS list from inside
the QoS attribute.
Shah, et al. Expires August 7, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Inter-domain SLA Exchange February 2016
Destination AS count: 32-bit destination AS count to take variable
length AS list. This count has no functional value when Source AS
is 0.
0 = QoS attribute is relevant to every receiver of the message
Destination AS list:
32-bit destination AS number
....
.... [as many as AS count]
SLA Event:
4-bits with values
0x0 = reserved
0x1 = ADVERTISE
0x2 to 0xf - Reserved for future use
SLA Id: A 16-bit field containing identifier which is unique in
scope of source AS
The significance of an SLA identifier is in the context of the
source that is advertising SLA parameters. The SLA identifier
is not globally unique but it MUST be unique within the source
AS (advertiser).
If the advertised SLA id is different from earlier advertised
one, for the same prefix, previous SLA content MUST be replaced
with the new advertised one.
The SLA ID applies aggregate for all the traffic to prefixes
for a given AFI/SAFI that share same source AS and SLA id.
SLA Length: A 12-bit field indicating the length of SLA-Content.
The SLA-content is optional for each advertised SLA id. If the
SLA-content field does not exist, the SLA length field value is
zero.
SLA-Content per SLA Event: A variable length field (optional field).
If SLA field exists, it follows the format described in
Section 3.3.
Shah, et al. Expires August 7, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Inter-domain SLA Exchange February 2016
If the SLA-Content field does not exist in a BGP UPDATE message
that contains the QoS attribute with an SLA Sub-type, then
receiver MUST inherit the previously advertised SLA content for
the same SLA id from the same Source AS.
If there does not exist any prior SLA to relate to the
advertised SLA id, then receiver can ignore the SLA
advertisement and process the rest of the BGP message.
The lack of a valid prior SLA-Content field does not make this
attribute invalid, so the attribute MUST be forwarded as a
valid BGP optional transitive attribute.
3.3. SLA-Content per Event Field
The only event described below is ADVERTISE. The format of SLA-
Content for the ADVERTISE event is shown in Figure 4.
Shah, et al. Expires August 7, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Inter-domain SLA Exchange February 2016
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|dir| Traffic Class count | Class Desc Len| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~
| |
~ Traffic Class Description ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Elements Count| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~
| |
~ Traffic Class Elements (TLVs) ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Service Count| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~
| Traffic Class Service TLVs |
~ ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Repeat from Traffic Class Description for next Traffic Class ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Repeat from direction for SLA in the other direction ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4 - SLA-Content for event ADVERTISE
SLA-content contains set of Traffic Class Elements (Classifiers) and
Service TLVs for a list of Traffic Classes. This list of Traffic
Classes MUST be specified for one direction first and then optionally
followed by for the opposite direction.
dir (Direction): 2 bit field that indicates Direction of the SLA.
The following values are defined:
0x0 = reserved
0x1 = incoming, to source AS from destination AS
0x2 = outgoing, from source AS towards destination AS
0x3 = for future use
Shah, et al. Expires August 7, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Inter-domain SLA Exchange February 2016
Traffic Class (Classifier Group) count: 16 bit field with the count
of number of classifier groups. The value of zero (0x00)in this
field is a special value which invalidates previous advertised SLA
(if any exist).
Class Descr Len: 8 bit field that contains the length of the Traffic
Class Description field. The value of zero in this field
indicates that no Traffic Class Description field follows.
Traffic Class Description: The description field MUST carry UTF-8
encoded description.
Elements (Classifier) Count: 8 bit field containing the count of
traffic elements. The value zero (0x00) means there are no
elements in the traffic class, and thus the traffic class is to
classify rest of the traffic not captured otherwise by other
traffic classes in the set for a given direction.
It is RECOMMENDED that Traffic Class that has 0 elements is
present last in the advertised list of Traffic Classes.
If an advertised message has it positioned somewhere else, then
the receiver MUST re-order it, for the forwarding purpose, to
the last position in the advertised list of Traffic Classes
from a given source AS.
The QoS attribute advertised from a specific source MUST NOT
have more than one such Traffic Classes (Traffic Class with 0
elements count). If there are more than one such Traffic
Classes present then it is an error condition which should
follow handling of such BGP message as described in the Error
handling section.
Classifier Element TLVs: (optional) variable length field containing
as many TLVs specified by the Elements count field. Each TLV has
the following format:
IPFIX Element Identifier: (8 bit type field) IPFIX Identifiers
listed in Table 1.
Size of Value field: (8 bit field) - Indicates the length of
the value field.
Value: A variable field containing a value appropriate for the
IPFIX element. It is an error if the IPFix field does not
contain the appropriate format (see BGP error handling in
section 6). Only the IPFIX elements shown in Table 1 are
supported.
Shah, et al. Expires August 7, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Inter-domain SLA Exchange February 2016
Any Traffic Class element advertised in the QoS attribute only
applies to the NLRI advertised (AFI/SAFIs) within the BGP UPDATE
message the QoS attribute is contained in. If a receiver receives
a BGP UPDATE message with QoS/SLA attribute for an NLRI that it
does not support then the receiver MUST NOT install that
advertised SLA and continue to forward this attribute as an
optional transitive attribute.
Service Count: 8 bit count of Traffic Class Service TLVs following
this count. A value of zero is a special value indicating "no
bounded service" (a.k.a., Best Effort (BE)).
Traffic Class Service TLVs: (optional) variable length field with
the following format for the TLVs
Traffic Class Service type: 16-bit field which specifies a
service type. Each service type is detailed in Section 3.3.2.
The list of available service types are,
0x00 = reserved
0x01 = TRAFFIC_CLASS_TSPEC
0x02 = L2_OVERHEAD
0x03 = MINRATE_IN_PROFILE_MARKING
0x04 = MINRATE_OUT_PROFILE_MARKING
0x05 = MAXRATE_IN_PROFILE_MARKING
0x06 = MAXRATE_OUT_PROFILE_MARKING
0x07 = DROP_THRESHOLD
0x08 = RELATIVE_PRIORITY
0x09 = SUB_TRAFFIC_CLASSES
Length of value field: 08-bit field that specifies the size of
a value field to follow.
TRAFFIC_CLASS_TSPEC type has a fixed size length of a value.
It is 96 bits specifying Tspec described in Section 3.3.2.1.
L2_OVERHEAD type has a fixed size length of a value. It is
8 bits as described in Section 3.3.2.2.
Shah, et al. Expires August 7, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Inter-domain SLA Exchange February 2016
MINRATE_IN_PROFILE_MARKING type has a variable length value
(see Section 3.3.2.3).
MINRATE_OUT_PROFILE_MARKING type has a variable length value
(see Section 3.3.2.4).
MAXRATE_IN_PROFILE_MARKING type has a variable length value
(see Section 3.3.2.5).
MAXRATE_OUT_PROFILE_MARKING type has a variable length value
(see Section 3.3.2.6).
DROP_THRESHOLD type has a variable length value (see
Section 3.3.2.8).
RELATIVE_PRIORITY has a fixed size length of 4 bits
specifying the priority value. (see Section 3.3.2.9).
0x09 = SUB_TRAFFIC_CLASSES is a variable length field which
allows sub-classes to be specified under traffic classes
(see Section 3.3.2.10).
Value field: field containing value appropriate for one of the
Service Types. It is an error if this field does not contain
the appropriate format (see BGP error handling section for
details).
3.3.1. Supported IPFIX values for Classifier Elements
IPFIX [RFC7012] has well defined identifier set for a large number of
packet attributes; an IPFIX IANA registry maintains values for packet
classifier attributes (https://www.ietf.org/assignments/ipfix").
Only the IPFIX attributes listed in Table 1 are supported by BGP SLA
exchange. Any new attribute to be supported by SLA QOS MUST be added
by a Standards Action.
Shah, et al. Expires August 7, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Inter-domain SLA Exchange February 2016
+----+----------------------------+
| ID | Name |
+----+----------------------------+
|195 | ipDiffServCodePoint |
|203 | mplsTopLabelExp |
|244 | dot1qPriority |
| 8 | sourceIPv4Address |
| 27 | sourceIPv6Address |
| 9 | sourceIPv4PrefixLength |
| 29 | sourceIPv6PrefixLength |
| 44 | sourceIPv4Prefix |
|170 | sourceIPv6Prefix |
| 12 | destinationIPv4Address |
| 28 | destinationIPv6Address |
| 13 | destinationIPv4PrefixLength|
| 30 | destinationIPv6PrefixLength|
| 45 | destinationIPv4Prefix |
|169 | destinationIPv6Prefix |
| 4 | protocolIdentifier |
| 7 | sourceTransportPort |
| 11 | destinationTransportPort |
+----+----------------------------+
Table 1
3.3.2. Traffic Class Service TLVs
3.3.2.1. Traffic Class TSPEC TLV
The TRAFFIC_CLASS_TSPEC TLV consists of:
type = 0x01
length = 96 bits (12 octets) TSpec field
value = 96 bits, TRAFFIC_CLASS_TSPEC value consists of the (r),
(b), (p) parameters as described in Invocation Information section
of [RFC2212] and shown in Figure 5. Note that inheriting the
definition of TSpec here does not enable RFC2212 functionality.
Only the values of the Traffic Specification are used in this
specification.
Shah, et al. Expires August 7, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Inter-domain SLA Exchange February 2016
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Minimum Rate (r) (32-bit IEEE floating point number) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Burst Size (b) (32-bit IEEE floating point number) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Maximum Rate (p) (32-bit IEEE floating point number) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5 - Traffic Class TSPEC
Format of Parameters (r), (b) and (p): are 32-bit IEEE floating
point numbers. Positive infinity is represented as an IEEE single
precision floating-point number with an exponent of all ones and a
sign mantissa of all zeros. The format of IEEE floating-point
numbers is further summarized in [RFC4506].
Parameter (r): indicates min-rate of the traffic class. This rate
indicates the minimum rate, measured in octets of Layer 2 (L2)
datagrams per second, that the service advertiser is providing for
a given class of traffic on advertiser's hop. Note that it does
not necessarily translate to a minimum rate service to the
receiver of an SLA unless the traffic class definition clearly
represents a sole receiver of an SLA. If there is no SLA for min-
rate, the value of (r) MUST be set to 0.
Parameter (b): indicates maximum burst size, measured in octets of
L2 datagram size. Since queuing delay can be considered a
function of burst size (b) and min-rate (r), in presence of non-
zero parameter (r), parameter (b) represents bounded delay for the
Traffic Class. This delay is a single hop queuing delay when SLA
is to be implemented at the resource constrained bottleneck. In
other words this burst size can be considered as a buffer size.
Value of 0 for parameter (b) means the advertiser does not mandate
specific bounded delay.
Parameter (p): indicates max-rate of the traffic class. Just like
min-rate, max-rate, measured in octets of L2 packets per second,
field here also indicates service provided by advertiser. If
advertiser does not have any specific value to set for a given
class of traffic, it MAY be set to physical interface line rate or
any other indirect limit that may affect this class' maximum rate.
In absence of any such known value, it MUST be set to positive
infinity. Value 0 is considered an error.
Shah, et al. Expires August 7, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Inter-domain SLA Exchange February 2016
3.3.2.2. Traffic Class L2 Overhead
The L2_OVERHEAD traffic class consists of:
Type = 0x02 (L2_OVERHEAD)
Length = 1 octet
value = 8 bits, count of L2 overhead from sender in bytes
By default the packet rate and other packet size related parameters
advertised in an SLA include the L2 packet overhead. For the
receiver (of the SLA at next hop),this overhead is the L2 overhead of
the local link where advertised SLA is received.
However, in cases where advertised SLA is for a receiver multiple
hops away, L2 overhead from the source perspective may be different
from the local L2 overhead at the receiver. In such cases, the
explicit notification of size of L2 overhead from a sender is
necessary for the a receiver to be able to know the L2 overhead
required by the sender. When the receiver chooses to react to an
advertised SLA and if the L2 Overhead service type is present in
advertised SLA, the receiver MUST use the explicit advertised L2
overhead rather than the local L2 overhead.
If SLA is required to consider only IP packet size, the sender MAY
advertise this service with a value of 0.
3.3.2.3. Traffic Class for MINRATE_IN_PROFILE_MARKING
The MINRATE_IN_PROFILE_MARKING traffic class consists of:
Type = 0x03 = MINRATE_IN_PROFILE_MARKING
Length = 2 octets
Value:
Marking code-point type = 8 bits (1 octet) IPFIX Element
Identifier.
Marking code-point value = 8 bits (1 octet) code-point number.
The marking code-point type of 0x00 is a drop identifier; the length
in this case is zero.
The following table lists the supported IPFIX Identifiers:
Shah, et al. Expires August 7, 2016 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Inter-domain SLA Exchange February 2016
+----+----------------------------+
| ID | Name |
+----+----------------------------+
|195 | ipDiffServCodePoint |
|203 | mplsTopLabelExp |
|244 | dot1qPriority |
+----+----------------------------+
Table 2
3.3.2.4. Traffic Class for MINRATE_OUT_PROFILE_MARKING
The MINRATE_OUT_PROFILE_MARKING traffic class consists of:
Type = 0x04 = MINRATE_OUT_PROFILE_MARKING
Length = 2 octets
Value:
Marking code-point type = 8 bits (1 octet) IPFIX Element
Identifier.
Marking code-point value = 8 bits (1 octet) code-point number.
The marking code-point type of 0x00 is a drop identifier; the length
in this case is zero.
The following table lists the supported IPFIX Identifiers:
+----+----------------------------+
| ID | Name |
+----+----------------------------+
|195 | ipDiffServCodePoint |
|203 | mplsTopLabelExp |
|244 | dot1qPriority |
+----+----------------------------+
Table 3
3.3.2.5. Traffic Class for MAXRATE_IN_PROFILE_MARKING
The MAXRATE_IN_PROFILE_MARKING traffic class consists of:
Type = 0x05 = MAXRATE_IN_PROFILE_MARKING
Length = 2 octets
Shah, et al. Expires August 7, 2016 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Inter-domain SLA Exchange February 2016
Value:
Marking code-point type = 8 bits (1 octet) IPFIX Element
Identifier.
Marking code-point value = 8 bits (1 octet) code-point number.
The marking code-point type of 0x00 is a drop identifier; the length
in this case is zero.
The following table lists the supported IPFIX Identifiers:
+----+----------------------------+
| ID | Name |
+----+----------------------------+
|195 | ipDiffServCodePoint |
|203 | mplsTopLabelExp |
|244 | dot1qPriority |
+----+----------------------------+
Table 4
3.3.2.6. Traffic Class for MAXRATE_OUT_PROFILE_MARKING
The MAXRATE_OUT_PROFILE_MARKING traffic class consists of:
Type = 0x06 = MAXRATE_OUT_PROFILE_MARKING
Length = 2 octets
Value:
Marking code-point type = 8 bits (1 octet) IPFIX Element
Identifier.
Marking code-point value = 8 bits (1 octet) code-point number.
The marking code-point type of 0x00 is a drop identifier; the length
in this case is zero.
The following table lists the supported IPFIX Identifiers:
Shah, et al. Expires August 7, 2016 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Inter-domain SLA Exchange February 2016
+----+----------------------------+
| ID | Name |
+----+----------------------------+
|195 | ipDiffServCodePoint |
|203 | mplsTopLabelExp |
|244 | dot1qPriority |
+----+----------------------------+
Table 5
3.3.2.7. Precedence between MINRATE and MAXRATE
The precedence between MINRATE_IN_PROFILE_MARKING,
MINRATE_OUT_PROFILE_MARKING, MAXRATE_IN_PROFILE_MARKING, and
MAXRATE_OUT_PROFILE_MARKING when all four are advertised is:
o MINRATE_IN_PROFILE_MARKING takes highest precedence (that is over
MAXRATE_IN_PROFILE_MARKING),
o MAXRATE_IN_PROFILE_MARKING takes precedence over
MINRATE_OUT_PROFILE_MARKING, and
o MAXRATE_OUT_PROFILE_MARKING takes precedence over
MINRATE_OUT_PROFILE_MARKING
3.3.2.8. Traffic Class for DROP_THRESHOLD
The DROP_THRESHOLD traffic class consists of:
Type = 0x07 - DROP_THRESHOLD
Length = 1 octet that specifies total length of all set of drop
thresholds.
A set of drop threshold contains list of code-points of a specific
type sharing a threshold in unit of bytes. There MAY be more than
one set of such threshold for this Service Type per Traffic Class.
Value: number of set of thresholds and values in form of a sub-TLV
for each set.
Number of set of thresholds = 1 octet
sub-TLV for each set: Each sub-TLV specifies a code-point type/
values that the burst size is applicable to. The sub-TLV is in
the form of a (code-point type, value length, value) where
value = list of code-points + burst size in unit of bytes
applicable to that code-points.
Shah, et al. Expires August 7, 2016 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Inter-domain SLA Exchange February 2016
sub-TLV code point type = 8 bits (1 octet) IPFIX Element
Identifier from the list shown in Table 6.
sub-TLV Length = 1 octet that specifies total length for set
of code-points and burst size.
sub-TLV Value: variable length field with
sequence of code points - one code-point value specified
in 1 octet.
4 octets burst size - 32 bit (4 octets) IEEE Floating
point number.
+----+----------------------------+
| ID | Name |
+----+----------------------------+
|195 | ipDiffServCodePoint |
|203 | mplsTopLabelExp |
|244 | dot1qPriority |
+----+----------------------------+
Table 6
3.3.2.9. Traffic Class for Relative Priority
The RELATIVE_PRIORITY traffic class consists of:
Type = 0x08 - RELATIVE_PRIORITY
Length = 4 bits
Value:
A value from range of 0 - 15. Lower the value means higher the
priority.
Relative priority indicates scheduling priority of this traffic
class. Voice traffic, for example, which requires lowest latency
compared to any other traffic, may have lowest value advertised in
relative priority. For two different traffic classification groups
where one application group may be considered more important than the
other but from a scheduling perspective does not require to be
distinguished with a different priority, relative priority for those
classification groups may be advertised with the same value.
Shah, et al. Expires August 7, 2016 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Inter-domain SLA Exchange February 2016
3.3.2.10. Traffic Class for Sub-Traffic Classes
The SUB_TRAFFIC_CLASSES traffic class consists of:
Type = 0x09 - SUB_TRAFFIC_CLASSSES
length = the combined length of a set of traffic Class TLVs
included in a Sub-Traffic Classes grouping
value = sequence of traffic class TLVs
For SLAs where a specific Traffic Class may further have different
sub-services for a sub-group of Classifier Elements, this service
type SHOULD be used to further divide Traffic Class in multiple sub-
classes. Each sub-class is then defined with their own classifier
elements and service types.
4. Originating SLA Notification
The QoS attribute MUST only be added by the originator and MUST NOT
be added during BGP propagation.
BGP UPDATE message with the QoS Attribute carrying SLA parameters
SHOULD NOT be sent periodically just for the purpose of KEEPALIVE
between two points. Some sort of SLA policy change may be considered
as a trigger for the advertisement.
For any modified SLA parameters, the originator MUST re-advertise the
entire set of SLA parameters. There is no provision to advertise
partial set of parameters. To invalidate previously advertised SLA
parameters, a message MUST be sent with the same SLA id for the same
source with the Traffic Class count set to 0.
4.1. SLA Contexts
In certain cases, the advertisement of a QoS Attribute in a BGP
UPDATE message may relate to an SLA for aggregate traffic over a
point-to-point connection between a specific destination and a
specific source. A point-to-point connection may be the physical
link, that connects two BGP peers, or may be a virtual link (e.g. a
tunnel). In such cases, a BGP update message with source AS number
and NLRI prefix of source end-point can uniquely identify physical/
virtual link in order to establish the context for the advertised
SLA's for that point to point link.
In the simplest case where provider (e.g., PE) and Customer (e.g.,
CE) devices are directly connected via a physical link and have only
Shah, et al. Expires August 7, 2016 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Inter-domain SLA Exchange February 2016
a single link between them, the CE can uniquely identify the
forwarding link to PE with the following:
o AS number of the PE,
o NLRI prefix being an IP address of PE,
o next hop to CE (that is the next hop address from CE to PE).
The SLA advertised in the QoS attribute in the BGP UPDATE message
sent from the PE to a CE, along with the PE's AS number and IP
address, establishes SLA context for the aggregate traffic through
CE-to-PE link.
The SLA advertised in the QoS attribute in the BGP UPDATE message
from PE to CE, with PE's AS number and any other prefix establishes
SLA for that specific prefix's traffic as a subset of traffic under
CE-to-PE link.
Even though this example is in the context of IP prefixes, QoS
attribute's SLA exchange does not have to be limited to the IP
address family (IPv4 and IPv6). SLA advertisement is generic to all
forms of NLRI types that are supported by the BGP specification (like
IPv4, IPv6, VPN-IPv4, VPN-IPv6).
4.1.1. SLA Advertisement for Point-to-Point Connection
When BGP UPDATE message with the QoS Attribute with SLA is used to
advertise the QoS SLA for a point-to-point connection (physical or
logical), the next hop in the BGP message is used with the prefix of
the source end-point of the point to point connection.
The destination AS number in the QoS SLA attribute is typically set
to the AS of the BGP peer's IP-Address.
If the source AS number in the QoS SLA Attribute is set to zero, the
source AS and Destination AS fields in the QoS SLA attribute are
ignored. This occurs if the BGP peer is sending an UPDATE message
with the QOS SLA directly to a BGP peer (next-hop BGP peer).
4.1.2. SLA Advertisement for Destination AS Multiple Hops Away
When a BGP UPDATE message with a QoS SLA attribute is to be sent by a
BGP peer beyond next hop peer, the value of source AS in the QoS
attribute MUST be set by the originator of the UPDATE message. If
such an update is meant to be for a specific list of AS(es) as
receivers, then the list of destination AS(es) MUST be explicitly
Shah, et al. Expires August 7, 2016 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Inter-domain SLA Exchange February 2016
described in the QoS attribute message to avoid flooding of the QoS
attribute data in the network beyond those destinations.
If a new prefix is added in an AS for which SLA parameters have
already been advertised before for other existing prefixes, and if
traffic to this new prefix is subject to the same SLA advertised
earlier, then the BGP UPDATE for this new prefix may include QoS
attribute containing just an SLA id for an SLA id that was advertised
earlier. This BGP UPDATE message does not require to have the whole
SLA content. The SLA id is sufficient to relate SLA parameters to
new advertised prefixes.
5. SLA Attribute Handling at Forwarding Nodes
The propagation of the QoS Attribute in the BGP UPDATE depends on the
rules detailed in the following sub-sections for forwarding the QoS
Attribute.
5.1. BGP Node Capable of Processing QoS Attribute
If a BGP peer is capable of processing a QoS attribute in a BGP
UPDATE message, it MAY process the QoS attribute. If UPDATE has a
QoS Attribute with a list of destination ASes, it MAY trim the list
and adjust the count of the destination AS to exclude ones that are
not required in further announcement of BGP UPDATE messages.
BGP peer MUST drop SLA related sub-type from the QoS attribute, if
there are no more ASes from the QoS Attribute's destination list in
the forwarding path. The rest of the QoS attribute contents MAY be
forwarded if there exist other sub-types of QoS attribute and
forwarding rules meets other sub-types requirements. If there is no
other sub-types in the QoS attribute content then the node MUST drop
the entire QoS attribute all together. The other attributes and NLRI
information MAY be announced further if they meet rules defined by
other attributes and BGP specification.
Except extracting the entire SLA sub-type of the QoS attribute and
trimming the list of destination AS list, all other content MUST NOT
be modified by any intermediate receivers of the message.
5.2. SLA Attribute Handling at Receiver
Reception of and processing of advertised QoS SLA content are
optional for the receiver. While reacting to SLA advertisement in a
QoS attribute,
o the receiving BGP peer SHOULD invalidate previous advertised SLA
parameters if one exists for the same SLA id and source AS. If
Shah, et al. Expires August 7, 2016 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Inter-domain SLA Exchange February 2016
the new advertised SLA has a non-zero traffic count, then the new
advertised SLA SHOULD be installed. If new advertised SLA update
is with Traffic Class count 0, then no further action is required.
o When BGP UPDATE messages are triggered only as a result of SLA
policy change, BGP UPDATE message forwarding beyond intended BGP
peer receivers is not necessary. If the receiver device
implementation supports policy based filtering, then the receiver
MAY implement a policy to filter such messages based on the prefix
and attribute.
If QoS attribute with the SLA is advertised to the next hop BGP peer
who is a neighbor, the receiver MAY implement advertised SLA for the
whole link; the link could be a physical or virtual connected to the
neighbor. If the QoS Attribute with the SLA is advertised to a BGP
peer which is not the next hop neighbor, then receiver may establish
advertised SLA for that specific prefix list under the relevant link.
It is completely up to the receiver to decide for which prefixes it
should accept advertised SLA and for which ones it will not accept.
6. Error Handling
Error conditions, while processing of the QoS attribute, MUST be
handled with the approach of attribute-discard as described in
[RFC7606]. In such condition, the receiver SHOULD also cleanup any
previously installed SLA state for the same prefix.
7. Traffic Class Mapping
It is possible that forwarding methods used in two different ASes
could be different. For example, provider may tunnel a customer's IP
traffic thru an MPLS infrastructure. In such cases, the traffic
class definition for QoS services may differ between the ASes. For
the meaningful use of advertised SLA in such cases, the receiver is
required to map the remote traffic class to the local traffic class.
In the example given, traffic classification in Customer AS could be
IP Diffserv-based whereas traffic classification in Provider AS could
be MPLS TC-based. Thus for advertised MPLS TC-based SLA would
require to map traffic class from IP Diffserv-based to MPLS TC type
[RFC3270].
There are well-defined recommendations that exist for traffic class
mapping between two technologies (e.g. [RFC3270] maps between DSCP
and MPLS TC). Receiver MAY use those defined recommendations for
traffic class mapping or MAY define its own as per its network
Traffic Class service definition to map to advertised Traffic
Shah, et al. Expires August 7, 2016 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Inter-domain SLA Exchange February 2016
Classes. It is completely up to the receiver how to define such
traffic class mapping.
8. Deployment Considerations
One of the use cases is for a provider to advertise contracted SLA
parameters to a Customer Edge (CE) in cases where eBGP is deployed
between PE and CE. The SLA parameters may already be provisioned by
the provider on the PE device (facing CE). This provisioned SLA
parameters are then advertised thru proposed BGP QoS attribute to the
CE device. The CE device may read the attribute and SLA sub-type
content to implement the QoS policy on the device.
Contracted SLA from PE to CE may be full line-rate or sub line-rate
or finer granular controlled services. The advertised SLA can be
useful when contracted service is sub-rate of a link and/or when for
finer granular traffic classes that are controlled (e.g. voice, video
services may be capped to certain rate).
_______________
__________ / \
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
|CustomerSite|-----| Provider |
\ C/E P\E /
\__________/ \ /
\_______________/
AS 3 AS 2
SLA_ADVERTISE: AS2 to AS3
NLRI = PE ip address
Figure 6 - Example 1
Another use case can be to advertise SLAs among different network
sites within one Enterprise network. In Hub and Spoke deployments,
Administrator may define SLAs at spoke and advertise QoS SLA
parameters to the Hub thru BGP updates. In Figure 7, each spoke (AS1
and AS2) are connected to Hub (AS3) via a VPN tunnel. As shown in
Figure 7, AS2 can advertise SLA to AS3 in the context of that tunnel
ip address.
Shah, et al. Expires August 7, 2016 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Inter-domain SLA Exchange February 2016
AS 2
_______________ ________
/ \ / \
_____ / \-----| Spoke2 |
/ \ / \ \________/
| Hub |-----| Provider | ________
\______/ \ / / \
\ /-----| Spoke1 |
AS 3 \_______________/ \________/
AS 1
SLA_ADVERTISE: AS2 to AS3
NLRI = AS2 tunnel address
SLA_ADVERTISE: AS1 to AS3
NLRI = AS1 tunnel address
Figure 7 - Example 2
Deployment options are not limited to involving CEs, PE-to-CE or CE-
to-CE, only. For any contract between two providers, SLA parameters
may be advertised from one to the other.
9. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Fred Baker, David Black, Sue Hares and Benoit Claise for
their suggestions and to Christian Jacquenet, Ken Briley, Rahul
Patel, Fred Yip, Lou Berger, Brian Carpenter, Bertrand Duvivier,
Bruno Decraene for the review.
10. IANA Considerations
This document defines a new BGP optional transitive path attribute,
called QoS Attribute. IANA action is required to allocate a new
code-point in the BGP path Attributes registry.
IANA is requested to create a registry for QoS Attribute subTypes.
This is a registry of 1 octet value, to be assigned on a standards
action/early allocation basis. The initial assignments are:
QoS Attribute subTypes
============= ========
Reserved 0x00
SLA 0x01
Reserved 0x02-0xff (Standards Action)
Shah, et al. Expires August 7, 2016 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Inter-domain SLA Exchange February 2016
IANA is requested to create a registry for SLA Event Types. This is
a registry of 4-bits value, to be assigned on a standards action or
early allocation basis. The initial assignments are:
QoS Attribute SLA Event Types
============= ===============
Reserved 0x00
ADVERTISE 0x01
IANA is requested to create a registry to define QoS SLA Direction.
This is the direction in forwarding path, advertised QoS SLA is
applicable to. The values for QoS SLA direction are:
QoS SLA Direction Value
================= =====
Reserved 0x00
To source AS from destination AS 0x01
From source AS to destination AS 0x02
QoS SLA Traffic Class Element Types will be referring to existing
IPFIX IANA types as listed in Table 1.
IANA is requested to create a registry for QoS SLA Traffic Class
Service Types. This is a registry of 2 octet values, to be assigned
on a standards action/early allocation basis. The initial
assignments are:
Traffic Class Service Type Value
============================ ======
Reserved 0x00
TRAFFIC_CLASS_TSPEC 0x01
L2_OVERHEAD 0x02
MINRATE_IN_PROFILE_MARKING 0x03
MINRATE_OUT_PROFILE_MARKING 0x04
MAXRATE_IN_PROFILE_MARKING 0x05
MAXRATE_OUT_PROFILE_MARKING 0x06
DROP_THRESHOLD 0x07
RELATIVE_PRIORITY 0x08
SUB_TRAFFIC_CLASSES 0x09
Shah, et al. Expires August 7, 2016 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Inter-domain SLA Exchange February 2016
11. Security Considerations
The QOS attribute defined in this document SHOULD be used by the
managed networks for enforcing Quality of Service policies and so
there should not be any risks for identity thefts. To strengthen the
security for the QoS attribute, RPKI based origin validation
[RFC7115] MAY be used. In addition to the RPKI based origin
validation, BGP Path Validation (e.g., [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-
protocol]) procedures could be used over BGP QoS attribute and its
associated prefix in producing the digital signature that can be
carried within the signature SLA for the messages. This would help
prevent any man- in-the-middle attacks.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2212] Shenker, S., Partridge, C., and R. Guerin, "Specification
of Guaranteed Quality of Service", RFC 2212,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2212, September 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2212>.
[RFC3270] Le Faucheur, F., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S., Vaananen,
P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and J. Heinanen, "Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated
Services", RFC 3270, DOI 10.17487/RFC3270, May 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3270>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC4506] Eisler, M., Ed., "XDR: External Data Representation
Standard", STD 67, RFC 4506, DOI 10.17487/RFC4506, May
2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4506>.
[RFC7012] Claise, B., Ed. and B. Trammell, Ed., "Information Model
for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 7012,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7012, September 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7012>.
Shah, et al. Expires August 7, 2016 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Inter-domain SLA Exchange February 2016
[RFC7115] Bush, R., "Origin Validation Operation Based on the
Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)", BCP 185,
RFC 7115, DOI 10.17487/RFC7115, January 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7115>.
[RFC7606] Chen, E., Ed., Scudder, J., Ed., Mohapatra, P., and K.
Patel, "Revised Error Handling for BGP UPDATE Messages",
RFC 7606, DOI 10.17487/RFC7606, August 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7606>.
12.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf]
Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-09 (work in
progress), December 2015.
[I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol]
Lepinski, M., "BGPsec Protocol Specification", draft-ietf-
sidr-bgpsec-protocol-14 (work in progress), December 2015.
[RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
Services", RFC 2475, DOI 10.17487/RFC2475, December 1998,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2475>.
[RFC5575] Marques, P., Sheth, N., Raszuk, R., Greene, B., Mauch, J.,
and D. McPherson, "Dissemination of Flow Specification
Rules", RFC 5575, DOI 10.17487/RFC5575, August 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5575>.
[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
[RFC7297] Boucadair, M., Jacquenet, C., and N. Wang, "IP
Connectivity Provisioning Profile (CPP)", RFC 7297,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7297, July 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7297>.
Shah, et al. Expires August 7, 2016 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Inter-domain SLA Exchange February 2016
[RFC7674] Haas, J., Ed., "Clarification of the Flowspec Redirect
Extended Community", RFC 7674, DOI 10.17487/RFC7674,
October 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7674>.
Authors' Addresses
Shitanshu Shah
Cisco Systems
170 W. Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
US
Email: svshah@cisco.com
Keyur Patel
Cisco Systems
170 W. Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
US
Email: keyupate@cisco.com
Sandeep Bajaj
Juniper Network
1194 N. Mathilda Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
US
Email: sbajaj@juniper.net
Luis Tomotaki
Verizon
400 International
Richardson, TX 75081
US
Email: luis.tomotaki@verizon.com
Shah, et al. Expires August 7, 2016 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Inter-domain SLA Exchange February 2016
Mohamed Boucadair
Orange
Rennes
35000
France
Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Shah, et al. Expires August 7, 2016 [Page 30]