Internet Engineering Task Force Ken Carlberg
INTERNET DRAFT G11
Sept 21, 2004
Emergency Telecommunications Services (ETS) Requirements
for a Single Administrative Domain
<draft-ietf-ieprep-domain-req-02.txt>
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of [rfc3668].
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.
For potential updates to the above required-text see:
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt
Abstract
This document presents a list of requirements in support of Emergency
Telecommunications Service (ETS) within a single administrative
domain. This document is an extension of the General Requirements of
[rfc3689] and focuses on a more specific set of administrative
constraints and scope. Solutions to these requirements are not
presented in this document.
1. Introduction
The objective of this document is to define a set of requirements
that support ETS within a single domain. There have been a number of
discussions in the IEPREP mailing list, as well as working group
meetings, that have questioned the utility of a given mechanism to
support ETS. Many have advocated overprovisioning, while others have
favored specific schemas to provide a quantifiable measure of
Carlberg Expires March 21, 2005 [Page 1]
Internet Draft ETS Domain Requirements Sept 21, 2004
service. One constant in these discussions is that the
administrative control of the resources plays a significant role in
the effectiveness of any proposed solution. Specifically, if one
administers a set of resources, a wide variety of approaches can be
deployed upon that set. However, once the approach crosses an
administrative boundary, its effectiveness comes into question, and
at a minimum requires cooperation and trust from other administrative
domains. To avoid this question, we constrain our scenario to the
resources within a single domain.
The following provides an explanation of some key terms used in this
document.
Resource: A resource can be a viewed from the general level as IP
nodes such as a router or host as well as the physical media
(e.g., fiber) used to connect them. A host can also be referred
to in more specific terms as a client, server, or proxy.
Resources can also be viewed more specifically in terms of the
elements within a node (e.g., CPU, buffer, memory). However,
this document shall focus its attention at the node level.
Domain: This term has been used in many ways. We constrain its
usage in this document to the perspective of the network layer,
and view it as being synonymous with an administrative domain.
A domain may span large geographic regions and may consist of
many types of physical subnetworks.
Administrative Domain: The collection of resources under the
control of a single administrative authority. This authority
establishes the design and operation of a set of resources
(i.e., the network).
Transit Domain: This is an administrative domain used to forward
traffic from one domain to another. An Internet Service Provider
(ISP) is an example of a transit domain.
Stub Domain: This is an administrative domain that is either the
source or the destination of a flow of IP packets. As a general
rule, it does not forward traffic that is destined for other
domains. The odd exception to this statement is the case of
Mobile IP and its use of "dog-leg" routing to visiting hosts
located in foreign networks. An enterprise network is an example
of a stub domain.
1.1 Previous Work
A list of General Requirements for support of ETS is presented in
[2]. The document articulates requirements when considering the
Carlberg Expires March 21, 2005 [Page 2]
Internet Draft ETS Domain Requirements Sept 21, 2004
broad case of supporting ETS over the Internet. Since that document
is not constrained to specific applications, administrative
boundaries, or scenarios, the requirements contained within it tend
to be quite general in their description and scope. This follows the
philosophy behind its inception in that the General Requirements are
meant to be a baseline followed (if necessary) by more specific
requirements that pertain to a more narrow scope.
The requirements presented below in Section 3 are representative of
the more narrow scope of a single adminstrative domain. As in the
case of [rfc3689], the requirements articulated in this document
represent aspects to be taken into consideration when solutions are
being designed, specified, and deployed. Key words such as "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].
2. Scope
IETF standards that cover the resources within an administrative
domain are within the scope of this document. This includes
gateways, routers, servers, etc., that are located and administered
within the domain. This document also does not restrict itself to a
specific type of application such as Voice over IP.
QoS mechanisms are also within the scope of this document. These
mechanisms may reside at the application, transport, or IP network
layer. While QoS mechanisms may exist at the link/physical layer,
this document would only consider potential mappings of labels or
code points.
Finally, since this document focuses on a single administrative
domain, we do not make any further distinction between transit and
stub domains within this document.
2.1 Out of Scope:
Resources owned or operated by other administrative authorities are
outside the scope of this document. One example are SIP servers that
operate in other domains. Another example are access links
connecting the stub domain and its provider. Controling only 1/2 of
a link (the egress traffic from the stub) is considered insufficient
for including inter-domain access links as a subject for this
document.
3. Requirements
It must be understood that all of the following requirements pertain
Carlberg Expires March 21, 2005 [Page 3]
Internet Draft ETS Domain Requirements Sept 21, 2004
to mechanisms chosen by a domain's administrative authority to
specifically support ETS. If that authority chooses not to support
ETS or if these mechanisms exist within the domain exclusively for a
different purpose, then the associated requirement does not apply.
3.1 Label Mechanisms
Application or transport layer label mechanisms used for ETS MUST be
extensible such that they can support more than one label. These
mechanism MUST avoid a single off/on type of label (e.g., a single
bit). In addition, designers of such a mechanism MUST assume that
there may be more than one set of ETS users.
Network layer label mechanisms used for ETS SHOULD be extensible such
that they can support more than one label. We make this distinction
in requirements because there may be fewer bits (a smaller field)
available at the network layer than in the transport or application
layer.
3.2 Proxies
Proxies MAY set ETS labels on behalf of the source of a flow. This
may involve removing labels that have been set by upstream node(s).
If proxies take such action, then the security measures discussed in
[2] MUST be considered. More discussion about security in the single
domain context is discussed in section 5.
3.3 QoS mechanisms
Quality of Service (QoS) mechanisms, at either the network or
application layer, SHOULD be used when networks cannot be
overprovisioned to satisfy high bursts of traffic load. Examples can
involve bridging fiber networks to wireless subnetworks, or remote
subnetworks connected over expensive bandwidth constrained wide area
links.
Note well. Over-provisioning is a normal cost-effective practice
amongst network administrators/engineers. The amount of
overprovisioning can be a topic of debate. More indepth discussion
on this topic is presented in the companion Framework document of
[frame].
3.4 Users
Any application layer label mechanisms used to support ETS MUST be
capable of supporting both the set of ETS and non-ETS (presumably,
normal) users.
Carlberg Expires March 21, 2005 [Page 4]
Internet Draft ETS Domain Requirements Sept 21, 2004
3.5 Policy
Policy MUST be used to determine the percentage of resources of a
mechanism used to support the various (ETS and non-ETS) users. Under
certain conditions, this percentage MAY reach 100% for a specific set
of users. However, we recommend that this "all-or-nothing" approach
be considered with great care.
3.6 Discovery
There should be a means of forwarding ETS labeled flows to those
mechanisms within the domain used to support ETS. Discovery
mechanisms SHOULD be used to determine where ETS labeled flows
(either data or control) are to be forwarded.
3.8 MIB
Management Information Bases (MIBs) SHOULD be defined for mechanisms
specifically in place to support ETS. These MIBs MAY include objects
representing accounting, policy, authorization.
4. Issues
This section presents issues that arise in considering solutions for
the requirements that have been defined for Stub Domains that support
ETS. This section does not specify solutions nor is it to be
confused with requirements. Subsequent documents that articulate a
more specific set of requirements for a particular service may make a
statement about the following issues.
4.1 Alternative Services
The form of the service provided to ETS users and articulated in the
form of policies may be realized in one of several forms. Better
than best effort is probably the service that most ETS users would
expect when the communication system is stressed and overall quality
has degraded. However, the concept of best available service should
also be considered under such stressed conditions. Further, a
measure of degraded service may also be desirable to ensure a measure
of communication versus none. These services may be made available
at the network or application layer.
4.2 "Emergency"
The ITU has migrated away from the term "emergency" and ETS because
Carlberg Expires March 21, 2005 [Page 5]
Internet Draft ETS Domain Requirements Sept 21, 2004
of legal ramifications within the U.K. Apparantly, there is a legal
expectation when the term "emergency" is used as a service. Hence,
the ITU is currently using the term Telecommunications for Disaster
Relief (TDR). Legal issues such as this are outside the scope of
this document and the IETF. However, to provide a bridge of
understanding, the reader can assume that ETS within the IETF is
synonymous with TDR in the ITU -- each involving authorized use of a
service that attempts to compensate for stressed conditions of
resources.
4.3 Redundancy
The issue of making network fault tolerant is important and yet not
one that can be easily articulated in terms of requirements.
Redundancy in connectivity and nodes (be it routers or servers) is
probably the most common approach taken by network adminstrators, and
it can be assumed that administrative domains apply this approach in
various degrees to there own resources.
5. Security Considerations
This document recommends that readers reviews and follows the
comments & requirements about security presented in [2]. Having said
that, there tends to be many instances where intra-domain security is
held at a lower standard (i.e., less stringent) that inter-domain
security. For example, while administrators may allow telnet service
between resources within an administrative domain, they would only
allow SSH access from other domains.
The disparity in security policy can be problematic when domains
offer services other than best effort for ETS users. Therefore, any
support within a domain for ETS should be accompanied by a detailed
security policy for users and administrators.
6. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Ran Atkinson, James Polk, and Ian Brown for comments on an
initial version of this draft.
7. References
7.1 Normative Reference
[rfc3668] Bradner, S., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
technology", BCP 79, RFC 3668, February 2004
Carlberg Expires March 21, 2005 [Page 6]
Internet Draft ETS Domain Requirements Sept 21, 2004
7.2 Informative References
[rfc3689] Carlberg, K., Atkinson, R., "General Requirements for
Emergency Telecommunications Service", RFC3689
Feb 2004
[rfc2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[frame] Carlberg, K., "A Framework for Supporting ETS in Stub
Domains", Internet Draft, Work in Progress,
draft-ieprep-domain-frame-02.txt, June 2003.
8. IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3668.
9. Author's Addresses
Ken Carlberg
G11
123a Versailles Circle
Baltimore, MD
USA
carlberg@g11.org.uk
Full 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.
Disclamer
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.
Carlberg Expires March 21, 2005 [Page 7]
