[Search] [txt|ps|pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00                                                            
Internet Draft                                               Shai Herzog
Expiration: December 1996                                        USC/ISI
File: draft-ietf-rsvp-policy-arch-00.txt

                  Accounting and Access Control Policies
                      Resource Reservation Protocols

                             June 12, 1996

Status of Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft.  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."

   To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the
   "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow
   Directories on ds.internic.net (US East Coast), nic.nordu.net
   (Europe), ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast), or munnari.oz.au (Pacific


   This memo provides insight into some possible generic approaches for
   policy enforcement in resource reservation protocols.  We present
   sample scenarios for each of these approaches as a way to demonstrate
   their feasibility, and to motivate the development of  supporting

Shai Herzog            Expiration: December 1996                [Page 1]

Internet Draft     Policies for Reservation Protocols          June 1996

1. Introduction

   Reservation protocols, by definition, discriminate between users, by
   providing some users with better service at the expense of others.
   Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that these protocols be
   accompanied by mechanisms for controlling and enforcing access and
   usage policies. In this document, we refer to such policies as
   "access control".  The term "access control" is quite broad; it
   ranges from simple access approval to sophisticated accounting and
   debiting mechanisms For scaling reasons, we concentrate on policies
   that follow the bilateral agreements model. The bilateral model
   assumes that network clouds (providers) contract with their closest
   point of contact (neighbor) to establish ground rules and
   arrangements for access control and accounting. These contracts are
   mostly local and do not rely on global agreements. The bilateral
   model has similar scaling properties to multicast and is easier to
   maintain in distributed environments.

   Throughout this document we would use the terms "reservation
   protocols" and RSVP interchangeably. However, the contents of this
   document should be interpreted as applying to similar resource
   reservation protocols as well.  The current admission process in RSVP
   uses resource (capacity) based admission control; we expand this
   model to include policy based admission control as well, in one
   atomic operation. Policy admission control is enforced locally at
   border/policy nodes (also see~[HER96a]).  Policy nodes are responsible
   for receiving, processing, and forwarding POLICY_DATA objects.  Subject
   to the applicable bilateral agreements, and local policies, policy
   nodes may also rewrite and modify the POLICY_DATA objects as the pass
   through policy nodes.

   In this document, we outline a few sample scenarios for access
   control and accounting; we provide these scenarios as motivation and
   as needed context for the development of policy control architectures
   for resource reservation protocols.  These scenarios are based on two
   simple assumptions: (1) RSVP  provides the needed transport service
   of carrying access control state (POLICY_DATA objects), hop-by-hop.
   (2) Access control policies are enforced locally, and can be based,
   among other factors, on bilateral agreements between neighboring
   providers, local policies and the contents of POLICY_DATA objects.

2. Simple access control

   To provide simple access control, the local node attempts to match
   incoming policy objects with one or more of the pre-configured
   policies or bilateral agreements, in order to accept or reject the

Shai Herzog            Expiration: December 1996                [Page 2]

Internet Draft     Policies for Reservation Protocols          June 1996

   Consider the following network scenario: one receiver from ISI and
   two from MIT listen to a PARC seminar. For simplicity of the
   scenario, let us limit ourselves to a receiver based access control

          ...........                  .............
         .    *ba*   .   *ba*         .             .
         . S1------->A--------------->B---+ *mc*    .
         .           .                .   |         .
          ...........                  ...C.........
           PARC                          /  BARRNet
                                   *mc* /
         ........        .............D.....         ........
        .        .      .    *ln+ne* /      .       .        .
        .   *is* . *ln* .           /       . *ne*  . *mi*   .
        .   +----G------F<--------E-------->J------->K----+  .
        .   |    .       .  *ln*     *ne*  .|        .    |  .
         ...H....         ................. |         ....L...
      Los   |                 MCINet        |             | Near
      Nettos| *is*                    *sp* /         *mi* | Net
     .......I....                         /        .......M...
    .       |    .                 ......N..      .*r2*/ \*r3*.
    .   *r1*|    .                .  *r4*|  .     .   /   \   .
    .       R1   .                .      R4 .     .  R2   R3  .
     ............                  .........       ...........
        ISI                         Sprint             MIT


    *xx* Credential
    .... Cloud border
    A..N Nodes
    Si   Sender i
    Ri   Receiver i

                      Figure 1: Simple access control

   The bilateral agreements between each two neighboring providers
   (e.g., R1, R2 with ISI, ISI with LosNettos,... BARRNet with PARC) are
   simple: the first provider obtains a permission to make reservations
   over the second provider's network. The notation PD(cr,uid)
   represents a policy data object of type "cr" (credential) verifying
   that the flow belongs to uid. Credentials can be hierarchical, and
   may be rewritten on a hop by hop basis through a locally configured

Shai Herzog            Expiration: December 1996                [Page 3]

Internet Draft     Policies for Reservation Protocols          June 1996

   conversion table.

   Figure  illustrates a reservation scenario. An typical example of a
   bilateral agreement could be between MCI and LosNettos: MCI would
   allow the LosNettos users to use its backbone. A policy data object
   PD(cr, LosNettos) would be interpreted by MCI as a green light to
   accept the reservation. In this scenario, reservations from R1, R2,
   R3 carry policy data objects that propagate hop-by-hop (encapsulated
   in reservation messages) toward S1.  Assuming all nodes are
   configured consistently, policy objects are rewritten in nodes
   B,D,G,I,K,M, which are entry points to clouds).

   The MCI cloud is interesting. E is not a border/policy node, but
   still, it receives the following policy data objects: F->E:
   PD(cr,LosNettos) and J->E: PD(cr,NearNet).  Assuming E has no
   authority to merge or rewrite these credentials, it must concatenate
   the two objects and send PD(cr,LosNettos) + PD(cr,NearNet) to D. Let
   us further assume that D is configured with the following conversion

   PD(cr, LosNettos)   ->   PD(cr, MCI)
   PD(cr, NearNet)     ->   PD(cr, MCI)

   Node D first checks if LosNettos and NearNet are authorized to
   reserve on their corresponding links and responds accordingly.
   Assuming authorization is cleared, it merges and rewrites these
   policy objects as PD(cr, MCI) and forwards the reservation to C.

   To complicate the example, assume the conversion table was:

   PD(cr, LosNettos)   ->   PD(cr, MCI1)
   PD(cr, NearNet)     ->   PD(cr, MCI2)

   Then node D would forward PD(cr, MCI1) + PD(cr, MCI2) to C instead.

   Local policies can also reject reservations:

   In figure  we see that a reservation made by R4 is rejected because
   it arrives with insufficient credentials: the local policy in node J
   accepts only traffic marked as PD(cr, NearNet), and R4's reservation
   arrives with PD(cr, Sprint).

3. Advanced reservation and preemption control

   Advanced reservation can be built on top of simple access control:
   consider the case where every advanced reservation consists of a set
   of bilateral agreements between different service providers,
   reserving network capacity at some future period of time. When

Shai Herzog            Expiration: December 1996                [Page 4]

Internet Draft     Policies for Reservation Protocols          June 1996

   advanced reservations are not public (i.e., only authorized users can
   use them), three classes of reservations exist: (1) walk-ins (where
   the conference itself does not have advanced reservations, (2)
   advanced reservation with unauthorized users, and (3) advanced
   reservation with authorized users. These numbers (1..3) can define a
   "preemption priority" (i.e., walk-ins are preempted first,
   unauthorized pre-reserved second, and authorized pre-reserved are
   never preempted).

   The advanced reservation scenario is almost identical to the simple
   access control: let us assume that each bilateral pre-registration is
   identified by a PRID (Pre-Registration confirmation ID). Policy data
   objects of type AR (Advanced Reservation) would take the following
   form: PD(ar, prid ,uid). When an AR object arrives, the local node
   verifies the existence of pre-reservation prid, and checks that uid
   is permitted to use it. Finally, the flow is classified to one of the
   above three preemptive priorities and RSVP is notifies.

4. Quota enforcement/accounting/debiting

   The next step is to allow for more sophisticated access control that
   is based on usage feedback. Here we add two additional mechanisms
   which (1) determine how much should be debited for a reservation and
   (2) what debiting mechanism should be used (if any).  The following
   scenarios assume a pre-existing set of local accounts. These accounts
   are established by bilateral agreements that pre-purchase network
   capacity and set applicable debiting rules.  The role of accounting
   mechanism is to verify the availability of funds/quotas in these
   accounts for maintaining the reservation.  We consider several
   accounting schemes and briefly describe three: simple debiting,
   limited debiting, Edge Pricing, and MultiCost (MCost).

Simple debiting

   Consider the following example: lets assume that LosNettos and
   Nearnet each have a debit account (pre-purchased capacity) with MCI
   for their traffic. When node E receives the following
   PD(cr,LosNettos) and PD(cr,NearNet) for flow f, it must decide the
   following: (1) How much should be debited for flow f, and (2) how
   would that debit be shared between the account of LosNettos and
   NearNet. These are local configuration issues left for service
   providers. In this scenario, the local node would attempt to perform
   the debiting, and would notify RSVP on success or failure. The other
   aspects of the scenario (Merging policy data objects and forwarding
   them) is identical to that of simple access control.

Limited debiting (willingness to pay)

Shai Herzog            Expiration: December 1996                [Page 5]

Internet Draft     Policies for Reservation Protocols          June 1996

   Although we do not have a full understanding of the dynamics of
   willingness-to-pay and its properties, we can outline the basic
   scenario, as an extension of the simple debiting model.  Willingness
   to pay is manifested as a limit on the policy object that authorizes
   the debit. For instance, PD(crwp,ISI,10% of unicast) would represent
   a policy data object of type crwp (Credential, Willingness to Pay),
   that authorizes debiting the ISI account up to 10% of the unicast
   cost. Here, the basic idea is that market forces would be the driving
   force behind what users specify as their willingness to pay.

Edge Pricing

   Edge Pricing was presented in [SHE95]. This paradigm is based on the
   assumption that network costs can be estimated and approximated at
   the edge of the network, based on purely local information. Edge
   Pricing is an extension of simple debiting: Edge Pricing can
   determine how much is to be debited, and the set of credentials
   associated with the reservation determines who (which account) should
   be debited.

MultiCost (MCost)

   MCost is an accounting scheme (and mechanism) that was introduced in
   [HER95].  MCost has a unique feature: it takes into account the benefits
   of sharing a multicast tree and distributes these savings among the
   members of the multicast group, according to configurable policies,
   basic fairness, and equality.

   MCost computes the cost allocated to each user, and that cost can be
   the basis for debiting. MCost can be combined with simple debiting in
   a similar manner to Edge Pricing.

5. Acknowledgment

   This document incorporates inputs from Deborah Estrin, Scott Shenker
   and Bob Braden and feedback from RSVP collaborators.


[HER95]  S. Herzog, S. Shenker and D. Estrin, Sharing the Cost of
    Multicast Trees: An Axiomatic Analysis, "Proceedings of ACM/SIGCOMM
    '95", Cambridge, MA, Aug. 1995

[HER96a]  Local Policy Modules (LPM): Policy Enforcement for Resource
    Reservation Protocols. "Internet-Draft", draft-ietf-rsvp-policy-

[SHE95]  S. Shenker, D. Clark, D. Estrin, and S. Herzog Pricing in

Shai Herzog            Expiration: December 1996                [Page 6]

Internet Draft     Policies for Reservation Protocols          June 1996

    Computer Networks: Reshaping the Research Agenda,
    "Telecommunications Policy", Vol. 20, No. 1, 1996 also published in
    "Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Telecommunications Policy
    Research Conference", 1995.

Shai Herzog            Expiration: December 1996                [Page 7]