TSVWG F. Le Faucheur
Internet-Draft J. Polk
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco
Expires: October 13, 2008 K. Carlberg
G11
April 11, 2008
Resource ReSerVation Protovol (RSVP) Extensions for Emergency Services
draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp-07.txt
Status of this Memo
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 becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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.
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 13, 2008.
Abstract
An Emergency Telecommunications Service (ETS) requires the ability to
provide an elevated probability of session establishment to an
authorized user in times of network congestion (typically, during a
crisis). When supported over the Internet Protocol suite, this may
be facilitated through a network layer admission control solution,
which supports prioritized access to resources (e.g., bandwidth).
These resources may be explicitly set aside for emergency services,
or they may be shared with other sessions.
This document specifies RSVP extensions that can be used to support
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires October 13, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services April 2008
such an admission priority capability at the network layer. Note
that these extensions represent one possible solution component in
satisfying ETS requirements. Other solution components, or other
solutions, are outside the scope of this document.
Requirements Language
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Related Technical Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Overview of RSVP extensions and Operations . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Operations of Admission Priority . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. New Policy Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Admission Priority Policy Element . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.1. Admission Priority Merging Rules . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2. Application-Level Resource Priority Policy Element . . . . 10
3.2.1. Application-Level Resource Priority Modifying and
Merging Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3. Default Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1. Use of RSVP Authentication between RSVP nighbors . . . . . 13
4.2. Use of INTEGRITY object within the POLICY_DATA object . . 13
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix A. Examples of Bandwidth Allocation Model for
Admission Priority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A.1. Admission Priority with Maximum Allocation Model (MAM) . . 18
A.2. Admission Priority with Russian Dolls Model (RDM) . . . . 22
A.3. Admission Priority with Priority Bypass Model (PrBM) . . . 25
Appendix B. Example Usages of RSVP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . 28
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 32
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires October 13, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services April 2008
1. Introduction
[RFC3689] and [RFC3690] detail requirements for an Emergency
Telecommunications Service (ETS), which is an umbrella term
identifying those networks and specific services used to support
emergency communications. An underlying goal of these documents is
to present requirements that elevate the probability of session
establishment from an authorized user in times of network congestion
(presumably because of a crisis condition). In some extreme cases,
the requirement for this probability may reach 100%, but that is a
topic subject to policy and most likely local regulation (the latter
being outside the scope of this document).
Solutions to meet this requirement for elevated session establishment
probability may involve session layer capabilities prioritizing
access to resources controlled by the session control function. As
an example, entities involved in session control (such as SIP user
agents, when the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261], is the
session control protocol in use) can influence their treatment of
session establishment requests (such as SIP requests). This may
include the ability to "queue" call requests when those can not be
immediately honored (in some cases with the notion of "bumping", or
"displacement", of less important call request from that queue). It
may include additional mechanisms such as exemption from certain
network management controls, and alternate routing.
Solutions to meet the requirement for elevated session establishment
probability may also take advantage of network layer admission
control mechanisms supporting admission priority. Networks usually
have engineered capacity limits that characterize the maximum load
that can be handled (say, on any given link) for a class of traffic
while satisfying the quality of service requirements of that traffic
class. Admission priority may involve setting aside some network
resources (e.g. bandwidth) out of the engineered capacity limits for
the emergency services only. Or alternatively, it may involve
allowing the emergency related sessions to seize additional resources
beyond the engineered capacity limits applied to normal calls.
Note: Below, this document references several examples of IP
telephony and its use of "calls", which is one form of the term
"sessions" (Video over IP and Instant Messaging being other examples
that rely on session establishment). For the sake of simplicity, we
shall use the widely known term "call" for the remainder of this
document.
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires October 13, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services April 2008
1.1. Related Technical Documents
[RFC4542] is patterned after [ITU.I.225] and describes an example of
one type of prioritized network layer admission control procedure
that may be used for emergency services operating over an IP network
infrastructure. It discusses initial call set up, as well as
operations after call establishment through maintenance of a
continuing call model of the status of all calls. [RFC4542] also
describes how these network layer admission control procedures can be
realized using the Resource reSerVation Protocol [RFC2205] along with
its associated protocol suite and extensions, including those for
policy based admission control ([RFC2753], [RFC2750]), for user
authentication and authorization ([RFC3182]) and for integrity and
authentication of RSVP messages ([RFC2747], [RFC3097]). The Diameter
QoS Application ([I-D.ietf-dime-diameter-qos]) allows network
elements to interact with Diameter servers when allocating QoS
resources in the network and thus, is also a possible method for
authentication and authorization of RSVP reservations in the context
of emergency services.
[RFC4542] describes how the RSVP Signaled Preemption Priority Policy
Element specified in [RFC3181] can be used to enforce the call
preemption that may be needed by some emergency services. In
contrast to [RFC4542], this document specifies new RSVP extensions to
increase the probability of call completion without preemption.
Engineered capacity techniques in the form of bandwidth allocation
models are used to satisfy the "admission priority" required by an
RSVP capable ETS network. In particular this document specifies two
new RSVP Policy Elements allowing the admission priority to be
conveyed inside RSVP signaling messages so that RSVP nodes can
enforce selective bandwidth admission control decision based on the
call admission priority. Appendix A of this document also provides
examples of bandwidth allocation models which can be used by RSVP-
routers to enforce such admission priority on every link.
1.2. Terminology
This document assumes the terminology defined in [RFC2753]. For
convenience, the definition of a few key terms is repeated here:
o Policy Decision Point (PDP): The point where policy decisions are
made.
o Local Policy Decision Point (LPDP): PDP local to the network
element.
o Policy Enforcement Point (PEP): The point where the policy
decisions are actually enforced.
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires October 13, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services April 2008
o Policy Ignorant Node (PIN): A network element that does not
explicitly support policy control using the mechanisms defined in
[RFC2753].
2. Overview of RSVP extensions and Operations
Let us consider the case where a call requiring ETS type service is
to be established, and more specifically that the preference to be
granted to this call is in terms of network layer "admission
priority" (as opposed to preference granted through preemption of
existing calls). By "admission priority" we mean allowing that
priority call to seize network layer resources from the engineered
capacity that have been set-aside and not made available to normal
calls, or alternatively by allowing that call to seize additional
resources beyond the engineered capacity limits applied to normal
calls.
As described in [RFC4542], the session establishment can be
conditioned to resource-based and policy-based network layer
admission control achieved via RSVP signaling. In the case where the
session control protocol is SIP, the use of RSVP-based admission
control by SIP is specified in [RFC3312].
Devices involved in the session establishment are expected to be
aware of the application-level priority requirements of emergency
calls. Again considering the case where the session control protocol
is SIP, the SIP user agents can be made aware of the resource
priority requirements in the case of an emergency call using the
Resource-Priority Header mechanism specified in [RFC4412]. The end-
devices involved in the upper-layer session establishment simply need
to copy the application-level resource priority requirements (e.g. as
communicated in SIP Resource-Priority Header) inside the new RSVP
Application-Level Resource-Priority Policy Element defined in this
document.
Conveying the application-level resource priority requirements inside
the RSVP message allows this application level requirement to be
mapped/remapped into a different RSVP "admission priority" at every
administrative domain boundary based on the policy applicable in that
domain. In a typical model (see [RFC2753]) where PDPs control PEPs
at the periphery of the policy domain (e.g., in border routers), PDPs
would interpret the RSVP Application-Level Resource-Priority Policy
Element and map the requirement of the emergency session into an RSVP
"admission priority" level. Then, PDPs would convey this information
inside the new Admission Priority Policy Element defined in this
document. This way, the RSVP admission priority can be communicated
to downstream PEPs (ie RSVP Routers) of the same policy domain, which
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires October 13, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services April 2008
have LPDPs but no controlling PDP. In turn, this means the necessary
RSVP Admission priority can be enforced at every RSVP hop, including
all the (many) hops which do not have any understanding of
Application-Level Resource-Priority semantics.
As an example of operation across multiple administrative domains, a
first domain might decide to provide network layer admission priority
to calls of a given Application Level Resource Priority and map it
into a high RSVP admission control priority inside the Admission
Priority Policy Element; while a second domain may decide to not
provide admission priority to calls of this same Application Level
Resource Priority and hence map it into a low RSVP admission control
priority.
As another example of operation across multiple administrative
domains, we can consider the case where the resource priority header
enumerates several namespaces, as explicitly allowed by [RFC4412],
for support of scenarios where calls traverse multiple administrative
domains using different namespace. In that case, the relevant
namespace can be used at each domain boundary to map into an RSVP
Admission priority for that domain. It is not expected that the RSVP
Application-Level Resource-Priority Header Policy Element would be
taken into account at RSVP-hops within a given administrative domain.
It is expected to be used at administrative domain boundaries only in
order to set/reset the RSVP Admission Priority Policy Element.
The existence of pre-established inter-domain policy agreements or
Service Level Agreements may avoid the need to take real-time action
at administrative domain boundaries for mapping/remapping of
admission priorities.
Mapping/remapping by PDPs may also be applied to boundaries between
various signaling protocols, such as those advanced by the NSIS
working group.
As can be observed, the framework described above for mapping/
remapping application level resource priority requirements into an
RSVP admission priority can also be used together with [RFC3181] for
mapping/remapping application level resource priority requirements
into an RSVP preemption priority (when preemption is indeed needed).
In that case, when processing the RSVP Application-Level Resource-
Priority Policy Element, the PDPs at boundaries between
administrative domains (or between various QoS signaling protocols)
can map it into an RSVP "preemption priority" information. This
Preemption priority information comprises a setup preemption level
and a defending preemption priority level. This preemption priority
information can then be encoded inside the Preemption Priority Policy
Element of [RFC3181] and thus, can be taken into account at every
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires October 13, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services April 2008
RSVP-enabled network hop as discussed [RFC4542]. Appendix B provides
examples of various hypothetical policies for emergency call
handling, some of them involving admission priority, some of them
involving both admission priority and preemption priority. Appendix
B also identifies how the Application-Level Resource Priority need to
be mapped into RSVP policy elements by the PDPs to realize these
policies.
2.1. Operations of Admission Priority
The RSVP Admission Priority policy element defined in this document
allows admission bandwidth to be allocated preferentially to an
authorized priority service. Multiple models of bandwidth allocation
MAY be used to that end.
A number of bandwidth allocation models have been defined in the IETF
for allocation of bandwidth across different classes of traffic
trunks in the context of Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering.
Those include the Maximum Allocation Model (MAM) defined in
[RFC4125], the Russian Dolls Model (RDM) specified in [RFC4127] and
the Maximum Allocation model with Reservation (MAR) defined in
[RFC4126]. These same models MAY however be applied for allocation
of bandwidth across different levels of admission priority as defined
in this document. Appendix A provides an illustration of how these
bandwidth allocation models can be applied for such purposes and
introduces an additional bandwidth allocation model that we term the
Priority Bypass Model (PrBM). It is important to note that the
models described and illustrated in Appendix A are only informative
and do not represent a recommended course of action.
We can see in these examples, that the RSVP Admission Priority may
effectively influence the fundamental admission control decision of
RSVP (for example by determining which bandwidth pool is to be used
by RSVP for performing its fundamental bandwidth allocation). In
that sense, we observe that the policy control and admission control
are not separate logics but instead somewhat blended.
3. New Policy Elements
The Framework document for policy-based admission control [RFC2753]
describes the various components that participate in policy decision
making (i.e., PDP, PEP and LPDP).
As described in section 2 of the present document, the Application-
Level Resource Priority Policy Element and the Admission Priority
Policy Element serve different roles in this framework:
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires October 13, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services April 2008
o the Application-Level Resource Priority Policy Element conveys
application level information and is processed by PDPs
o the emphasis of Admission Priority Policy Element is to be simple,
stateless, and light-weight such that it can be processed
internally within a node's LPDP. It can then be enforced
internally within a node's PEP. It is set by PDPs based on
processing of the Application-Level Resource Priority Policy
Element.
[RFC2750] defines extensions for supporting generic policy based
admission control in RSVP. These extensions include the standard
format of POLICY_DATA objects and a description of RSVP handling of
policy events.
The POLICY_DATA object contains one or more of Policy Elements, each
representing a different (and perhaps orthogonal) policy. As an
example, [RFC3181] specifies the Preemption Priority Policy Element.
This document defines two new Policy Elements called:
o the Admission Priority Policy Element
o the Application-Level Resource Priority Policy Element
3.1. Admission Priority Policy Element
The format of the Admission Priority policy element is as shown in
Figure 1:
0 0 0 1 1 2 2 3
0 . . . 7 8 . . . 5 6 . . . 3 4 . . . 1
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Length | P-Type = ADMISSION_PRI |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Flags | M. Strategy | Error Code | Reserved |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Reserved |Adm. Priority|
+---------------------------+---------------------------+
Figure 1: Admission Priority Policy Element
where:
o Length: 16 bits
* Always 12. The overall length of the policy element, in bytes.
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires October 13, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services April 2008
o P-Type: 16 bits
* ADMISSION_PRI = To be allocated by IANA (see "IANA
Considerations" section)
o Flags: Reserved
* SHALL be set to zero on transmit and SHALL be ignored on
reception
o Merge Strategy: 8 bits (only applicable to multicast flows)
* 1 Take priority of highest QoS
* 2 Take highest priority
* 3 Force Error on heterogeneous merge (See section 3.1.1)
o Error code: 8 bits (only applicable to multicast flows)
* 0 NO_ERROR Value used for regular ADMISSION_PRI elements
* 2 HETEROGENEOUS This element encountered heterogeneous merge
o Reserved: 8 bits
* SHALL be set to zero on transmit and SHALL be ignored on
reception
o Reserved: 24 bits
* SHALL be set to zero on transmit and SHALL be ignored on
reception
o Adm. Priority (Admission Priority): 8 bits (unsigned)
* The admission control priority of the flow, in terms of access
to network bandwidth in order to provide higher probability of
call completion to 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" field of the "Admission Priority"
parameter defined in [I-D.ietf-nsis-qspec], or in the
"Admission Priority" parameter defined in
[I-D.ietf-dime-qos-parameters]. In other words, a given value
inside the Admission Priority information element defined in
the present document, inside the [I-D.ietf-nsis-qspec]
Admission Priority field or inside the
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires October 13, 2008 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services April 2008
[I-D.ietf-dime-qos-parameters] Admission Priority parameter,
refers to the same admission priority. Bandwidth allocation
models such as those described in Appendix A are to be used by
the RSVP router to achieve such increased probability of call
completion. The admission priority value effectively indicates
which bandwidth constraint(s) of the bandwidth constraint model
in use is(are) applicable to admission of this RSVP
reservation.
Note that the Admission Priority Policy Element does NOT indicate
that this RSVP reservation is to preempt any other RSVP reservation.
If a priority session justifies both admission priority and
preemption priority, the corresponding RSVP reservation needs to
carry both an Admission Priority Policy Element and a Preemption
Priority Policy Element. The Admission Priority and Preemption
Priority are handled by LPDPs and PEPs as separate mechanisms. They
can be used one without the other, or they can be used both in
combination.
3.1.1. Admission Priority Merging Rules
This section discusses alternatives for dealing with RSVP admission
priority in case of merging of reservations. As merging is only
applicable to multicast, this section also only applies to multicast
sessions.
The rules for merging Admission Priority Policy Elements are the same
as those defined in [RFC3181] for merging Preemption Priority Policy
Elements. In particular, the following merging strategies are
supported:
o Take priority of highest QoS
o Take highest priority
o Force Error on heterogeneous merge.
The only difference with [RFC3181] is that this document does not
recommend any merge strategies for Admission Priority while [RFC3181]
recommends the first of these merge strategies for Preemption
Priority. Note that with the Admission Priority (as is the case with
the Preemption Priority), "Take highest priority" translates into
"take the highest numerical value".
3.2. Application-Level Resource Priority Policy Element
The format of the Application-Level Resource Priority policy element
is as shown in Figure 2:
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires October 13, 2008 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services April 2008
0 0 0 1 1 2 2 3
0 . . . 7 8 . . . 5 6 . . . 3 4 . . . 1
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Length | P-Type = APP_RESOURCE_PRI |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
// ALRP List //
+---------------------------+---------------------------+
Figure 2: Application-Level Resource Priority Policy Element
where:
o Length:
* The length of the policy element (including the Length and
P-Type) is in number of octets (MUST be a multiple of 4) and
indicates the end of the ALRP list.
o P-Type: 16 bits
* APP_RESOURCE_PRI = To be allocated by IANA (see "IANA
Considerations" section)
o ALRP List:
* List of ALRP where each ALRP is encoded as shown in Figure 3.
ALRP:
0 0 0 1 1 2 2 3
0 . . . 7 8 . . . 5 6 . . . 3 4 . . . 1
+---------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| ALRP Namespace | Reserved |ALRP Priority|
+---------------------------+---------------------------+
Figure 3: Application-Level Resource Priority
where:
o ALRP Namespace (Application-Level Resource Priority Namespace): 16
bits (unsigned)
* Contains a numerical value identifying the namespace of the
application-level resource priority. This value is encoded as
per the "Resource-Priority Namespaces" IANA registry. (See
IANA Considerations section for the request to IANA to extend
the registry to include this numerical value).
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires October 13, 2008 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services April 2008
o Reserved: 8 bits
* SHALL be set to zero on transmit and SHALL be ignored on
reception.
o ALRP Priority: (Application-Level Resource Priority Priority): 8
bits (unsigned)
* Contains the priority value within the namespace of the
application-level resource priority. This value is encoded as
per the "Resource-Priority Priority-Value" IANA registry. (See
IANA Considerations section for the request to IANA to extend
the registry to include this numerical value).
3.2.1. Application-Level Resource Priority Modifying and Merging Rules
When POLICY_DATA objects are protected by integrity, LPDPs should not
attempt to modify them. They MUST be forwarded as-is to ensure their
security envelope is not invalidated.
In case of multicast, when POLICY_DATA objects are not protected by
integrity, LPDPs MAY merge incoming Application-Level Resource
Priority elements to reduce their size and number. When they do
merge those, LPDPs MUST do so according to the following rule:
o The ALRP List in the outgoing APP_RESOURCE_PRI element MUST list
all the ALRPs appearing in the ALRP List of an incoming
APP_RESOURCE_PRI element. A given ALRP MUST NOT appear more than
once. In other words, the outgoing ALRP List is the union of the
incoming ALRP Lists that are merged.
As merging is only applicable to Multicast, this rule only applies to
Multicast sessions.
3.3. Default Handling
As specified in section 4.2 of [RFC2750], Policy Ignorant Nodes
(PINs) implement a default handling of POLICY_DATA objects ensuring
that those objects can traverse PIN nodes in transit from one PEP to
another. This applies to the situations where POLICY_DATA objects
contain the Admission Priority Policy Element and the ALRP Policy
Element specified in this document, so that those can traverse PIN
nodes.
Section 4.2 of [RFC2750] also defines a similar default behavior for
policy-capable nodes that do not recognized a particular Policy
Element. This applies to the Admission Priority Policy Element and
the ALRP Policy Element specified in this document, so that those can
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires October 13, 2008 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services April 2008
traverse policy-capable nodes that do not support this document.
4. Security Considerations
The ADMISSION_PRI and APP_RESOURCE_PRI are Policy Elements that can
be signaled by RSVP through encapsulation in a Policy Data object as
defined in [RFC2750]. Therefore, like any other Policy Elements,
their integrity can be protected as discussed in section 6 of
[RFC2750] by two optional security mechanisms. The first mechanism
relies on RSVP Authentication as specified in [RFC2747] and [RFC3097]
to provide a chain of trust when all RSVP nodes are policy capable.
With this mechanism, the INTEGRITY object is carried inside RSVP
messages. The second mechanism relies on the INTEGRITY object within
the POLICY_DATA object to guarantee integrity between RSVP Policy
Enforcement Points (PEPs) that are not RSVP neighbors.
4.1. Use of RSVP Authentication between RSVP nighbors
This mechanism can be used can be used between RSVP neighbors that
are policy capable. The RSVP neighbors use shared keys to compute
the cryptographic signature of the RSVP message.
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-security-groupkeying] discusses key types, key
provisioning methods as well as their respective applicability.
4.2. Use of INTEGRITY object within the POLICY_DATA object
The INTEGRITY object within the POLICY_DATA object can be used to
guarantee integrity between non-neighboring RSVP PEPs.
Details for computation of the content of the INTEGRITY object can be
found in Appendix B of [RFC2750]. This states that the Policy
Decision Point (PDP), at its discretion, and based on destination
PEP/PDP or other criteria, selects an Authentication Key and the hash
algorithm to be used. Keys to be used between PDPs can be
distributed manually or via standard key management protocol for
secure key distribution.
Note that where non-RSVP hops may exist in between RSVP hops, as well
as where RSVP capable Policy Ignorant Nodes (PINs) may exist in
between PEPs, it may be difficult for the PDP to determine what is
the destination PDP for a POLICY_DATA object contained in some RSVP
messages (such as a Path message). This is because in those cases
the next PEP is not known at the time of forwarding the message. In
this situation, key shared across multiple PDPs may be used. This is
conceptually similar to the use of key shared across multiple RSVP
neighbors discussed in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-security-groupkeying].
We observe also that this issue may not exist in some deployment
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires October 13, 2008 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services April 2008
scenarios where a single (or low number of) PDP is used to control
all the PEPs of a region (such as an administrative domain). In such
scenarios, it may be easy for a PDP to determine what is the next hop
PDP, even when the next hop PEP is not known, simply by determining
what is the next region that will be traversed (say based on the
destination address).
5. IANA Considerations
As specified in [RFC2750], Standard RSVP Policy Elements (P-type
values) are to be assigned by IANA as per "IETF Consensus" following
the policies outlined in [RFC2434].
IANA needs to allocate two P-Types from the Standard RSVP Policy
Element range:
o one P-Type to the Admission Priority Policy Element
o one P-Type to the Application-Level Resource Priority Policy
Element.
The present document defines an ALRP Namespace field in section 3.2
that contains a numerical value identifying the namespace of the
application-level resource priority. The IANA already maintains the
Resource-Priority Namespaces registry (under the SIP Parameters)
listing all such namespace. However, that registry does not
currently allocate a numerical value to each namespace. Hence, this
document requests the IANA to extend the Resource-Priority Namespace
registry in the following ways:
o a new column should be added to the registry
o the title of the new column should be "Namespace Numerical Value
*"
o in the Legend, add a line saying "Namespace Numerical Value = the
unique numerical value identifying the namespace"
o add a line at the bottom of the registry stating the following "*
: [RFCXXX] " where XXX is the RFC number of the present document
o allocate an actual numerical value to each namespace in the
registry and state that value in the new "Namespace numerical
Value *" column.
A numerical value should be allocated immediately by IANA to all
existing namespace. Then, in the future, IANA should automatically
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires October 13, 2008 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services April 2008
allocate a numerical value to any new namespace added to the
registry.
The present document defines an ALRP Priority field in section 3.2
that contains a numerical value identifying the actual application-
level resource priority within the application-level resource
priority namespace. The IANA already maintains the Resource-Priority
Priority-values registry (under the SIP Parameters) listing all such
priorities. However, that registry does not currently allocate a
numerical value to each priority-value. Hence, this document
requests the IANA to extend the Resource-Priority Priority-Values
registry in the following ways:
o for each namespace, the registry should be structured with two
columns
o the title of the first column should read "Priority Values (least
to greatest)"
o the first column should list all the values currently defined in
the registry (e.g. for the drsn namespace: "routine", "priority",
"immediate", "flash", "flash-override", "flash-override-override"
for the drsn namespace)
o the title of the second column should read "Priority Numerical
Value *"
o At the bottom of the registry, add a "Legend" with a line saying
"Priority Numerical Value = the unique numerical value identifying
the priority within a namespace"
o add a line at the bottom of the registry stating the following "*
: [RFCXXX] " where XXX is the RFC number of the present document
o allocate an actual numerical value to each and state that value in
the new "Priority Numerical Value *" column.
A numerical value should be allocated immediately by IANA to all
existing priority. Then, in the future, IANA should automatically
allocate a numerical value to any new namespace added to the
registry. The numerical value must be unique within each namespace.
Within each namespace, values should be allocated in decreasing order
ending with 0 (so that the greatest priority is always allocated
value 0). For example, in the drsn namespace, "routine" would be
allocated numerical value 5 and "flash-override-override" would be
allocated numerical value 0.
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires October 13, 2008 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services April 2008
6. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank An Nguyen for his encouragement to address
this topic and ongoing comments. Also, this document borrows heavily
from some of the work of S. Herzog on Preemption Priority Policy
Element [RFC3181]. Dave Oran and Janet Gunn provided useful input
into this document.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2205] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.
[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
October 1998.
[RFC2747] Baker, F., Lindell, B., and M. Talwar, "RSVP Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 2747, January 2000.
[RFC2750] Herzog, S., "RSVP Extensions for Policy Control",
RFC 2750, January 2000.
[RFC3097] Braden, R. and L. Zhang, "RSVP Cryptographic
Authentication -- Updated Message Type Value", RFC 3097,
April 2001.
[RFC3181] Herzog, S., "Signaled Preemption Priority Policy Element",
RFC 3181, October 2001.
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
June 2002.
[RFC4412] Schulzrinne, H. and J. Polk, "Communications Resource
Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
RFC 4412, February 2006.
7.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-dime-diameter-qos]
Sun, D., McCann, P., Tschofenig, H., Tsou, T., Doria, A.,
and G. Zorn, "Diameter Quality of Service Application",
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires October 13, 2008 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services April 2008
draft-ietf-dime-diameter-qos-05 (work in progress),
February 2008.
[I-D.ietf-dime-qos-parameters]
Korhonen, J. and H. Tschofenig, "Quality of Service
Parameters for Usage with the AAA Framework",
draft-ietf-dime-qos-parameters-03 (work in progress),
February 2008.
[I-D.ietf-nsis-qspec]
Ash, G., Bader, A., Kappler, C., and D. Oran, "QoS NSLP
QSPEC Template", draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-20 (work in
progress), April 2008.
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-security-groupkeying]
Behringer, M. and F. Faucheur, "Applicability of Keying
Methods for RSVP Security",
draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-security-groupkeying-00 (work in
progress), February 2008.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2753] Yavatkar, R., Pendarakis, D., and R. Guerin, "A Framework
for Policy-based Admission Control", RFC 2753,
January 2000.
[RFC3182] Yadav, S., Yavatkar, R., Pabbati, R., Ford, P., Moore, T.,
Herzog, S., and R. Hess, "Identity Representation for
RSVP", RFC 3182, October 2001.
[RFC3312] Camarillo, G., Marshall, W., and J. Rosenberg,
"Integration of Resource Management and Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3312, October 2002.
[RFC3689] Carlberg, K. and R. Atkinson, "General Requirements for
Emergency Telecommunication Service (ETS)", RFC 3689,
February 2004.
[RFC3690] Carlberg, K. and R. Atkinson, "IP Telephony Requirements
for Emergency Telecommunication Service (ETS)", RFC 3690,
February 2004.
[RFC4125] Le Faucheur, F. and W. Lai, "Maximum Allocation Bandwidth
Constraints Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic
Engineering", RFC 4125, June 2005.
[RFC4126] Ash, J., "Max Allocation with Reservation Bandwidth
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires October 13, 2008 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services April 2008
Constraints Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic
Engineering & Performance Comparisons", RFC 4126,
June 2005.
[RFC4127] Le Faucheur, F., "Russian Dolls Bandwidth Constraints
Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering",
RFC 4127, June 2005.
[RFC4542] Baker, F. and J. Polk, "Implementing an Emergency
Telecommunications Service (ETS) for Real-Time Services in
the Internet Protocol Suite", RFC 4542, May 2006.
Appendix A. Examples of Bandwidth Allocation Model for Admission
Priority
Sections A.1 and A.2 respectively illustrate how the Maximum
Allocation Model (MAM) ([RFC4125]) and the Russian Dolls Model (RDM)
([RFC4127]) can be used for support of admission priority. The
Maximum Allocation model with Reservation (MAR) ([RFC4126]) could
also be used in a similar manner for support of admission priority.
Section A.3 illustrates how a simple "Priority Bypass Model" can also
be used for support of admission priority.
For simplicity, operations with only a single "priority" level
(beyond non-priority) are illustrated here; However, the reader will
appreciate that operations with multiple priority levels can easily
be supported with these models.
In all the figures below:
x represents a non-priority session
o represents a priority session
A.1. Admission Priority with Maximum Allocation Model (MAM)
This section illustrates operations of admission priority when a
Maximum Allocation Model (MAM) is used for bandwidth allocation
across non-priority traffic and priority traffic. A property of the
Maximum Allocation Model is that priority traffic can not use more
than the bandwidth made available to priority traffic (even if the
non-priority traffic is not using all of the bandwidth available for
it).
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires October 13, 2008 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services April 2008
-----------------------
^ ^ ^ | | ^
. . . | | .
Total . . . | | . Bandwidth
(1)(2)(3) | | . Available
Engi- . . . | | . for non-priority use
neered .or.or. | | .
. . . | | .
Capacity. . . | | .
v . . | | v
. . |--------------| ---
v . | | ^
. | | . Bandwidth available for
v | | v priority use
-------------------------
Figure 4: MAM Bandwidth Allocation
Figure 4 shows a link within a routed network conforming to this
document. On this link are two amounts of bandwidth available to two
types of traffic: non-priority and priority.
If the non-priority traffic load reaches the maximum bandwidth
available for non-priority, no additional non-priority sessions can
be accepted even if the bandwidth reserved for priority traffic is
not currently fully utilized.
With the Maximum Allocation Model, in the case where the priority
load reaches the maximum bandwidth reserved for priority calls, no
additional priority sessions can be accepted.
As illustrated in Figure 4, an operator may map the MAM model onto
the Engineered Capacity limits according to different policies. At
one extreme, where the proportion of priority traffic is reliably
known to be fairly small at all times and where there may be some
safety margin factored in the engineered capacity limits, the
operator may decide to configure the bandwidth available for non-
priority use to the full engineered capacity limits; effectively
allowing the priority traffic to ride within the safety margin of
this engineered capacity. This policy can be seen as an economically
attractive approach as all of the engineered capacity is made
available to non-priority calls. This policy is illustrated as (1)
in Figure 4. As an example, if the engineered capacity limit on a
given link is X, the operator may configure the bandwidth available
to non-priority traffic to X, and the bandwidth available to priority
traffic to 5% of X. At the other extreme, where the proportion of
priority traffic may be significant at times and the engineered
capacity limits are very tight, the operator may decide to configure
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires October 13, 2008 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services April 2008
the bandwidth available to non-priority traffic and the bandwidth
available to priority traffic such that their sum is equal to the
engineered capacity limits. This guarantees that the total load
across non-priority and priority traffic is always below the
engineered capacity and, in turn, guarantees there will never be any
QoS degradation. However, this policy is less attractive
economically as it prevents non-priority calls from using the full
engineered capacity, even when there is no or little priority load,
which is the majority of time. This policy is illustrated as (3) in
Figure 4. As an example, if the engineered capacity limit on a given
link is X, the operator may configure the bandwidth available to non-
priority traffic to 95% of X, and the bandwidth available to priority
traffic to 5% of X. Of course, an operator may also strike a balance
anywhere in between these two approaches. This policy is illustrated
as (2) in Figure 4.
Figure 5 shows some of the non-priority capacity of this link being
used.
-----------------------
^ ^ ^ | | ^
. . . | | .
Total . . . | | . Bandwidth
. . . | | . Available
Engi- . . . | | . for non-priority use
neered .or.or. |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| .
. . . |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| .
Capacity. . . |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| .
v . . |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| v
. . |--------------| ---
v . | | ^
. | | . Bandwidth available for
v | | v priority use
-------------------------
Figure 5: Partial load of non-priority calls
Figure 6 shows the same amount of non-priority load being used at
this link, and a small amount of priority bandwidth being used.
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires October 13, 2008 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services April 2008
-----------------------
^ ^ ^ | | ^
. . . | | .
Total . . . | | . Bandwidth
. . . | | . Available
Engi- . . . | | . for non-priority use
neered .or.or. |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| .
. . . |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| .
Capacity. . . |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| .
v . . |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| v
. . |--------------| ---
v . | | ^
. | | . Bandwidth available for
v |oooooooooooooo| v priority use
-------------------------
Figure 6: Partial load of non-priority calls & partial load of
priority calls Calls
Figure 7 shows the case where non-priority load equates or exceeds
the maximum bandwidth available to non-priority traffic. Note that
additional non-priority sessions would be rejected even if the
bandwidth reserved for priority sessions is not fully utilized.
-----------------------
^ ^ ^ |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| ^
. . . |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| .
Total . . . |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| . Bandwidth
. . . |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| . Available
Engi- . . . |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| . for non-priority use
neered .or.or. |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| .
. . . |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| .
Capacity. . . |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| .
v . . |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| v
. . |--------------| ---
v . | | ^
. | | . Bandwidth available for
v |oooooooooooooo| v priority use
-------------------------
Figure 7: Full non-priority load & partial load of priority calls
Figure 8 shows the case where the priority traffic equates or exceeds
the bandwidth reserved for such priority traffic.
In that case additional priority sessions could not be accepted.
Note that this does not mean that such calls are dropped altogether:
they may be handled by mechanisms, which are beyond the scope of this
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires October 13, 2008 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services April 2008
particular document (such as establishment through preemption of
existing non-priority sessions, or such as queuing of new priority
session requests until capacity becomes available again for priority
traffic).
-----------------------
^ ^ ^ |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| ^
. . . |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| .
Total . . . |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| . Bandwidth
. . . |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| . Available
Engi- . . . |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| . for non-priority use
neered .or.or. |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| .
. . . |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| .
Capacity. . . | | .
v . . | | v
. . |--------------| ---
v . |oooooooooooooo| ^
. |oooooooooooooo| . Bandwidth available for
v |oooooooooooooo| v priority use
-------------------------
Figure 8: Partial non-priority load & Full priority load
A.2. Admission Priority with Russian Dolls Model (RDM)
This section illustrates operations of admission priority when a
Russian Dolls Model (RDM) is used for bandwidth allocation across
non-priority traffic and priority traffic. A property of the Russian
Dolls Model is that priority traffic can use the bandwidth which is
not currently used by non-priority traffic.
As with the MAM model, an operator may map the RDM model onto the
Engineered Capacity limits according to different policies. The
operator may decide to configure the bandwidth available for non-
priority use to the full engineered capacity limits; As an example,
if the engineered capacity limit on a given link is X, the operator
may configure the bandwidth available to non-priority traffic to X,
and the bandwidth available to non-priority and priority traffic to
105% of X.
Alternatively, the operator may decide to configure the bandwidth
available to non-priority and priority traffic to the engineered
capacity limits; As an example, if the engineered capacity limit on a
given link is X, the operator may configure the bandwidth available
to non-priority traffic to 95% of X, and the bandwidth available to
non-priority and priority traffic to X.
Finally, the operator may decide to strike a balance in between. The
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires October 13, 2008 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services April 2008
considerations presented for these policies in the previous section
in the MAM context are equally applicable to RDM.
Figure 9 shows the case where only some of the bandwidth available to
non-priority traffic is being used and a small amount of priority
traffic is in place. In that situation both new non-priority
sessions and new priority sessions would be accepted.
--------------------------------------
|xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| . ^
|xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| . Bandwidth .
|xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| . Available for .
|xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| . non-priority .
|xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| . use .
|xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| . . Bandwidth
| | . . available for
| | v . non-priority
|--------------| --- . and priority
| | . use
| | .
|oooooooooooooo| v
---------------------------------------
Figure 9: Partial non-priority load & Partial Aggregate load
Figure 10 shows the case where all of the bandwidth available to non-
priority traffic is being used and a small amount of priority traffic
is in place. In that situation new priority sessions would be
accepted but new non-priority sessions would be rejected.
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires October 13, 2008 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services April 2008
--------------------------------------
|xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| . ^
|xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| . Bandwidth .
|xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| . Available for .
|xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| . non-priority .
|xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| . use .
|xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| . . Bandwidth
|xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| . . available for
|xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| v . non-priority
|--------------| --- . and priority
| | . use
| | .
|oooooooooooooo| v
---------------------------------------
Figure 10: Full non-priority load & Partial Aggregate load
Figure 11 shows the case where only some of the bandwidth available
to non-priority traffic is being used and a heavy load of priority
traffic is in place. In that situation both new non-priority
sessions and new priority sessions would be accepted. Note that, as
illustrated in Figure 10, priority calls use some of the bandwidth
currently not used by non-priority traffic.
--------------------------------------
|xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| . ^
|xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| . Bandwidth .
|xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| . Available for .
|xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| . non-priority .
|xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| . use .
| | . . Bandwidth
| | . . available for
|oooooooooooooo| v . non-priority
|--------------| --- . and priority
|oooooooooooooo| . use
|oooooooooooooo| .
|oooooooooooooo| v
---------------------------------------
Figure 11: Partial non-priority load & Heavy Aggregate load
Figure 12 shows the case where all of the bandwidth available to non-
priority traffic is being used and all of the remaining available
bandwidth is used by priority traffic. In that situation new non-
priority sessions would be rejected. In that situation new priority
sessions could not be accepted right away. Those priority sessions
may be handled by mechanisms, which are beyond the scope of this
particular document (such as established through preemption of
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires October 13, 2008 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services April 2008
existing non-priority sessions, or such as queuing of new priority
session requests until capacity becomes available again for priority
traffic).
--------------------------------------
|xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| . ^
|xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| . Bandwidth .
|xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| . Available for .
|xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| . non-priority .
|xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| . use .
|xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| . . Bandwidth
|xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| . . available for
|xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| v . non-priority
|--------------| --- . and priority
|oooooooooooooo| . use
|oooooooooooooo| .
|oooooooooooooo| v
---------------------------------------
Figure 12: Full non-priority load & Full Aggregate load
A.3. Admission Priority with Priority Bypass Model (PrBM)
This section illustrates operations of admission priority when a
simple Priority Bypass Model (PrBM) is used for bandwidth allocation
across non-priority traffic and priority traffic. With the Priority
Bypass Model, non-priority traffic is subject to resource based
admission control while priority traffic simply bypasses the resource
based admission control. In other words:
o when a non-priority call arrives, this call is subject to
bandwidth admission control and is accepted if the current total
load (aggregate over non-priority and priority traffic) is below
the engineered/allocated bandwidth.
o when a priority call arrives, this call is admitted regardless of
the current load.
A property of this model is that a priority call is never rejected.
The rationale for this simple scheme is that, in practice in some
networks:
o the volume of priority calls is very low for the vast majority of
time, so it may not be economical to completely set aside
bandwidth for priority calls and preclude the utilization of this
bandwidth by normal calls in normal situations
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires October 13, 2008 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services April 2008
o even in emergency periods where priority calls are more heavily
used, those always still represent a fairly small proportion of
the overall load which can be absorbed within the safety margin of
the engineered capacity limits. Thus, even if they are admitted
beyond the engineered bandwidth threshold, they are unlikely to
result in noticeable QoS degradation.
As with the MAM and RDM model, an operator may map the Priority
Bypass model onto the Engineered Capacity limits according to
different policies. The operator may decide to configure the
bandwidth limit for admission of non-priority traffic to the full
engineered capacity limits; As an example, if the engineered capacity
limit on a given link is X, the operator may configure the bandwidth
limit for non-priority traffic to X. Alternatively, the operator may
decide to configure the bandwidth limit for non-priority traffic to
below the engineered capacity limits (so that the sum of the non-
priority and priority traffic stays below the engineered capacity);
As an example, if the engineered capacity limit on a given link is X,
the operator may configure the bandwidth limit for non-priority
traffic to 95% of X. Finally, the operator may decide to strike a
balance in between. The considerations presented for these policies
in the previous sections in the MAM and RDM contexts are equally
applicable to the Priority Bypass Model.
Figure 13 illustrates the bandwidth allocation with the Priority
Bypass Model.
-----------------------
^ ^ | | ^
. . | | .
Total . . | | . Bandwidth Limit
(1) (2) | | . (on non-priority + priority)
Engi- . . | | . for admission
neered . or . | | . of non-priority traffic
. . | | .
Capacity. . | | .
v . | | v
. |--------------| ---
. | |
v | |
| |
Figure 13: Priority Bypass Model Bandwidth Allocation
Figure 14 shows some of the non-priority capacity of this link being
used. In this situation, both new non-priority and new priority
calls would be accepted.
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires October 13, 2008 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services April 2008
-----------------------
^ ^ |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| ^
. . |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| .
Total . . |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| . Bandwidth Limit
(1) (2) |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| . (on non-priority + priority)
Engi- . . | | . for admission
neered . or . | | . of non-priority traffic
. . | | .
Capacity. . | | .
v . | | v
. |--------------| ---
. | |
v | |
| |
Figure 14: Partial load of non-priority calls
Figure 15 shows the same amount of non-priority load being used at
this link, and a small amount of priority bandwidth being used. In
this situation, both new non-priority and new priority calls would be
accepted.
-----------------------
^ ^ |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| ^
. . |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| .
Total . . |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| . Bandwidth Limit
(1) (2) |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| . (on non-priority + priority)
Engi- . . |oooooooooooooo| . for admission
neered . or . | | . of non-priority traffic
. . | | .
Capacity. . | | .
v . | | v
. |--------------| ---
. | |
v | |
| |
Figure 15: Partial load of non-priority calls & partial load of
priority calls
Figure 16 shows the case where aggregate non-priority and priority
load exceeds the bandwidth limit for admission of non-priority
traffic. In this situation, any new non-priority call is rejected
while any new priority call is admitted.
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires October 13, 2008 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services April 2008
-----------------------
^ ^ |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| ^
. . |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| .
Total . . |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| . Bandwidth Limit
(1) (2) |xxxxxxxxxxxxxx| . (on non-priority + priority)
Engi- . . |oooooooooooooo| . for admission
neered . or . |xxxooxxxooxxxo| . of non-priority traffic
. . |xxoxxxxxxoxxxx| .
Capacity. . |oxxxooooxxxxoo| .
v . |xxoxxxooxxxxxx| v
. |--------------| ---
. |oooooooooooooo|
v | |
| |
Figure 16: Full non-priority load
Appendix B. Example Usages of RSVP Extensions
This section provides examples of how RSVP extensions defined in this
document can be used (in conjunctions with other RSVP functionality
and SIP functionality) to enforce different hypothetical policies for
handling Emergency sessions in a given administrative domain. This
Appendix does not provide additional specification. It is only
included in this document for illustration purposes.
We assume an environment where SIP is used for session control and
RSVP is used for resource reservation.
In a mild abuse of language, we refer here to "Call Queueing" as the
set of "session" layer capabilities that may be implemented by SIP
user agents to influence their treatment of SIP requests. This may
include the ability to "queue" call requests when those can not be
immediately honored (in some cases with the notion of "bumping", or
"displacement", of less important call request from that queue). It
may include additional mechanisms such as exemption from certain
network management controls, and alternate routing.
We only mention below the RSVP policy elements that are to be
enforced by PEPs. It is assumed that these policy elements are set
at administrative domain boundaries by PDPs. The Admission Priority
and Preemption Priority RSVP policy elements are set by PDPs as a
result of processing the Application Level Resource Priority Policy
Element (which is carried in RSVP messages).
If one wants to implement an emergency service purely based on Call
Queueing, one can achieve this by signaling emergency calls:
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires October 13, 2008 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services April 2008
o using "Resource-Priority" Header in SIP
o not using Admission-Priority Policy Element in RSVP
o not using Preemption Policy Element in RSVP
If one wants to implement an emergency service based on Call Queueing
and on "prioritized access to network layer resources", one can
achieve this by signaling emergency calls:
o using "Resource-Priority" Header in SIP
o using Admission-Priority Policy Element in RSVP
o not using Preemption Policy Element in RSVP
Emergency calls will not result in preemption of any session.
Different bandwidth allocation models can be used to offer different
"prioritized access to network resources". Just as examples, this
includes strict setting aside of capacity for emergency sessions as
well as simple bypass of admission limits for emergency sessions.
If one wants to implement an emergency service based on Call
Queueing, on "prioritized access to network layer resources", and
ensures that (say) "Emergency-1" sessions can preempt "Emergency-2"
sessions, but non-emergency sessions are not affected by preemption,
one can do that by signaling emergency calls:
o using "Resource-Priority" Header in SIP
o using Admission-Priority Policy Element in RSVP
o using Preemption Policy Element in RSVP with:
* setup (Emergency-1) > defending (Emergency-2)
* setup (Emergency-2) <= defending (Emergency-1)
* setup (Emergency-1) <= defending (Non-Emergency)
* setup (Emergency-2) <= defending (Non-Emergency)
If one wants to implement an emergency service based on Call
Queueing, on "prioritized access to network layer resources", and
ensure that "emergency" sessions can preempt regular sessions, one
could do that by signaling emergency calls:
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires October 13, 2008 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services April 2008
o using "Resource-Priority" Header in SIP
o using Admission-Priority Policy Element in RSVP
o using Preemption Policy Element in RSVP with:
* setup (Emergency) > defending (Non-Emergency)
* setup (Non-Emergency) <= defending (Emergency)
If one wants to implement an emergency service based on Call
Queueing, on "prioritized access to network layer resources", and
ensure that "emergency" sessions can partially preempt regular
sessions (ie reduce their reservation size), one could do that by
signaling emergency calls:
o using "Resource-Priority" Header in SIP
o using Admission-Priority Policy Element in RSVP
o using Preemption in Policy Element RSVP with:
* setup (Emergency) > defending (Non-Emergency)
* setup (Non-Emergency) <= defending (Emergency)
o activate RFC4495 RSVP Bandwidth Reduction mechanisms
Authors' Addresses
Francois Le Faucheur
Cisco Systems
Greenside, 400 Avenue de Roumanille
Sophia Antipolis 06410
France
Phone: +33 4 97 23 26 19
Email: flefauch@cisco.com
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires October 13, 2008 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services April 2008
James Polk
Cisco Systems
2200 East President George Bush Highway
Richardson, TX 75082-3550
United States
Phone: +1 972 813 5208
Email: jmpolk@cisco.com
Ken Carlberg
G11
123a Versailles Circle
Towson, MD 21204
United States
Email: carlberg@g11.org.uk
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires October 13, 2008 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services April 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
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.
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, THE IETF TRUST 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.
Intellectual Property
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.
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires October 13, 2008 [Page 32]
