Network Working Group F. Le Faucheur
Internet-Draft Cisco
Intended status: Standards Track J. Manner
Expires: April 16, 2007 University of Helsinki
D. Wing
Cisco
October 13, 2006
RSVP Proxy Approaches
draft-lefaucheur-tsvwg-rsvp-proxy-00.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 April 16, 2007.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires April 16, 2007 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RSVP Proxy October 2006
Abstract
RSVP signaling can be used to make end-to-end resource reservations
in an IP network in order to guarantee the QoS required by certain
flows. With RSVP, both the data sender and receiver of a given flow
take part in RSVP signaling. Yet, there are many use cases where
resource reservation is required, but the receiver, the sender, or
both, is not RSVP-capable. This document defines RSVP Proxy
behaviors allowing RSVP routers to perform RSVP signaling on behalf
of a receiver or a sender that is not RSVP-capable. This allows
resource reservations to be established on parts of the end-to-end
path.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. RSVP Proxy Behaviors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. RSVP Receiver Proxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. RSVP Sender Proxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. RSVP Proxy Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Path-Triggered Receiver Proxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Path-Triggered Sender Proxy for Reverse Direction . . . . 11
4.3. Inspection-Triggered Proxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.4. STUN-Triggered Proxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.4.1. STUN BANDWIDTH Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.4.2. STUN APPLICATION-IDENTIFIER Attribute . . . . . . . . 18
4.5. Application-Signaling-Triggered On-Path Proxy . . . . . . 19
4.6. Application-Signaling-Triggered Off-Path Source Proxy . . 22
4.7. RSVP-Signaling-Triggered Proxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.8. Other Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Appendix A. Use Cases for RSVP Proxies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
A.1. RSVP-based VoD CAC in Broadband Aggregation Networks . . . 31
A.2. RSVP-based Voice/Video CAC in Enterprise WAN . . . . . . . 34
A.3. RSVP-based Voice CAC in TSP Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
A.4. RSVP Proxies for Mobile Access Networks . . . . . . . . . 36
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 40
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires April 16, 2007 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RSVP Proxy October 2006
1. Introduction
Guaranteed QoS for some applications with tight Qos requirements may
be achieved by reserving resources in each node on the end-to-end
path. The main IETF protocol for these resource reservations is RSVP
specified in [RFC2205]. RSVP does not require that all intermediate
nodes support RSVP, however it assumes that both the sender and the
receiver of the data flow support RSVP. There are environments where
it would be useful to be able to reserve resources for a flow on at
least a subset of the flow path even when the sender or the receiver
(or both) is not RSVP capable.
Since either the data sender or receiver may be unaware of RSVP,
there are two distinct use cases. In the first case, an entity in
the network must operate on behalf of the data sender, generate an
RSVP Path message, and eventually receive, process and sink a Resv
message. We refer to this entity as the RSVP Sender Proxy. In the
latter case, an entity in the network must receive a Path message
sent by a data sender (or by an RSVP Sender Proxy), and reply to it
with a Resv message on behalf of the data receiver(s). We refer to
this entity as the RSVP Receiver Proxy.
The flow sender and receiver generally have at least some (if not
full) awareness of the application producing or consuming that flow.
Hence, the sender and receiver are in a natural position to
synchronize the establishment, maintenance and tear down of the RSVP
reservation with the application requirements and to determine the
characteristics of the reservation (bandwidth, QoS service,...) which
best match the application requirements. For example, before
completing the establishment of a multimedia session, the endpoints
may decide to establish RSVP reservations for the corresponding
flows. Similarly, when the multimedia session is torn down, the
endpoints may decide to tear down the corresponding RSVP
reservations. For example, [RFC3312] discusses how RSVP reservations
can be very tightly synchronised by SIP endpoints with SIP session
control and SIP signaling.
When RSVP reservation establishment, maintenance and tear down is to
be handled by RSVP Proxy devices on behalf of an RSVP sender or
receiver, a key challenge for the RSVP proxy is to determine when the
RSVP reservations need to be established, maintained and torn down
and to determine what are the characteristics (bandwidth, QoS
Service,...) of the required RSVP reservations matching the
application requirements. We refer to this problem as the
synchronization of RSVP reservations with application level
requirements.
The IETF Next Steps in Signaling (NSIS) working group is designing,
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires April 16, 2007 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RSVP Proxy October 2006
as one their many charter items, a new QoS signaling protocol. This
scheme already includes the notion of proxy operation, and
terminating QoS signaling on nodes that are not the actual data
senders or receivers. This is the same concept as the proxy
operation for RSVP discussed in this document. One difference though
is that the NSIS framework does not consider multicast resource
reservations, which RSVP provides today.
The next two sections introduce the notion of RSVP Sender Proxy and
RSVP receiver Proxy. The following section defines useful
terminology. The subsequent section then presents several
fundamental RSVP Proxy approaches insisting on how they achieve the
synchronization of RSVP reservations with application level
requirements. Appendix A includes more detailed use cases for the
proxies in various deployment environments.
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires April 16, 2007 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RSVP Proxy October 2006
2. RSVP Proxy Behaviors
This section discusses the two types of proxies; the RSVP Sender
Proxy operating on behalf of data senders, and the RSVP Receiver
Proxy operating for data receivers. The concepts presented in this
document are not meant to replace the standard RSVP and end-to-end
RSVP reservations are still expected to be used whenever possible.
However, RSVP Proxies are intended to facilitate RSVP deployment
where end-to-end RSVP signaling is not possible.
2.1. RSVP Receiver Proxy
RSVP reservations are initiated by receivers of data. When a data
sender sends an RSVP Path message towards the intended recipient(s),
each recipient that requires a reservation must respond with a Resv
message. If, however, a data receiver is not running the RSVP
protocol, the last hop RSVP router will still send the Path message
to the data receiver, which will silently drop an IP packet with an
unknown protocol number.
In order for reservations to be made in such a scenario, one of the
RSVP routers on the data path must somehow know that the data
receiver will not be participating in the resource reservation
signaling. This RSVP router should, thus, perform RSVP Receiver
Proxy functionality on behalf of the data receiver. Various
mechanisms by which the RSVP proxy router can gain the required
information are discussed later in the document.
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires April 16, 2007 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RSVP Proxy October 2006
|----| *** *** |----------| |----|
| S |---------*r*----------*r*---------| RSVP |----------| R |
|----| *** *** | Receiver | |----|
| Proxy |
|----------|
*************************************************************>
===================RSVP======================>
|----| RSVP-capable |----| non-RSVP-capable ***
| S | Sender | R | Receiver *r* regular RSVP
|----| |----| *** router
***> unidirectional media flow
==> segment of flow path protected by RSVP reservation
2.2. RSVP Sender Proxy
If a data sender is not running the RSVP protocol, a resource
reservation can not be set up; a data receiver can not alone reserve
resources without Path messages first being sent. Thus, even if the
data receiver is running RSVP, it still needs some node on the data
path to send a Path message towards the data receiver. One example
use case would be a public streaming media server, which is unaware
of RSVP.
In a similar manner to the RSVP Receiver Proxy, a RSVP node on the
data path must somehow know that it should generate a Path message
for setting up a resource reservation. This case is more complex
than the Receiver Proxy, since the RSVP Sender Proxy must be able to
generate all the information in the Path message (such as the Sender
TSpec) without the benefit of having previously seen any RSVP
messages. An RSVP Receiver Proxy, by contrast only needs to
formulate an appropriate RESV message in response to an incoming Path
message. Mechanisms to operate an RSVP Sender Proxy are discussed
later in this document.
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires April 16, 2007 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RSVP Proxy October 2006
|----| |----------| *** *** |----|
| S |---------| RSVP |---------*r*----------*r*----------| R |
|----| | Sender | *** *** |----|
| Proxy |
|----------|
*************************************************************>
================RSVP======================>
|----| non-RSVP-capable |----| RSVP-capable ***
| S | Sender | R | Receiver *r* regular RSVP
|----| |----| *** router
***> unidirectional media flow
==> segment of flow path protected by RSVP reservation
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires April 16, 2007 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RSVP Proxy October 2006
3. Terminology
On-Path: located on the datapath of the actual flow of data from the
application (regardless of where it is located on the application
level signaling path)
Off-Path: not On-Path
RSVP-capable (or RSVP-aware): which supports the RSVP protocol as per
[RFC2205]
RSVP Receiver Proxy: an RSVP capable router performing, on behalf of
a receiver, the RSVP operations which would normally be performed by
an RSVP-capable receiver if end-to-end RSVP signaling was used. Note
that while RSVP is used upstream of the RSVP Receiver Proxy, RSVP is
not used downstream of the RSVP Receiver Proxy.
RSVP Sender Proxy: an RSVP capable router performing, on behalf of a
sender, the RSVP operations which would normally be performed by an
RSVP-capable sender if end-to-end RSVP signaling was used. Note that
while RSVP is used downstream of the RSVP Sender Proxy, RSVP is not
used upstream of the RSVP Sender Proxy.
Regular RSVP Router: an RSVP-capable router which is not behaving as
a RSVP Receiver Proxy nor as a RSVP Sender Proxy.
Note that the roles of RSVP Receiver Proxy, RSVP Sender Proxy,
Regular RSVP Router are all relative to one unidirectional flow. A
given router may act as the RSVP Receiver Proxy for a flow, as the
RSVP Sender Proxy for another flow and as a Regular RSVP router for
yet another flow.
Application level signaling: signaling between entities operating
above the IP layer and which are aware of the QoS requirements for
actual media flows. SIP and RTSP are examples of application level
signaling protocol. RSVP is clearly not an application level
signaling.
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires April 16, 2007 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RSVP Proxy October 2006
4. RSVP Proxy Approaches
This section specifies several fundamental RSVP Proxy approaches. An
implementation complying to this document MUST implement the
MANDATORY Path-Triggered Proxy approach and MAY implement any other
approach defined in this section. When an implementation supports an
OPTIONAL approach, it MUST implement all the MANDATORY aspects of
that approach.
4.1. Path-Triggered Receiver Proxy
In this approach, it is assumed that the sender is RSVP capable and
takes full care of the synchronisation between application
requirements and RSVP reservations. With this approach, the RSVP
Receiver Proxy uses the RSVP Path messages generated by the sender as
the cue for establishing the RSVP reservation on behalf of the
receiver. The RSVP Receiver Proxy is effectively acting as a slave
making reservations (on behalf of the receiver) under the sender's
control. This changes somewhat the usual RSVP reservation model
where reservations are normally controlled by receivers. Such a
change greatly facilitates operations in the scenario of interest
here, which is where the receiver is not RSVP capable. Indeed it
allows the RSVP Receiver Proxy to remain application unaware by
taking advantage of the application awareness and RSVP awareness of
the sender.
With the Path-Triggered RSVP Receiver Proxy approach, the RSVP router
MUST be configurable to use receipt of a regular RSVP Path message as
the trigger for RSVP Receiver Proxy behavior.
On receipt of the RSVP Path message, the RSVP Receiver Proxy MUST:
1. establish the RSVP Path state as per regular RSVP processing
2. identify the downstream interface towards the receiver
3. sink the Path message
4. behave as if a Resv message (whose details are discussed below)
was received on the downstream interface. This includes
admission control, establishing a Resv state (in case of
successful admission control) and forward the Resv message
upstream.
Details on how to build the Resv message from the Path message will
be provided in the next version of this document.
Operation of the Path-Triggered Receiver Proxy in the case of a
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires April 16, 2007 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RSVP Proxy October 2006
successful reservation is illustrated in the Figure below.
|----| *** *** |----------| |----|
| S |---------*r*----------*r*---------| RSVP |----------| R |
|----| *** *** | Receiver | |----|
| Proxy |
|----------|
*************************************************************>
===================RSVP======================>
---Path---> ----Path----> ---Path---->
<--Resv---> <---Resv----- <--Resv----
|----| |----| ***
| S | Sender | R | Receiver *r* regular RSVP
|----| |----| *** router
***> media flow
==> segment of flow path protected by RSVP reservation
As explained above, the synchronisation between application and RSVP
reservations is handled by the sender. To ensure that the sender is
notified of an admission control failure happening somewhere on the
reservation path (i.e. between the RSVP Receiver Proxy and the
sender), on receipt of a ResvErr message with Error Code = "01:
Admission Control failure", the RSVP Receiver Proxy MUST generate a
PathErr message with Error Code = "01: Admission Control failure".
Operation of the Path-Triggered RSVP Receiver Proxy in the case of an
admission control failure is illustrated in the Figure below.
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires April 16, 2007 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RSVP Proxy October 2006
|----| *** *** |----------| |----|
| S |---------*r*----------*r*---------| RSVP |----------| R |
|----| *** *** | Receiver | |----|
| Proxy |
|----------|
*************************************************************>
===================RSVP======================>
---Path---> ----Path----> ---Path---->
<---Resv----- <--Resv------
---ResvErr---> --ResvErr--->
<--PathErr- <--PathErr--- <--PathErr---
|----| |----| ***
| S | Sender | R | Receiver *r* regular RSVP
|----| |----| *** router
***> media flow
==> segment of flow path protected by RSVP reservation
We observe that this approach does not require any extensions to the
existing RSVP protocol (other than the use of the Error Code = "01:
Admission Control failure" in PathErr message, while it is currently
only allowed in ResvErr messages).
4.2. Path-Triggered Sender Proxy for Reverse Direction
In this approach, it is assumed that one endpoint is RSVP capable and
takes full care of the synchronisation between application
requirements and RSVP reservations. This endpoint is the sender for
one flow direction (which we refer to as the "forward" direction) and
is the receiver for the flow in the opposite direction (which we
refer to as the "reverse" direction).
With the Path-Triggered Sender Proxy for Reverse Direction approach,
the RSVP Proxy uses the RSVP signaling generated by the sender as the
cue for initiating RSVP signaling for the reservation in the reverse
direction. Thus, the RSVP Proxy is effectively acting as a Sender
Proxy for the reverse direction under the control of the sender for
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires April 16, 2007 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RSVP Proxy October 2006
the forward direction. Note that this assumes a degree of symmetry
for the two directions of the flow (as is currently typical for IP
telephony, for example).
This is illustrated in the Figure below.
|----| *** *** |----------| |----|
| E |---------*r*----------*r*---------| RSVP |----------| E |
|----| *** *** | Receiver | |----|
| Proxy |
|----------|
*************************************************************>
<===================RSVP======================
---Path---> ----Path----> ---Path---->
<--Path---> <---Path----- <--Path----
---Resv---> ----Resv----> ---Resv---->
|----| ***
| E | Endpoint *r* regular RSVP
|----| *** router
***> media flow
==> segment of flow path protected by RSVP reservation
in reverse direction
Of course, the RSVP Proxy may simultaneously (and typically will)
also act as the Path-Triggered Receiver Proxy for the forward
direction, as defined in Section 4.1. Such an approach is most
useful in situations involving RSVP reservations in both directions
for symmetric flows. This is illustrated in the Figure below
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires April 16, 2007 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RSVP Proxy October 2006
|----| *** *** |----------| |----|
| E |---------*r*----------*r*---------| RSVP |----------| E |
|----| *** *** | Receiver | |----|
| Proxy |
|----------|
*************************************************************>
<===================RSVP=====================>
---Path---> ----Path----> ---Path---->
<--Resv---> <---Resv----- <--Resv----
<--Path---> <---Path----- <--Path----
---Resv---> ----Resv----> ---Resv---->
|----| ***
| E | Endpoint *r* regular RSVP
|----| *** router
<***> media flow
<==> segment of flow path protected by RSVP reservation
in forward and in reverse direction
With the Path-Triggered Sender Proxy for Reverse Direction approach,
the RSVP router MUST be configurable to use receipt of a regular RSVP
Path message as the trigger for Sender Proxy for Reverse Direction
behavior.
On receipt of the RSVP Path message for the forward direction, the
RSVP Sender Receiver Proxy MUST:
1. sink the Path message
2. behave as if a Path message for reverse direction (whose details
are discussed below) had been received by the Sender Proxy. This
includes establishing the corresponding Path state and forward
the Path message downstream.
Details on how to build the Resv message from the Path message will
be provided in the next version of this document
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires April 16, 2007 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RSVP Proxy October 2006
We observe that this approach does not require any extensions to the
existing RSVP protocol.
4.3. Inspection-Triggered Proxy
In this approach, it is assumed that the RSVP Proxy device is on the
datapath of "packets of interest", that it can inspect such packets
on the fly as they transit through it, and that it can infer
information from these packets of interest to determine what RSVP
reservations need to be established, when and with what
characteristics (possibly also using some configured information).
One example of "packets of interest" could be application level
signaling. An RSVP Proxy device capable of inspecting SIP signaling
for multimedia session or RTSP signaling for Video streaming, can
obtain from such signaling information about when a multimedia
session is up or when a Video is going to be streamed. It can also
identify the addresses and ports of senders and receivers and can
determine the bandwidth of the corresponding flows. Thus, such an
RSVP Proxy device can determine all necessary information to
synchronise RSVP reservations to application requirements. This is
illustrated in the Figure below.
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires April 16, 2007 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RSVP Proxy October 2006
|-------------|
| Application |
| Signaling |
| Entity |
|-------------|
// \\
// \\
// \\
<////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\>
|----| |--------| *** |--------| |----|
| E |--------| RSVP |------*r*--------| RSVP |----------| E |
|----| | Proxy | *** | Proxy | |----|
|--------| |--------|
<************************************************************>
<=========RSVP=============>
|----|
| E | End system (sender, or receiver, or both)
|----|
***
*r* Regular RSVP router
***
<///> application level signaling
<***> media flow
<==> segment of flow path protected by RSVP reservation
Another example of "packets of interest" could be packets belonging
to the application flow itself (e.g. media packets). An RSVP Proxy
device capable of detecting the transit of packets from a particular
flow, can attempt to establish a reservation corresponding to that
flow. Characteristics of the reservation MAY be derived from
configuration, flow measurement or a combination of those.
Note however, that in case of reservation failure, the inspection-
triggered RSVP Proxy does not have a direct mechanism for notifying
the application (since it is not participating itself actively in
application signaling) so that the application takes appropriate
action (for example terminate the corresponding session). To
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires April 16, 2007 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft RSVP Proxy October 2006
mitigate this problem, the inspection-triggered RSVP Proxy MAY mark
differently the DSCP of flows for which an RSVP reservation has been
successfully proxied from the flows for which a reservation is not in
place. In some situations, the Inspection-Triggered Proxy might be
able to modify the "packets of interest" (e.g. application signaling
messages) to convey some hint to applications that the corresponding
flows cannot be guaranteed by RSVP reservations.
With the inspection-triggered Proxy approach, the RSVP Receiver Proxy
is effectively required to attempt to build application awareness by
traffic inspection and then is somewhat limited in the actions in can
take in case of reservation failure. However, this may be a useful
approach in some environments. Note also that this approach does not
require any change to the RSVP protocol.
With the "Inspection-Triggered" RSVP Proxy approach, the RSVP router
MUST be configurable to use and interpret some specific "packets of
interest" as the trigger for RSVP Receiver Proxy behavior.
4.4. STUN-Triggered Proxy
In this approach, the RSVP Proxy entity takes advantage of the
application awareness provided by the STUN signaling to synchronise
RSVP reservations with application requirements. The STUN signaling
is sent from endpoint to endpoint. This is illustrated in the figure
below.
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires April 16, 2007 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft RSVP Proxy October 2006
|---------|
| SIP |
| Server |
|---------|
// \\
// \\
// \\
// \\
// \\
|----| |--------| *** |--------| |----|
| E |--------| RSVP |------*r*--------| RSVP |----------| E |
|----| | Proxy | *** | Proxy | |----|
|--------| |--------|
<**************************************************************>
<=========RSVP=============>
|----|
| E | End system (sender, or receiver, or both) also STUN Clients
|----|
***
*r* Regular RSVP router
***
<***> media flow
<==> segment of flow path protected by RSVP reservation
// signaling
In this approach, a STUN [I-D.ietf-behave-rfc3489bis] message
triggers the RSVP proxy. Using a STUN message eases the RSVP proxy
agent's computational burden because it need only look for STUN
messages rather than maintain state of all flows. More importantly,
if the STUN message also includes additional STUN attributes
describing the bandwidth or the application requesting the flow, the
RSVP proxy agent can authorize an appropriately-sized reservation for
each flow.
For unicast flows, [I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice] is an already widely-adopted
emerging standard for NAT traversal. For our purposes, we are not
interested in its NAT traversal capabilities. Rather, ICE's useful
characteristic is its connectivity check -- the exchange of STUN
Binding Request messages between hosts to verify connectivity (see
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires April 16, 2007 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft RSVP Proxy October 2006
Connectivity Check Usage in [I-D.ietf-behave-rfc3489bis]). By
including new STUN attributes (defined below) in those messages an
RSVP proxy agent can perform its functions more effectively.
Additionally, the RSVP proxy agent can inform endpoints of an RSVP
reservation failure by dropping the ICE connectivity check message.
This provides very RSVP-like call admission control and signaling to
the endpoints, without implementing RSVP on the endpoints.
For multicast flows (or certain kinds of unicast flows that don't or
can't use ICE), the STUN Indication message type can be used for
similar purposes. Like the STUN Binding Request message, the STUN
Indication message can also contain the new attributes defined below.
The STUN Indication is described in [I-D.ietf-behave-rfc3489bis].
4.4.1. STUN BANDWIDTH Attribute
A new STUN attribute, BANDWIDTH, is defined for the STUN Connectivity
Check and the Indication usage. This attribute would be sent by the
host that wants this amount of bandwidth for its subsequent flow.
The RSVP proxy agent would use this attribute's value when performing
its RSVP proxy function.
The BANDWIDTH attribute is a 32-bit value. The bandwidth is
expressed in kilobytes per second, allowing 1kbps to 4096gbps to be
expressed.
4.4.2. STUN APPLICATION-IDENTIFIER Attribute
A new STUN attribute, APPLICATION-IDENTIFIER, is defined for the STUN
Connectivity Check and the Indication usage. This attribute would be
sent by the host to identify the application associated with this
flow.
Application identifier values are coordinated between applications
and RSVP proxies via a mechanism outside the scope of this document.
The RSVP proxy can use the application identifier to request
authorization prior to issuing an RSVP reservation for a flow, to
request bandwidth information for a flow (assuming the BANDWIDTH
attribute was not present), or to authorize a certain application's
request for bandwidth.
The APPLICATION-IDENTIFIER attribute is of arbitrary length. As with
other STUN attributes, its length MUST be a on a word (32-bit)
boundary.
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires April 16, 2007 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft RSVP Proxy October 2006
4.5. Application-Signaling-Triggered On-Path Proxy
In this approach, it is assumed that an entity involved in the
application level signaling controls an RSVP Proxy device which is
located in the datapath of the application flows (i.e. "on-path").
In this case, the RSVP Proxy entity does not attempt to understand
the application reservation requirements, but instead is instructed
by the entity participating in application level signaling to
establish, maintain and tear down reservations as needed by the
application flows. In other words, with this approach, the solution
for synchronising RSVP signaling with application-level signaling is
to rely on an application-level signaling entity which controls an
RSVP Proxy function that sits in the flow datapath.
In some instantiations, the application-level signaling entity may be
collocated with the on-path RSVP Proxy device. The figure below
illustrates such an environment in the case where the application-
level signaling protocol is SIP.
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires April 16, 2007 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft RSVP Proxy October 2006
|--------| |--------|
-----------|SIP |----------------|SIP |----------
/ |Server/ | |Server/ | \
/ |Proxy | |Server/ | \
|----| |--------| *** |--------| |----|
| E |-----------| On |------*r*-------| Bearer |----------| E |
|----| | Path | *** | Path | |----|
| Entity | | Entity |
| + | | + |
| RSVP | | RSVP |
| Proxy | | Proxy |
|--------| |--------|
<******************> <***********************> <***************>
<=========RSVP=============>
|----|
| E | End system (sender, or receiver, or both)
|----|
***
*r* Regular RSVP router
***
<***> media flow
<==> segment of flow path protected by RSVP reservation
/ SIP signaling
Consider an environment involving decomposed Session Border
Controllers (SBCs). The SBC function may be broken up into a
Signaling Border Element (SBE) and Datapath Border Elements (DBEs).
The DBEs are remotely controled by the SBE. This may be achieved
using a protocol like [RFC3525]. Where admission control and
bandwidth reservation is required between the SBEs for QoS guarantees
of the sessions, the SBE could implement RSVP Proxy functionality.
In that case, the application-level signaling entity (the SBE) is
remotely located from the on-path RSVP Proxy devices (located in the
DBEs). Such an environment is illustrated in the Figure below.
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires April 16, 2007 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft RSVP Proxy October 2006
|---------|
-----------------| SBE |------------------
/ | | \
/ |---------| \
/ // \\ \
/ // \\ \
/ // \\ \
/ // \\ \
/ // \\ \
|----| |--------| *** |--------| |----|
| E |-----------| DBE |------*r*-------| DBE |----------| E |
|----| | | *** | | |----|
| + | | + |
| RSVP | | RSVP |
| Proxy | | Proxy |
|--------| |--------|
<******************> <***********************> <***************>
<=========RSVP=============>
|----|
| E | End system (sender, or receiver, or both)
|----|
***
*r* Regular RSVP router
***
SBE Signaling Border Element
DBE Datapath Border Element
SBE + DBE = decomposed Session Border Controller (decomposed SBC)
<***> media flow
<==> segment of flow path protected by RSVP reservation
/ SIP signaling
// control interface between the SBE and DBE
This RSVP Proxy approach does not require any extension to the RSVP
protocol. However, it may require extensions to the protocol (e.g.
that may be based on [RFC3525]) used by the application level
signaling entity to control the remote on-path RSVP Proxy entities.
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires April 16, 2007 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft RSVP Proxy October 2006
4.6. Application-Signaling-Triggered Off-Path Source Proxy
In this approach, it is assumed that an entity involved in the
application level signaling also behaves as the RSVP Source Proxy
device. However, since such an application level signaling entity is
generally not on the datapath of the actual application flows, the
RSVP messages need to be logically "tunnelled" between the off-path
RSVP Source Proxy and a router in the datapath and upstream of the
segment of the path to be protected by RSVP reservations. This is to
ensure that the RSVP messages follow the exact same path as the flow
they protect (as required by RSVP operations) on the segment of the
end-to-end path which is to be subject to RSVP reservations.
With this approach, the solution for synchronising RSVP signaling
with application-level signaling is to co-locale the RSVP Proxy
function with a (typically) off-path application-level signaling
entity and then "tunnel" the RSVP signaling towards the appropriate
router in the datapath.
The figure below illustrates such an environment.
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires April 16, 2007 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft RSVP Proxy October 2006
|-------------|
--------------| Application |-----------
/ | Signaling | \
/ | Entity + | \
/ | RSVP Sender | \
/ | Proxy | \
/ |-------------| \
/ /=/ \
/ /=/ \
/ /=/ \
/ /=/ \
/ /=/ \
|----| |--------| *** |----|
| S |-----------| RSVP |-----------*r*----------------------| R |
|----| | Router | *** |----|
|--------|
****************************************************************>
=========RSVP==============================>
|----| |----| ***
| S | Sender | R | Receiver *r* regular RSVP
|----| |----| *** router
<***> media flow
==> segment of flow path protected by RSVP reservation
in forward direction
/ Application level signaling
/*/ GRE-tunnelled RSVP (Path messages)
With the "Application-Triggered Off-Path Source Proxy" approach, the
RSVP Proxy MUST:
o generate a Path message on behalf of the sender corresponding to
the reservation needed by the application and maintain the
corresponding Path state
o build a Path message which is exactly the same as would be built
by the actual sender (if it was RSVP capable), with one single
exception which is that the RSVP Sender Proxy MUST put its own IP
address as the RSVP Previous Hop
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires April 16, 2007 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft RSVP Proxy October 2006
o encapsulate the Path message into a GRE tunnel whose destination
address is an RSVP Router sitting on the datapath for the flow
(and upstream of the segment which requires QoS guarantees via
RSVP reservation)
o process the corresponding received RSVP messages (including Resv
messages) as per regular RSVP
o synchronise the RSVP reservation state with application level
requirements and signaling
Note that since the Off-Path Source Proxy encodes its own IP address
as the RSVP PHOP in the Path message, the RSVP Router terminating the
GRE tunnel naturally addresses all the RSVP messages travelling
upstream hop-by-hop (such as Resv messages) to the Off-Path Source
Proxy (without having to encapsulate those in a reverse-direction GRE
tunnel to the Off-Path Proxy).
This RSVP Proxy approach does not require any extension to the RSVP
protocol (other than tunneling the Path messages in a GRE tunnel).
4.7. RSVP-Signaling-Triggered Proxy
An RSVP proxy can also be triggered and controlled through extended
RSVP signaling from the remote end that is RSVP-capable (and supports
these RSVP extensions for Proxy control). The challenges in these
explicit signaling schemes are:
o How does the proxy differentiate between reservation requests that
must be proxied, from requests that should go end-to-end?
o How does the node sending the explicit messages know where the
proxy is located, e.g., an IP address of the proxy that should
reply to the signaling?
o How are sender and receiver proxy operations differentiated?
An example of such a mechanism is the Localized RSVP (LRSVP)
[I-D.manner-tsvwg-rsvp-proxy-sig]. This scheme is primarily targeted
to local access network reservations whereby an end host can request
resource reservations for both incoming and outgoing flows only over
the access network. This may be useful in environments where the
access network is typically the bottleneck while the core is
comparatively over-provisioned, as may be the case with a number of
radio access technologies.
In LRSVP, messages targeted to the proxy are identified with one bit
in all RSVP message. Similarly, all messages sent by the proxy back
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires April 16, 2007 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft RSVP Proxy October 2006
are marked. The use of one bit allows differentiating between
proxied and end-to-end reservations.
For triggering an RSVP receiver proxy, the sender of the data sends a
PATH message which is marked with the mentioned one bit. The
receiver proxy is located on the signaling and data path, eventually
gets the PATH message, and replies back with a RESV. A node triggers
an RSVP sender proxy with a new PATH_REQUEST message, which instructs
the proxy to send a PATH messages towards the triggering node. The
node then replies back with a RESV. More details can be found in
[I-D.manner-tsvwg-rsvp-proxy-sig].
Such RSVP-Signaling-Triggered Proxy approaches require RSVP signaling
extensions, however they can provide more flexibility in the control
of the Proxy behavior (e.g. control of reverse reservation
parameters).
4.8. Other Approaches
In some cases, having a full RSVP implementation running on an end
host can be seen to produce excessive overhead. In end-hosts that
are low in processing power and functionality, having an RSVP daemon
run and take care of the signaling may introduce unnecessary
overhead. One article [Kars01] proposes to create a remote API so
that the daemon would in fact run on the end-host's default router
and the end-host application would send its requests to that daemon.
Thus, we can have deployments, where an end host uses some
proprietary simple protocol to communicate with its pre-defined RSVP
router - a form of RSVP proxy.
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires April 16, 2007 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft RSVP Proxy October 2006
5. Security Considerations
In the environments concerned by this document, RSVP messages are
used to control resource reservations on a segment of the end-to-end
path of flows. To ensure the integrity of the associated reservation
and admission control mechanisms, the mechanisms defined in
[RFC2747]] and [RFC3097] can be used. Those protect RSVP messages
integrity hop-by-hop and provide node authentication, thereby
protecting against corruption and spoofing of RSVP messages.
An important issue regarding the various types of proxy functionality
is authorization: which node is authorized to send messages on behalf
of the data sender or receiver, and how is the authorization
verified? RFC 3520 [RFC3520] presents a mechanism to include
authorization information within RSVP signaling messages. Subsequent
versions of this document will discuss in more details how such
mechanisms can be used to address security of RSVP Proxy approaches.
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires April 16, 2007 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft RSVP Proxy October 2006
6. IANA Considerations
This document requires IANA registration for its new STUN attributes,
BANDWIDTH and APPLICATION-IDENTIFIER. The registration details of
these STUN attributes will be described in a later version of this
document.
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires April 16, 2007 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft RSVP Proxy October 2006
7. Acknowledgments
This document benefited from earlier work on the concept of RSVP
Proxy including the one documented by Silvano Gai, Dinesh Dutt,
Nitsan Elfassy and Yoram Bernet. It also benefited from discussions
with Pratik Bose, Chris Christou and Michael Davenport.
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires April 16, 2007 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft RSVP Proxy October 2006
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-behave-rfc3489bis]
Rosenberg, J., "Simple Traversal Underneath Network
Address Translators (NAT) (STUN)",
draft-ietf-behave-rfc3489bis-04 (work in progress),
July 2006.
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice]
Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment
(ICE): A Methodology for Network Address Translator (NAT)
Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols",
draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-11 (work in progress), October 2006.
[RFC1633] Braden, B., Clark, D., and S. Shenker, "Integrated
Services in the Internet Architecture: an Overview",
RFC 1633, June 1994.
[RFC2205] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.
[RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated
Services", RFC 2210, September 1997.
[RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
Services", RFC 2475, December 1998.
[RFC2747] Baker, F., Lindell, B., and M. Talwar, "RSVP Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 2747, January 2000.
[RFC2961] Berger, L., Gan, D., Swallow, G., Pan, P., Tommasi, F.,
and S. Molendini, "RSVP Refresh Overhead Reduction
Extensions", RFC 2961, April 2001.
[RFC3097] Braden, R. and L. Zhang, "RSVP Cryptographic
Authentication -- Updated Message Type Value", RFC 3097,
April 2001.
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.manner-tsvwg-rsvp-proxy-sig]
Manner, J., "Localized RSVP for Controlling RSVP Proxies",
October 2006.
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires April 16, 2007 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft RSVP Proxy October 2006
[Kars01] Karsten, M., "Experimental Extensions to RSVP -- Remote
Client and One-Pass Signalling", IWQoS Karlsruhe, Germany,
2006.
[RFC3312] Camarillo, G., Marshall, W., and J. Rosenberg,
"Integration of Resource Management and Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3312, October 2002.
[RFC3520] Hamer, L-N., Gage, B., Kosinski, B., and H. Shieh,
"Session Authorization Policy Element", RFC 3520,
April 2003.
[RFC3525] Groves, C., Pantaleo, M., Anderson, T., and T. Taylor,
"Gateway Control Protocol Version 1", RFC 3525, June 2003.
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires April 16, 2007 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft RSVP Proxy October 2006
Appendix A. Use Cases for RSVP Proxies
A.1. RSVP-based VoD CAC in Broadband Aggregation Networks
As broadband services for residential are becoming more and more
prevalent, next generation aggregation networks are being deployed in
order to aggregate traffic from broadband users (whether attached via
Digital Subscriber Line technology aka DSL, Fiber To The Home/Curb
aka FTTx, Cable or other broadband access technology) and service
providers core network or service delivery platforms. Video on
Demand (VoD) services which may be offered to broadband users present
significant capacity planning challenges for the aggregation network
because each VoD stream requires significant dedicated sustained
bandwidth (typically 2-4 Mb/s in Standard Definition TV and 8-12 Mb/s
in High Definition TV), the VoD codec algorithms are very sensitive
to packet loss and the load resulting from such services is very hard
to predict (e.g. it can vary very suddenly with block-buster titles
made available as well as with commercial offerings). As a result,
transport of VoD streams on the aggregation network usually translate
into a strong requirement for admission control, so that the quality
of established VoD sessions can be protected at all times by
rejecting the excessive session attempts during unpredictable peaks,
during link or node failures, or combination of those factors.
RSVP can be used in the aggregation network for admission control of
the VoD sessions. However, since Customer Premises equipment such as
Set Top Boxes (which behave as the receiver for VoD streams) often do
not yet support RSVP, the last IP hop in the aggregation network can
behave as an RSVP Receiver Proxy. This way, RSVP can be used between
VoD Pumps and the Last IP hop in the Aggregation network to perform
accurate admission control of VoD streams over the resources set
aside for VoD in the aggregation network (typically a certain
percentage of the bandwidth of any link). As VoD streams are
unidirectional, a simple "Path-Triggered" RSVP Receiver Proxy (as
described in Section 4.1) is all that is required in this use case.
The Figure below illustrates operation of RSVP-based admission
control of VoD sessions in an Aggregation network involving RSVP
support on the VoD Pump (the senders) and RSVP Receiver Proxy on the
last IP hop of the aggregation network. All the customer premises
equipment remain RSVP unaware.
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires April 16, 2007 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft RSVP Proxy October 2006
|-------------|
----| VoD SRM |-----------
/ | | \
/ | | \
/ | | \
/ | | \
/ |-------------| \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
|----| |------| *** *** |--------| |-----| |---|
| VoD|--|RSVP |----*r*--*r*--|RSVP |--|DSLAM|~~~~|STB|--TV
|Pump| |Router| *** *** |Receiver| |-----| |---|
|----| |------| |Proxy |
|--------|
<---Aggregation Net------------->
******************************************************>
====================RSVP==============>
SRM Systems Resource Manager
*** |---|
*r* regular RSVP |STB| Set Top Box
*** router |---|
<***> media flow
==> segment of flow path protected by RSVP reservation
in forward direction
/ VoD Application level signaling
In the case where the VoD Pumps are not RSVP-capable, an Application-
Signaling-triggered Off-Path Source Proxy (as described in
Section 4.6) can also be implemented on the VoD Controller or Systems
Resource Manager (SRM) devices typically involved in VoD deployments.
The Figure below illustrates operation of RSVP-based admission
control of VoD sessions in an Aggregation network involving such
Application-Signaling-triggered Off-Path Source Proxy on the SRM and
RSVP Receiver Proxy on the Last IP hop of the aggregation network.
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires April 16, 2007 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft RSVP Proxy October 2006
All the customer premises equipment, as well as the VoD pumps, remain
RSVP unaware.
|-------------|
----| VoD SRM |-----------
/ | | \
/ | + | \
/ | RSVP Sender | \
/ | Proxy | \
/ |-------------| \
/ /=/ \
/ /=/ \
/ /=/ \
/ /=/ \
/ /=/ \
|----| |------| *** *** |--------| |-----| |---|
| VoD|--|RSVP |----*r*--*r*--|RSVP |--|DSLAM|~~~~|STB|--TV
|Pump| |Router| *** *** |Receiver| |-----| |---|
|----| |------| |Proxy |
|--------|
<---Aggregation Net------------->
******************************************************>
==============RSVP==============>
SRM Systems Resource Manager
*** |---|
*r* regular RSVP |STB| Set Top Box
*** router |---|
<***> media flow
==> segment of flow path protected by RSVP reservation
in forward direction
/ VoD Application level signaling
/*/ GRE-tunnelled RSVP (Path messages)
The RSVP Proxy entities specified in this document play a significant
role here since they allow immediate deployment of an RSVP-based
admission control solution for VoD without requiring any upgrade to
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires April 16, 2007 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft RSVP Proxy October 2006
the huge installed base of non-RSVP-capable customer premises
equipment. In one mode described above, they also avoid upgrade of
non-RSVP-capable VoD pumps. In turn, this means that the benefits of
on-path admission control can be offered to VoD services over
broadband aggregation networks. Those include accurate bandwidth
accounting regardless of topology (hub-and-spoke, ring, mesh, star,
arbitrary combinations) and dynamic adjustment to any change in
topology (such as failure, routing change, additional links...).
A.2. RSVP-based Voice/Video CAC in Enterprise WAN
More and more enterprises are migrating their telephony and
videoconferencing applications onto IP. When doing so, there is a
need for retaining admission control capabilities of existing TDM-
based systems to ensure the QoS of these applications is maintained
even when transiting through the enterprise's Wide Area Network
(WAN). Since many of the endpoints already deployed (such as IP
Phones or Videoconferencing terminals) are not RSVP capable, RSVP
Proxy approaches are very useful by allowing deployment of an RSVP-
based admission control solution over the WAN without requiring
upgrade of the existing terminals.
A common deployment architecture for such environments involves
Application-Signaling-Triggered On-Path RSVP Proxy as defined in
Section 4.5. Routers sitting at the edges of the WAN network behave
as Media Relay in the datapath. For example, such a Media Relay
router on the WAN Edge may terminate a call-leg from the calling IP
phone and relay it to another call-leg setup on the WAN side towards
another Media Relay router on the egress side of the WAN towards the
called IP phone. Finally that egress Media Relay router may
terminate the call leg from the ingress Media Relay router and relay
it onto a call-leg setup to the called IP Phone. The Media Relay
routers setup, maintain and tear down the call-legs on the WAN
segment under the control of the SIP Server/Proxy. They also
establish, maintain and tear-down RSVP reservations over the WAN
segment for these call-legs also under the control of the SIP Server/
Proxy. The SIP Server/Proxy synchronises the RSVP reservation status
with the status of end-to-end calls. For example, the called IP
phone will only be instructed to play a ring tone if the RSVP
reservations for the corresponding WAN call leg has been successfully
established.
This architecture allowing RSVP-based admission control of voice and
video on the Enterprise WAN is illustrated in the Figure below.
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires April 16, 2007 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft RSVP Proxy October 2006
|---------|
--------------| SIP |------------
/ | Server/ | \
/ | Proxy | \
/ |---------| \
/ // \\ \
/ // \\ \
/ // \\ \
/ // \\ \
/ // \\ \
|-----| |--------| *** *** |--------| |-----|
| IP |------| Media |---*r*---*r*---| Media |-------|IP |
|Phone| | Relay | *** *** | Relay | |Phone|
|-----| | + | | + | |-----|
| RSVP | | RSVP |
| Proxy | | Proxy |
|--------| |--------|
<--campus--> <--campus-->
network network
<---------WAN----------->
<*************> <***********************> <**************>
<=========RSVP===========>
***
*r* Regular RSVP router
***
<***> media flow
<==> segment of flow path protected by RSVP reservation
/ SIP signaling
// control interface between the SIP Server/Proxy and
Media Relay/RSVP Proxy
A.3. RSVP-based Voice CAC in TSP Domain
Let us consider an environment involving multiple Telephony Service
Providers (TSPs). Those may be interconnected through Session Border
Controllers (SBC) which are on-path i.e. on the datapath of the voice
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires April 16, 2007 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft RSVP Proxy October 2006
media streams. The SBCs may be remotely controlled by a SIP Server/
Proxy. Support of RSVP Proxy on one side of the SBC may be used to
perform RSVP-based admission control through one of the TSP Domain,
even if it is not used end-to-end (and in particular when another TSP
domain remains entirely non-RSVP-aware). This relies on the
Application-Signaling-Triggered On-Path RSVP Proxy presented in
Section 4.5. This is illustrated in the Figure below.
|---------|
--------------| SIP |------------
/ | Server/ | \
/ | Proxy | \
/ |---------| \
/ || \
/ || \
/ || \
/ || \
/ || \
|-----| |---------| |--------| |---------| |-----|
| IP |------| TSP |-----| SBC |-----| TSP |--|IP |
|Phone| | Domain1 | | + | | Domain2 | |Phone|
|-----| | | | RSVP | | | |-----|
| | | Proxy | | |
| | |--------| | |
|---------| |---------|
<******************************> <*************************>
<=========RSVP===========>
<***> media flow
<==> segment of flow path protected by RSVP reservation
/ SIP signaling
|| control interface between the SIP Server/Proxy and
SBC/RSVP Proxy
A.4. RSVP Proxies for Mobile Access Networks
Mobile access networks are increasingly based on IP technology. This
implies that, on the network layer, all traffic, both traditional
data and streamed data like audio or video, is transmitted as
packets. Increasingly popular multimedia applications would benefit
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires April 16, 2007 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft RSVP Proxy October 2006
from better than best-effort service from the network, a forwarding
service with strict Quality of Service (QoS) with guaranteed minimum
bandwidth and bounded delay. Other applications, such as electronic
commerce, network control and management, and remote login
applications, would also benefit from a differentiated treatment.
The IETF has two main models for providing differentiated treatment
of packets in routers. The Integrated Services (IntServ) model
[RFC1633] together with the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP)
[RFC2205] [RFC2210] [RFC2961] provides per-flow guaranteed end-to-end
transmission service. The Differentiated Services (DiffServ)
framework [RFC2475] provides non- signaled flow differentiation that
usually provides, but does not guarantee, proper transmission
service.
However, these architectures have weaknesses, for example, RSVP
requires support from both communication end points, and the protocol
may have potential performance issues in mobile environments.
DiffServ can only provide statistical guarantees and is not well
suited for dynamic environments.
Let us consider a scenario, where a fixed network correspondent node
(CN) would be sending a multimedia stream to an end host behind a
wireless link. If the correspondent node does not support RSVP it
cannot signal its traffic characteristics to the network and request
specific forwarding services. Likewise, if the correspondent node is
not able to mark its traffic with a proper DiffServ Code Point (DSCP)
to trigger service differentiation, the multimedia stream will get
only best-effort service which may result in poor visual and audio
quality in the receiving application. Even if the connecting wired
network is over-provisioned, an end host would still benefit from
local resource reservations, especially in wireless access networks,
where the bottleneck resource is most probably the wireless link.
RSVP proxies would be a very beneficial solution to this problem. It
would allow distinguishing local network reservations from the end-
to-end reservations. The end host does not need to know the access
network topology or the nodes that will reserve the local resources.
The access network would do resource reservations for both incoming
and outgoing flows based on certain criterion, e.g., filters based on
application protocols. Another option is that the mobile end host
makes an explicit reservation that identifies the intention and the
access network will find the correct local access network node(s) to
respond to the reservation. RSVP proxies would, thus, allow resource
reservation over the segment which is the most likely bottleneck, the
wireless connectivity. If the wireless access network uses a local
mobility management mechanism, where the IP address of the mobile
node does not change during handover, RSVP reservations would follow
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires April 16, 2007 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft RSVP Proxy October 2006
the mobile node movement.
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires April 16, 2007 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft RSVP Proxy October 2006
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
Jukka Manner
University of Helsinki
P.O. Box 68
University of Helsinki FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
Finland
Phone: +358 9 191 51298
Email: jmanner@cs.helsinki.fi
URI: http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/jmanner/
Dan Wing
771 Alder Drive
Milpitas, CA 95035
United States
Email: dwing@cisco.com
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires April 16, 2007 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft RSVP Proxy October 2006
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
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 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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Le Faucheur, et al. Expires April 16, 2007 [Page 40]