Network Working Group P. Levis
Internet-Draft M. Boucadair
Intended status: Informational France Telecom
Expires: August 23, 2007 February 19, 2007
Considerations of provider-to-provider agreements for Internet-scale QoS
draft-levis-provider-qos-agreement-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 August 23, 2007.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
This memo analyzes provider-to-provider QoS agreements suited for a
global QoS-enabled Internet. It defines terminology relevant to
inter-domain QoS models. It introduces a new concept denoted by
Meta-QoS-Class. This new concept drives and federates the way QoS
inter-domain relationships are built. It opens up new perspectives
for a QoS-enabled Internet that retains, as much as possible, the
openness of the existing best-effort Internet.
Levis & Boucadair Expires August 23, 2007 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MQC and provider QoS agreements February 2007
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Weaknesses of provider-to-provider QoS agreements based on
SP chains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. IP connectivity services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Similarity between provider and customer agreements . . . 6
3.3. Liability for service disruption . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. SP chain trap leading to glaciation . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Provider-to-provider agreements based on Meta-QoS-Class . . . 7
4.1. Single domain covering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Binding l-QCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. MQC-based Binding process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. The Internet as MQC planes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 16
Levis & Boucadair Expires August 23, 2007 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MQC and provider QoS agreements February 2007
1. Introduction
Three different areas can be distinguished in IP QoS service
offerings. The first area is the single domain where a provider
delivers QoS services inside the boundaries of its own network. The
second area is multi domains where a small set of providers, with
mutual business interests, cooperate to deliver QoS services inside
the boundaries of their network aggregate. The third area, which has
very seldom been put forward, is the Internet where QoS services can
be delivered from almost any source to any destination. Both multi
domains and Internet areas deal with inter-domain aspects. However
they differ greatly in many ways, such as the number of domains and
QoS paths involved, which are much higher and dynamic for the
Internet area. Multi domains and Internet areas are therefore likely
to differ in their respective solutions.
Most of the work on QoS implementation as well as standardization and
research, has gone into the single domain area. A number of issues
still appear to need further elaboration [RFC2990], before we could
have operational deployment of QoS services that include inter-domain
aspects.
This memo deals only with QoS solutions globally suited for the
Internet. Any Internet-wide solutions should apply locally in order
to be usable as soon as deployed in a small set of domains. Any
Internet-wide solutions should be scalable in order to allow a global
deployment to almost all Internet domains, with the ability to
establish QoS communications between any two end-users. Any
Internet-wide solutions should also maintain a best-effort service
that should remain the pre-eminent service as a consequence of the
end-to-end argument [E2E]. If there is no path available within the
requested QoS to reach a destination, this destination must remain
reachable through the best-effort service.
This memo does not place any specific requirements on the intra-
domain traffic engineering policies and the way they are enforced. A
provider may deploy any technique to ensure QoS inside its network.
This memo assumes only that QoS capabilities inside a provider's
network can be represented as local-QoS-Classes (l-QCs). When
crossing a domain, traffic experiences conditions characterized by
the values of delay, jitter, and packet loss rate that correspond to
the l-QC selected for that traffic within that domain. Capabilities
can differ from one provider to another by the number of deployed
l-QCs, by their respective QoS characteristics, and also by the way
they have been implemented and engineered.
This memo analyzes provider-to-provider QoS agreements. To avoid a
great deal of complexity and scalability issues we assume these
Levis & Boucadair Expires August 23, 2007 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MQC and provider QoS agreements February 2007
agreements are negotiated only between two adjacent domains that are
directly accessible to each other (immediate neighbors). We also
assume, because they exchange traffic, that these neighbors are BGP
[RFC4271] peers.
This memo defines terminology relevant to inter-domain QoS models and
introduces a new concept denoted by Meta-QoS-Class(MQC) that drives
and federates the way QoS inter-domain relationships are built. The
rationale for the MQC concept relies on a universal and common
understanding of QoS-sensitive application needs. Wherever end-users
are connected, they experience the same QoS difficulties and are
likely to express very similar QoS requirements to their respective
providers. Globally confronted with the same customer requirements,
providers are likely to design and operate similar network
capabilities. Note that this document does not specify any protocols
or systems.
2. Terminology
(D, J, L)
D: one-way transit delay [RFC2679], J: one-way transit delay
variation or jitter [RFC3393], and L: packet loss rate [RFC2680].
Domain
A network infrastructure composed of one or several Autonomous
Systems (AS) managed by a single administrative entity.
IP connectivity service
IP transfer capability characterized by a (Destination, D, J, L)
tuple where Destination is a group of IP addresses and (D, J, L)
is the QoS performance to get to Destination.
Local-QoS-Class (l-QC)
A QoS transfer capability across a single domain, characterized by
a set of QoS performance parameters denoted by (D, J, L). From a
Diffserv [RFC2475] perspective, an l-QC is an occurrence of a Per
Domain Behavior (PDB) [RFC3086].
L-QC binding
Two l-QCs from two neighboring domains are bound together once the
two providers have agreed to transfer traffic from one l-QC to the
other.
Levis & Boucadair Expires August 23, 2007 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MQC and provider QoS agreements February 2007
L-QC thread
Chain of neighboring bound l-QCs.
Meta-QoS-Class (MQC)
An MQC provides the boundaries of the QoS parameters values, two
l-QCs must respect in order to be bound together. An MQC is used
as a label that certifies the support of a set of applications
that bear similar network QoS requirements.
Service Provider (SP)
An entity that provides Internet connectivity. This document
assumes that an SP owns and administers an IP network called a
domain. Sometimes simply referred to as provider.
SP chain
The chain of Service Providers whose domains are used to convey
packets for a given IP connectivity service.
3. Weaknesses of provider-to-provider QoS agreements based on SP chains
This section analyzes provider-to-provider QoS agreements based on
guarantees that span several domains. In this approach the basic
service element that a provider offers to its neighboring providers
is called an IP connectivity service. It uses the notion of SP
chains. We first define what an IP connectivity service is, and then
we point out several weaknesses of such an approach, especially the
SP chain trap problem that leads to the so-called Internet glaciation
era.
3.1. IP connectivity services
An IP connectivity service is a (Destination, D, J, L) tuple where
Destination is a group of IP addresses reachable from the domain of
the provider offering the service, and (D, J, L) is the QoS
performance to get from this domain to Destination. Destination is
typically located in a remote domain.
Levis & Boucadair Expires August 23, 2007 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MQC and provider QoS agreements February 2007
Provider- /--------------SP chain---------------\
oriented
view /--Agreement--\
+----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+
|SP +-------+SP +----+SP +----+SP +- ... -+SP |
|n+1 | |n | |n-1 | |n-2 | |1 |
+----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+
Domain- -----> packet flow /
oriented Destination
view <----------- Guarantee Scope --------->
Figure 1: IP connectivity service
In Figure 1 Provider SPn guarantees provider SPn+1 the level of QoS
for crossing the whole chain of providers' domains (SPn, SPn-1,
SPn-2, ...,SP1). SPi denotes a provider as well as its domain. The
top of the figure is the provider-oriented view, the ordered set of
providers (SPn, SPn-1, SPn-2, ...,SP1) is called an SP chain. The
bottom of the figure is the domain-oriented view.
3.2. Similarity between provider and customer agreements
This approach maps end-users' needs directly to provider-to-provider
agreements. Providers negotiate agreements to a destination because
they know customers are ready to pay for QoS guaranteed transfer to
this destination. As far as service scope is concerned, the
agreements between providers will resemble the agreements between
customers and providers. For instance, in Figure 1, SPn can sell to
its own customers the same IP connectivity service it sells to SPn+1.
There is no clear distinction between provider-to-provider agreements
and customer-to-provider agreements.
In order to guarantee a stable service, redundant SP chains should be
formed to reach the same destination. When one SP chain becomes
unavailable, an alternate SP chain should be selected. In the
context of a global QoS Internet that would lead to an enormous
number of SP chains along with the associated agreements.
3.3. Liability for service disruption
In Figure 1, if SPn+1 sees a disruption in the IP connectivity
service, it can turn only against SPn, its legal partner in the
agreement. If SPn is not responsible, in the same way, it can only
complain to SPn-1, and so on, until the faulty provider is found and
eventually requested to pay for the service impairment. The claim is
then supposed to move back along the chain until SPn pays SPn+1. The
SP chain becomes a liability chain.
Levis & Boucadair Expires August 23, 2007 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MQC and provider QoS agreements February 2007
Unfortunately this process is prone to failure in many cases. In the
context of QoS solutions suited for the Internet, SP chains are
likely to be dynamic and involve a significant number of providers.
Providers (that do not all know each other) involved in a same SP
chain can be competitors in many fields; therefore, trust
relationships are very difficult to build. Many complex and critical
issues need to be resolved: How will SPn+1 prove to SPn that QoS
level is not the level expected for a scope that can expand well
beyond SPn? How long will it take to find the guilty domain? Is SPn
ready to pay SPn+1 for something it does not control and is not
responsible for?
3.4. SP chain trap leading to glaciation
In Figure 1, SPn implicitly guarantees SPn+1 the level of QoS for the
crossing of distant domains like SPn-2. As we saw in Section 3.2, SP
chains will proliferate. A provider is, in this context, likely to
be part of numerous SP chains. It will see the level of QoS it
provides guaranteed by many providers it has maybe even never heard
of.
Any change in a given agreement is likely to have an impact on
numerous external agreements that make use of it. A provider sees
the degree of freedom to renegotiate, or terminate, one of its own
agreements being restricted by the large number of external (to its
domain) agreements that depend on it. This is what is referred to as
the "SP chain trap" issue. This solution is not appropriate for
worldwide QoS coverage as it would lead to glaciation phenomena,
causing a completely petrified QoS infrastructure, where nobody could
renegotiate any agreement.
4. Provider-to-provider agreements based on Meta-QoS-Class
If a QoS-enabled Internet is deemed desirable, with QoS services
available potentially to and from any destination, any solution must
resolve the above weaknesses and scalability problems, and find
alternate schemes for provider-to-provider agreements.
4.1. Single domain covering
Due to the vulnerabilities of the SP chain approach we assume
provider-to-provider QoS agreements should be based on guarantees
covering a single domain. A provider guarantees its neighbors only
the crossing performance of its own domain. In Figure 2, the
provider SPn guarantees the provider SPn+1 only the QoS performance
of the SPn domain. The remainder of this document will show that
this approach, bringing clarity and simplicity into inter-domain
Levis & Boucadair Expires August 23, 2007 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MQC and provider QoS agreements February 2007
relationships, is better suited for a global QoS Internet than that
based on SP chains.
Provider-
oriented
view /--Agreement--\
+----+ +----+
|SP +-------+SP +
|n+1 | |n |
+----+ +----+
Domain- -----> packet flow
oriented <---->
view Guarantee Scope
Figure 2: provider-to-provider QoS agreement
It is very important to note that the proposition to limit guarantees
to only one domain hop applies exclusively to provider-to-provider
agreements. It does not in any way preclude end-to-end guarantees
for communications.
There is a clear distinction between provider-to-provider and
customer-to-provider QoS agreements. We expect a great deal of
difference in dynamicity between the two. Most provider-to-provider
agreements should have been negotiated, and should remain stable,
before end-users can dynamically request end-to-end guarantees. The
number of provider agreements is largely independent of the number of
end-user requests and does not increase dramatically as with SP
chains.
The simple fact that SP chains do not exist makes the AS chain trap
problem and the associated glaciation threat vanish.
The liability issue is restricted to a one hop distance. A provider
is responsible for its own domain only, and is controlled only by all
the neighbors with whom it has a direct contract.
4.2. Binding l-QCs
When a provider wants to contract with another provider, the main
concern is to decide which l-QC(s) in its own domain it will bind to
which l-QC(s) in the neighboring downstream domain. The l-QC Binding
process becomes the basic inter-domain process.
Levis & Boucadair Expires August 23, 2007 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MQC and provider QoS agreements February 2007
Upstream Downstream
domain domain
l-QC21 -----> l-QC11
l-QC22 -----> l-QC12
l-QC23 ----->
l-QC13
l-QC24 ----->
Figure 3: l-QC Binding
If one l-QC was to be bound to two (or more) l-QCs it would be very
difficult for packets to know whether they should jump to one l-QC or
the other. This could imply a flow classification at the border of
the domains based on granularity as fine as the application flows.
For the sake of scalability we assume one l-QC should not be bound to
several l-QCs [LEV]. On the contrary, several l-QCs can be bound to
the same l-QC, in the way that l-QC23 and l-QC24 are bound to l-QC13
in Figure 3.
A provider decides the best match between l-QCs based exclusively on:
- What it knows about its own l-QCs;
- What it knows about its neighboring l-QCs.
It does not use any information related to what is happening more
than one domain away.
Despite this one hop, short-sighted approach, the consistency and the
coherency of the QoS treatment must be ensured on an l-QC thread
formed by neighboring bound l-QCs. Packets leaving a domain that
applies a given l-QC, should experience similar treatment when
crossing external domains up to their final destination. A provider
should bind its l-QC with the neighboring l-QC that has the closest
performance. The criteria for l-QC binding should be stable along
any l-QC thread. For example, two providers should not bind two
l-QCs for minimizing the delay whereas further on, on the same
thread, two other providers have bound two l-QCs for minimizing
errors. Constraints should be put on l-QC QoS performance parameters
to confine their values to an acceptable and expected level on an
l-QC thread scale. These constraints should depend on domain size,
for example restrictions on delay should authorize a bigger value for
a national domain than for a regional one. Some rules must therefore
be defined to establish in which conditions two l-QCs can be bound
Levis & Boucadair Expires August 23, 2007 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MQC and provider QoS agreements February 2007
together. These rules are provided by the notion of Meta-QoS-Class
(MQC).
4.3. MQC-based Binding process
An MQC provides the limits of the QoS parameters two l-QCs must
respect in order to be bound together. A provider goes through
several steps to extend its internal l-QCs through the binding
process. Firstly, it classifies its own l-QCs based on MQCs. An MQC
is used as a label that certifies the support of a set of
applications that bear similar network QoS requirements. It is a
means to make sure that an l-QC has the appropriate QoS
characteristics to convey the traffic of this set of applications.
Secondly, it learns about available MQCs advertised by its neighbors.
To advertise an MQC, a provider must have at least one compliant l-QC
and should be ready to reach agreements to let neighbor traffic
benefit from it. Thirdly, it contracts an agreement with its
neighbor to send some traffic that will be handled according to the
agreed MQCs.
The following attributes should be documented in any specification of
an MQC. This is not a closed list, other points can be added if
needed.
o A set of applications (e.g. VoIP) the MQC is particularly suited
for.
o Boundaries or intervals for each QoS performance attribute (D, J,
L), whenever required. An MQC can be focused on a single
parameter (e.g. low delay). Several levels can be specified
depending on the size of the network provider, for instance a
small domain (e.g. regional) needs lower delay than a large domain
(e.g. national) to match a given MQC.
o Constraints on traffic (e.g. only TCP-friendly).
o Constraints on the ratio: network resources for the class /
overall traffic using this class (e.g. less resources than peak
traffic).
Two l-QCs can be bound together if, and only if, they conform to the
same MQC.
A hierarchy of MQCs can be defined for a given type of service (e.g.
VoIP with different qualities: VoIP for residential and VoIP for
business). A given l-QC can be suitable for several MQCs (even
outside the same hierarchy). Several l-QCs in the same domain can be
classified as belonging to the same MQC. There is an MQC with no
Levis & Boucadair Expires August 23, 2007 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MQC and provider QoS agreements February 2007
specific constraints called the best-effort MQC.
The need for standardization is great in respect of inter-domain QoS
agreements [RFC3387]. Each provider must have the same understanding
of what a given MQC is about. We need a global agreement on a set of
MQC standards. The number of classes to be defined must remain very
small to avoid overwhelming complexity. We also need a means to
certify that the l-QC classification made by a provider conforms to
the MQC standards. So the standardization effort should be
accompanied by investigations on conformance testing requirements.
5. The Internet as MQC planes
The resulting QoS Internet can be viewed as a set of parallel
Internets or MQC planes. Each plane consists of all the l-QCs bound
according to the same MQC. An MQC plane can have holes and isolated
domains because QoS capabilities do not cover all Internet domains.
When an l-QC maps to several MQCs, it belongs potentially to several
planes.
When a provider contracts with another provider based on the use of
MQCs, it simply adds a logical link to the corresponding MQC plane.
This is basically what current traditional inter-domain agreements
mean for the existing Internet. Figure 4a) depicts the physical
layout of a fraction of the Internet, comprising four domains with
full-mesh connectivity.
+----+ +----+ +----+ +----+
|SP +----+SP | |SP +----+SP |
|1 | |2 | |1 | |2 |
+-+--+ +--+-+ +-+--+ +----+
| \ / | | /
| \/ | | /
| /\ | | /
| / \ | | /
+-+--+ +--+-+ +-+--+ +----+
|SP +----+SP | |SP | |SP |
|4 | |3 | |4 | |3 |
+----+ +----+ +----+ +----+
a) physical configuration b) an MQC plane
Figure 4: MQC planes
Figure 4 b) depicts how these four domains are involved in a given
MQC plane. SP1, SP2 and SP4 have at least one compliant l-QC (SP3
maybe has or not) for this MQC. A bi-directional agreement exists
between SP1 and SP2, SP1 and SP4, SP2 and SP4.
Levis & Boucadair Expires August 23, 2007 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MQC and provider QoS agreements February 2007
For a global QoS-based Internet, this solution will work only if MQC-
based binding is largely accepted and becomes a current practice.
This limitation is due to the nature of the service itself, and not
to the use of MQCs. Insofar as we target global services we are
bound to provide QoS in as many SP domains as possible. However, any
MQC-enabled part of the Internet that forms a connected graph can be
used for QoS communications, and be extended. Therefore, incremental
deployment is possible, and leads to incremental benefits. For
example, in Figure 4 right-hand plane, as soon as SP3 connects to the
MQC plane it will be able to benefit from the SP1, SP2 and SP4 QoS
capabilities.
The Internet as a split of different MQC planes offers an ordered and
simplified view of the Internet QoS capabilities. End-users can
select the MQC plane that is the closest to their needs, as long as
there is a path available for the destination. One of the main
outcomes of applying the MQC concept is that it alleviates the
complexity and the management burden of inter-domain relationships.
Building end-to-end QoS paths for the purpose of QoS guaranteed
communications between end-users, is going a step further in the QoS
process. The full description of customer-to-provider QoS agreements
and the way they are enforced is outside the scope of this memo.
However some suggestions can be given. Route path selection within a
selected MQC plane can be envisaged in the same way as the
traditional routing system used by Internet routers. Thus, we can
rely on the BGP protocol, basically one BGP occurrence per MQC plane,
for the inter-domain routing process. The resilience of the IP
routing system is preserved: if a QoS path breaks somewhere, the
routing protocol will make it possible to compute dynamically another
QoS path if available, in the proper MQC plane. BGP can also be used
to convey QoS-related information via (AFI/ SAFI) [RFC2858], and
implement a process where Autonomous Systems add their own QoS values
(D, J, L) when they propagate an AS path. Then, the AS path
information is coupled with the information on Delay, Jitter and
Loss, and the decision whether or not to use the path selected by BGP
can be taken based on numerical values. The QoS value of an AS path
could also be disconnected from BGP and computed via an off-line
process. We can even go a step further in the control of the path:
enforcing an explicit routing scheme, making use of RSVP-TE/MPLS-TE
requests [RFC3209], before injecting the traffic in an l-QC thread.
MQC is a concept that helps to resolve problems [WIP] without
prohibiting the use of any particular mechanism or protocol at the
data, control, or management planes.
Levis & Boucadair Expires August 23, 2007 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MQC and provider QoS agreements February 2007
6. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations.
Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
RFC.
7. Security Considerations
This document describes a framework and not protocols or systems.
Potential risks and attacks will depend directly on the
implementation technology. Solutions to implement this proposal must
detail security issues in the relevant protocol documentation.
Particular attention should be paid to giving access to MQC resources
only to authorized traffic. Unauthorized access can lead to denial
of service when the network resources get overused [RFC3869].
8. Acknowledgements
Part of this work is funded by the European Commission, within the
context of the MESCAL (Management of End-to-End Quality of Service
Across the Internet At Large) project (http://www.mescal.org). The
authors would like to thank all the other partners for the fruitful
discussions.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, September 1999.
[RFC2680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, September 1999.
[RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation
Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393,
November 2002.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
Levis & Boucadair Expires August 23, 2007 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MQC and provider QoS agreements February 2007
9.2. Informative References
[E2E] Saltzer, J H., Reed, D P., and D D. Clark, "End-To-End
Arguments in System Design", ACM Transactions in Computer
Systems, Vol 2, Number 4, pp 277-288, November 1984.
[LEV] Levis, P., Asgari, H., and P. Trimintzios, "Consideration
on Inter-domain QoS and Traffic Engineering issues Through
a Utopian Approach", SAPIR-2004 workshop of ICT-2004, (C)
Springer-Verlag, August 2004.
[RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
Services", RFC 2475, December 1998.
[RFC2858] Bates, T., Rekhter, Y., Chandra, R., and D. Katz,
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 2858, June 2000.
[RFC2990] Huston, G., "Next Steps for the IP QoS Architecture",
RFC 2990, November 2000.
[RFC3086] Nichols, K. and B. Carpenter, "Definition of
Differentiated Services Per Domain Behaviors and Rules for
their Specification", RFC 3086, April 2001.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3387] Eder, M., Chaskar, H., and S. Nag, "Considerations from
the Service Management Research Group (SMRG) on Quality of
Service (QoS) in the IP Network", RFC 3387,
September 2002.
[RFC3869] Atkinson, R., Floyd, S., and Internet Architecture Board,
"IAB Concerns and Recommendations Regarding Internet
Research and Evolution", RFC 3869, August 2004.
[WIP] Deleuze, G. and F. Guattari, "What Is Philosophy?",
Columbia University Press ISBN: 0231079893, April 1996.
Levis & Boucadair Expires August 23, 2007 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft MQC and provider QoS agreements February 2007
Authors' Addresses
Pierre Levis
France Telecom
42 rue des Coutures
BP 6243
Caen Cedex 4 14066
France
Email: pierre.levis@orange-ftgroup.com
Mohamed Boucadair
France Telecom
42 rue des Coutures
BP 6243
Caen Cedex 4 14066
France
Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com
Levis & Boucadair Expires August 23, 2007 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft MQC and provider QoS agreements February 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Levis & Boucadair Expires August 23, 2007 [Page 16]