Internet Engineering Task Force J. Manner
Internet-Draft T. Suihko
Expires: July, 2004 M. Kojo
M. Liljeberg
K. Raatikainen
January, 2004
Localized RSVP
<draft-manner-lrsvp-03.txt>
Status of this Memo
This document is a submission to the Transport Area Working Group of
the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Comments should be
submitted to the tsvwg@ietf.org mailing list.
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 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.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
Guaranteed QoS for multimedia applications is based on reserved
resources in each node on the end-to-end path. Even if the
correspondent node does not support QoS, it would be useful to be
able to reserve at least local resources at the access network,
especially wireless link resources. Additionally, for mobile nodes
the continuity of QoS is disturbed due to end-to-end signaling or
slow re-reservations of resources after each handover. This draft
proposes a simple enhancement to RSVP, so that initial resource
reservations and re-reservations due to host mobility can be done
locally in an access network.
Manner et al Expires July 2004 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Localized RSVP January 2004
Changes since -02
- Clarified parts of the text, e.g. Section 2.4
Changes since -01
- Some clarifications and editorial changes
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ................................................. 2
1.1 Related work ............................................... 3
2 Local QoS Support ............................................ 4
2.1 Upstream transfers ......................................... 5
2.2 Downstream transfers ....................................... 6
2.3 Additional functionality ................................... 7
2.4 Addressing Issues .......................................... 8
2.5 Interworking Issues ........................................ 9
3 Fast local repair for mobile nodes ........................... 11
4 Security Consideration ....................................... 13
5 IANA Considerations .......................................... 14
6 Summary ...................................................... 14
7 Normative References ......................................... 15
8 Non-Normative References ..................................... 16
9 Authors' Addresses ........................................... 17
1. Introduction
Future mobile access networks will be 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
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 [1]
together with the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) [2] [3]
provides per-flow guaranteed end-to-end transmission service. The
Differentiated Services (DiffServ) framework [4] 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 from the
intermediate routers, and the protocol has performance issues in
mobile environments. DiffServ can only provide statistical
guarantees and is not well suited for dynamic environments. The
Internet Architecture Board has outlined additional issues related to
these two architectures [5].
Manner et al Expires July 2004 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Localized RSVP January 2004
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.
We propose a slight modification to RSVP that allows 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 reservation message itself
identifies the intention and the access network will find the correct
network node(s) to respond to the reservation. Note that the scheme
is not tied to only mobile networks but can be used in any access
network that needs flexible local resource allocations. The first
sketch of this solution appeared in [10] and [11], although some
implementation ideas have changed since.
The localized RSVP signaling would fit well, for example, with a SIP
session, where a call set up can have a pre-condition: if the request
for local resources is successful, the end-host can send the COMET
message and make the call "ring" [15]. Both ends would use their own
local reservations.
All mobility-related terminology in this document are taken from
[16]. Therefore, the commonly used term 'access router' (AR) means
the 'default router'.
1.1. Related work
Currently we can identify two ways to signal QoS requirements to an
access network: DiffServ Code Points (DSCP) and RSVP with IntServ. In
the DiffServ-based solution an end host can mark the upstream packets
with proper DSCP values, but for the downstream the gateway on the
edge of the access network must be able to identify and handle the
preferred streams. This can be accomplished with default values for
different micro flows in the Service Level Agreement negotiated
between the client and the access network service provider.
An alternative way to make use of DiffServ could be through a
Bandwidth Broker [6] [7] [8] that dynamically returns the proper code
point for each flow: when the first packet of a flow arrives at the
access network edge router, it requests the proper code point from
the Bandwidth Broker. The router maintains a mapping from micro flow
identification to the DiffServ code point (soft state) so that future
packets can be directly identified and labeled. Still, this would
require a protocol that the end host could use to dynamically adjust
Manner et al Expires July 2004 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Localized RSVP January 2004
the mapping information stored at the access network edge for the
incoming traffic.
RSVP can provide the signaling mechanism for QoS requirements to the
access network. For upstream reservations, the end host would send
the Path message to the access network edge router, which would
return the Resv message and set up the reservations. The edge router
would act as an RSVP proxy [9]. However, the reservation in the
downlink direction is not as straightforward since the downlink
reservation needs to be initiated by the RSVP proxy. We would need a
way to trigger the proxy to initiate the RSVP signaling for a
downlink flow.
Thus, these mechanisms do not seem to solve the problem entirely. The
DiffServ mechanisms cannot provide explicit resource reservations.
The problem with the RSVP proxy approach is that the proxy cannot
automatically distinguish reservations that would be answered by the
correspondent node and reservations that would require interception.
Additionally, the RSVP proxy needs a way to know when to allocate
resources for incoming flows. Mobile access networks also add to the
problems, since mobile nodes can frequently change their point of
attachment in the network and resource allocations need to be re-
arranged, including changing the serving RSVP proxy.
2. Local QoS Support
The usual signaling model of RSVP includes the data sender and
receiver, and a network of RSVP routers. The data sender initiates
the RSVP signaling by sending the Path message. This message is
routed through the network, setting states in RSVP routers, and
finally arriving at the data receiver. The receiver then responds to
the signaling by sending the Resv message, which applies the
reservation for the data stream.
If the data receiver is not RSVP-aware, it can not respond to the
signaling and make the resource reservation happen. Similarly, if the
receiver is RSVP-aware, but the sender is not, the sender can not
initiate the signaling for the resource reservation.
In the Localized RSVP scheme, we expect the local end host to be
RSVP-aware and we add an RSVP-aware application to a router in the
local access network. This 'proxy' is called the Localized RSVP Proxy
server (LRSVP proxy) and is located somewhere within the local access
network - a good place would be the access network gateway. For local
reservations, the proxy acts on behalf of correspondent nodes. In
this discussion, from a software engineering point of view, the proxy
is its own process running on the router. Thus, the following three
logical functions are kept separate: basic IP routing, basic RSVP
message processing, and LRSVP proxy functionality.
Now, in order to distinguish local reservations from end-to-end
reservations, we use one bit in the unused Flags field in the RSVP
Session Object. The Local Indication (LI) bit (currently we use bit
Manner et al Expires July 2004 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Localized RSVP January 2004
0x8) is used to differentiate reservations that are internal to the
access network. When the bit is set the RSVP message is part of local
resource signaling and the RSVP router running the proxy will not
forward the message to the next hop but instead give the message to
the RSVP-application running on the router. A default value of zero
indicates standard end-to-end signaling, where the proxy application
is not concerned.
We also need a second bit, the Expedited Refresh (ER) bit (currently
we use bit 0x4), to indicate that a Path message is sent as a refresh
to a broken path and must be forwarded immediately. This indication
is needed because each RSVP hop propagates a Path message before a
timeout only if the Path state has changed - when a route changes at
the receiver end of the data flow, a Path message is needed to set up
again the Path state. This is discussed in more detail later.
When the local end host wants to make a resource reservation for a
downstream flow, it needs a Path message from a node on the data
path. If the data sender is not RSVP-aware, the local end host can
trigger the LRSVP proxy to send the Path message on behalf of the
data sender. A new message type called "Path Request", with an
initial message type number 8, is used to request a Path message from
the local RSVP proxy. This message has the same structure as a
standard Path message.
A second message called "Path Request Tear", with an initial message
type number 9, is used to tear down a downstream reservation. Note
that due to the new bits and message types, all RSVP routers inside
the access network must be upgraded with the LRSVP extension.
When a local end host wants to reserve resources in the local access
network, it uses the LI flag in RSVP messages to indicate a local
reservation. The structure of the RSVP messages follows the RSVP
standard. When the router running the LRSVP proxy receives an RSVP
message with the LI bit set it will notice that the flag was set and
does not forward the message further to the next hop. The RSVP daemon
on the router gives the message to the local RSVP application, which
responds according to the following description.
2.1. Upstream transfers
Setting local upstream reservations is straightforward and follows
closely the standard RSVP functionality. The local end host sends the
usual Path message, but sets the LI flag bit in the Session Object.
The Session Object of the message defines the destination of the flow
that will eventually be transmitted from the local end host, and the
Sender Template provides information about the local end host itself.
Manner et al Expires July 2004 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Localized RSVP January 2004
[END HOST] [Access Router] [X-OVER ROUTER] [PROXY] [CN]
| | | | |
|------------- Path towards CN (LI) ---------->| |
| | | | |
| | | (proxy intercepts) |
| | | | |
| | |<---- Resv ----| |
| |<---- Resv ----| | |
|<---- Resv ---| | | |
| | | | |
Figure 1: Local Upstream reservation
The Path message is routed within the access network and sets the
Path state in RSVP routers. When the LRSVP proxy receives the Path
message, it notes due to the LI bit that the reservation is meant to
stay within the access network and responds with a Resv message. It
will not forward the Path message further to the next hop. When a
Resv message arrives at the local end host, the resources for the
session defined in the Path message have been allocated.
2.2. Downstream transfers
Before setting a downstream resource reservation, the local end host
needs to be aware of the data senders. For multimedia communications,
a session is usually initiated with application layer protocols like
SIP [15] or RTSP [12]. Based on this correspondence, the local end
host knows the necessary information about the sender. Another, more
coarse reservation could be set, for example, for browsing different
audio servers; the local end host would indicate in the RSVP messages
that the sender will use UDP. It is, therefore, possible to make
resource reservations for any sender that wants to communicate with
the local end host. However, in order to allow for more accurate QoS
support, more information should be given. The way to find this
information is out of scope of this document.
In order to set up a local downstream reservation we need a way to
signal the LRSVP proxy to initiate the RSVP reservation set up on
behalf of the sender(s), that is, to send a Path message. To achieve
this, the local end host sends the Path Request message with the LI
flag bit set (Fig. 2). The Path Request message is identical to a
standard Path message apart from the message type field. The Session
Object must include information about the recipient, the local end
host in this case, and the Sender Template must define the expected
sender(s). The Traffic specification (Tspec) can either be based on
the local end user's wishes, a best estimate of the incoming traffic
characteristics, or on application level session signaling prior to
the transfer.
Manner et al Expires July 2004 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Localized RSVP January 2004
[END HOST] [Access Router] [X-OVER ROUTER] [PROXY] [CN]
| | | | |
|------------ Path Request towards CN (LI) --->| |
| | | | |
| | | (proxy intercepts) |
| | | | |
| | |<- Path (LI) --| |
| |<- Path (LI) --| | |
|<- Path (LI) -| | | |
| | | | |
|- Resv (LI) ->| | | |
| |-- Resv (LI) ->| | |
| | |-- Resv (LI) ->| |
| | | | |
Figure 2: Local downstream reservation
When the LRSVP proxy receives this message, it detects that the
message is meant to stay within the access network. The message type
indicates that the proxy should initiate an RSVP reservation for a
downstream flow and use the information in the message to fill the
objects in a Path message. The proxy now generates a Path message
that includes the parameter values in the Path Request message and
sends it towards the local end host.
When the local end host receives the Path message, it responds with a
Resv message with the LI flag set. This reserves the downstream
resources within the access network for the senders originally
identified by the local end host.
The Path Request message can also be used end-to-end, to request the
correspondent node to initiate a resource reservation. In this case,
the LI bit must not be set, since it would stop the message at the
local access network.
2.3. Additional functionality
All the other features of RSVP are used with LRSVP in the standard
way including the local repair mechanism and reservation tear down.
Downstream reservations are torn down with the Path Request Tear
message. The operation follows that of the Path Request: the message
does not change states within the network, but only triggers the
proxy to send a Path Tear message towards the end host for the
specified session.
All messages used for local reservations must have the LI flag set in
order to keep the signaling within the access network. Intermediate
RSVP routers between the local end host and the LRSVP proxy should
not process the Path Request message and they should forward it as an
ordinary IP packet. An enhancement to the local repair changes this
operation and is discussed later.
The proposed scheme also allows RSVP to be used to signal DiffServ
Manner et al Expires July 2004 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Localized RSVP January 2004
Code Points in a DiffServ access network using the RSVP DCLASS object
[13]. The DCLASS object is used to represent and carry DiffServ code
points within RSVP messages. The local end host can use the DCLASS
object to instruct the LRSVP proxy to mark incoming traffic with
certain DiffServ code points to trigger different forwarding behavior
within the DiffServ access network. The local end host, however,
needs to be aware of the different code point values and the related
services, especially if other than standardized code points are used.
This information can be part of host auto-configuration, for example.
Furthermore, the proposed signaling can be used at both ends of a
data stream. For example, if the two end hosts in different access
networks are communicating with each other, both of them could use
the mechanism to allocate resources, for example, in their own access
networks, independently of each other. This could happen, if the two
access networks had a different view of QoS, one uses only IntServ
and RSVP, while the other also uses DiffServ. In such a scenario,
however, it may be more practical to use RSVP end-to-end, even if the
core network connecting the two access networks does not support
RSVP.
If the reserved bits in the RSVP Session Object are deemed too
valuable to be used for this kind of signaling, the RSVP CAP-object
[14] could be used to carry the two bits needed by the localized
RSVP. The CAP object can be used in the RSVP Path message to convey
end host/upstream node capabilities to the downstream network/nodes.
This would, however, add another eight bytes of headers in order to
carry two bits of information. In addition, the processing of the
messages is more time consuming due to the extra header. In any
case, the new Path Request and Path Request Tear messages are still
needed, because it would complicate the message processing in routers
if the "request to send a Path" was indicated as another bit in the
CAP object. With the new message type intermediate routers on the
uplink can forward these two messages to the LRSVP proxy faster,
since the router does not need to examine the whole packet and the
CAP object in order to find the same information, just the message
type.
2.4. Addressing Issues
When the local end host sends Path or Path Request messages, it needs
to use some IP address as the destination in the IP header. There are
various options about which address the local end host can or can not
use. The local end host must use in priority order (if known):
1. The address of the correspondent host,
2. The address of a proper LRSVP proxy,
3. A well-known anycast address for LRSVP proxies,
4. The address of the next-hop RSVP router, or
5. The address of the default router.
The first option may not be possible, if the end host wants to
allocate resources only for certain services regardless of the
Manner et al Expires July 2004 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Localized RSVP January 2004
sender, HTTP, for example. The second possible address could be given
through auto-configuration. Alternatively, in an IPv6 access network,
LRSVP proxies could have a reserved anycast address, as in the third
option. The fourth option would be to send the IP packet to the next-
hop RSVP router, if the end host has knowledge of it - ideally, this
would be the default router, in a mobile access network, it would be
the access router.
Finally, if any of the earlier addresses are not known, the end host
may try to send the RSVP packet to the default router, and see if the
router is also running an RSVP daemon and could handle the
reservation attempt. If the default router is not running an RSVP
daemon, it will return an ICMP error message. Currently, it is
unclear whether there is anything that still could be done, or just
turn the attempt for a local reservation down.
A further concern arises if the access network has several inbound
routes. It is possible that the local downstream reservation
initiated by the end host is set on a wrong LRSVP proxy, one that
will not get the packets arriving to the end host. This seems more of
a network design issue and therefore the access network operator must
locate the LRSVP proxies based on the packet routing - the proxies
could even be co-located at the access routers.
Still, it is possible to make the RSVP daemon running on the access
router to multicast the messages from the local end host to all LRSVP
proxies in the network and, thus, set up reservation states for all
inbound routes. This could be done only when the LI bit is set and
the reservation does not define a specific correspondent node.
2.5. Interworking Issues
The Localized RSVP makes use of two bits in the Session Object and
adds two new message types. There can be situations where such a
currently non-standard message arrives at a standard RSVP router.
According to the message processing rules in RFC2209 [18], the Path
Request and Path Request Tear messages would be forwarded intact by
standard RSVP routers. However, for standard RSVP message, the bits
used by LRSVP may or may not be kept between RSVP hops, and, thus,
the indication of local signaling or the need for an expedited
refresh may be lost. Therefore, all RSVP routers within an access
network wanting to support local reservations must be set to keep the
bits intact.
In one scenario, the local network of the end host would not
understand the LRSVP extension or even standard RSVP. Thus, Path
messages with the LI bit and Path Request message can be routed out
of the local network. If the local network of the correspondent node
has support for LRSVP, that LRSVP proxy gets the Path or Path Request
message with the LI bit set from the external network. The proxy must
drop the message and respond with a PathErr message and use a new
error code called "LRSVP not supported". This would inform the host
Manner et al Expires July 2004 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Localized RSVP January 2004
that LRSVP is not supported and it still can try end-to-end
signaling.
Another interesting scenario arises when the correspondent node is a
mobile node and the parties use route optimization. It can happen,
that the correspondent node is actually in the same access network as
the end host using LRSVP, and either or both nodes try to reserve
local resources independently of each other. Now it is possible that
Path and Path Request messages with the LI bit set are routed
directly to the correspondent node, without going through a local
network LRSVP proxy.
A solution would be that end hosts can also perform the same
functions as an LRSVP proxy, that is, answer to Path messages with
the LI bit set and, most importantly, handle Path Request messages as
well:
o If an end host receives an unsolicited Path message with the LI bit
set, it should respond with a Resv message and not set the LI bit.
The reason is that that if the LRSVP proxies drop Path messages with
the LI bit set coming from external networks, the local end hosts can
trust that if they receive such a message, it must have (if the
network is properly configured) arrived from a node in the local
access network. Now, if our end host that sent the Path message
receives the Resv without the LI bit, it can use this as an
indication that the correspondent node is in the local access network
and may remove the LI bit in subsequent messages belonging to the
same session.
o Similarly, if the correspondent node receives a Path Request
message, it should respond with a Path message that does not have the
LI bit set. Again, if our end host receives a Path message without
the LI bit set in response to the local Path Request sent earlier, it
can use this as an indication that the correspondent node is in the
local domain and it may remove the LI bit in subsequent messages
belonging to the same session.
Now, if the correspondent node moves again and changes access
networks, the signaling is already set to standard end-to-end mode
and reservations in the new RSVP-aware access network would be set in
place. However, changing access networks implies most probably a
change in the IP address assigned to the CN, which forces a re-
reservation of resources.
In the latter scenario, it is quite possible, that the mobile
correspondent node, located in the same access network as our end
host, is not (L)RSVP aware. Thus, it cannot respond to the RSVP
messages and local, actually, any kind of RSVP-based, reservations
are not possible.
Moreover, the location of the LRSVP proxy may yet affect the
signaling of two nodes within the same access network. Consider the
case where each access router would also host an LRSVP proxy. Now if
the two communicating nodes are connected to different access
Manner et al Expires July 2004 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Localized RSVP January 2004
routers, the two nodes may use their own local reservations on the
last-hop link, but also a standard end-to-end reservation is
possible.
A further issue concerns the interactions between local and end-to-
end reservations: could a local reservation be 'upgraded' into an
end-to-end reservation? This should be possible for both directions:
o If the proxy receives a fully standard Path message from the local
network with the same session information as an existing local
reservation, it must forward the message as usual, but set a pending
Path state indication for the end-to-end reservation. If a Resv
arrives from the external network for this same session, it must
change the reservation to an end-to-end reservation.
o If the proxy receives a Path Request message from the local network
without the LI bit set, it must forward the message to the IP
destination address. If the proxy receives later a Path message from
the external network for an existing local session, it must set a
pending state for the end-to-end reservation. If a Resv is received
from the local end host without the LI bit set, the proxy must change
its state for the session to 'end-to-end' (by removing a local-
indication from its session structures) and forward the Resv message
further to the external network.
Thus, it would be possible to upgrade a local session to end-to-end
status. It is not clear whether there is a need for an end-to-end
session to be 'downgraded' into a local session.
Note that when the resource signaling is going end-to-end, the local
repair functionality may be affected. If both nodes use only local
reservations, the local repair at either end is propagated at most to
the local LRSVP proxy. With end-to-end reservations, the local repair
may be propagated further away from the moving node and its access
network.
3. Fast local repair for mobile nodes
The RSVP standard [2] defines that Path messages can perform a local
repair of reservation paths. When the route between the communicating
end hosts changes, a Path message will set the Path state of the
reservation on the new route and a subsequent Resv message will apply
the resource reservation. Therefore, by sending a Resv message a host
cannot alone update the reservation, and thus perform a local repair,
before a Path message has passed. The RSVP specification also says
that in order to provide fast adaptation to routing changes without
the overhead of short refresh periods, the local routing protocol
module can notify the RSVP process of route changes for particular
destinations. The RSVP process should use this information to trigger
a quick refresh of state for these destinations, using the new route
(Chapter 3.6, RFC2205 [2]). However, for example, Mobile IP, does not
affect routing directly in routers, and thus mobility may not be
noticed at intermediate RSVP routers.
Manner et al Expires July 2004 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Localized RSVP January 2004
When the mobile node has moved, it can send a Path message for each
upstream resource reservation and initiate the standard local repair
mechanism (Fig. 3). If there is no cross-over router, and the Path
message arrives at a new LRSVP proxy, the proxy will reply to the
Path with a Resv, similarly as it would for a new resource
reservation request (what this actually looks like to the new proxy).
[END HOST] [NEW AR] [X-OVER ROUTER] [RSVP ROUTER] [PROXY]
| | | | |
|-- Path towards CN (LI)---->| | |
| | | | |
| | (X-over router intercepts) | |
| | | | |
| |<- Resv (LI) -| | |
|<- Resv (LI)-| | | |
| | | | |
Figure 3: Fast upstream reservation
For the downstream, the mobile node will need to wait until it
receives a Path message, setting up the Path state on the new route.
Only after receiving the Path message, the mobile can send a Resv
message to re-reserve the downstream resources.
The Path Request message can be used in mobile networks to initiate a
faster local repair of downstream reservations on behalf of a mobile
node that changed access routers during an ongoing RSVP session. When
the mobile node changes its access router in the network, it should
send the Path Request message immediately after the handover (Fig 4).
[END HOST] [NEW AR] [X-OVER ROUTER] [RSVP ROUTER] [PROXY]
| | | | |
|-------------- Path Request towards CN (LI,ER) --------------->|
| | | | |
| | | |<-Path (LI,ER)-|
| | |<-Path (LI,ER)-| |
| |<-Path (LI,ER)-| | |
|<-Path (LI,ER)-| | | |
| | | | |
|- Resv (LI) -->| | | |
| |- Resv (LI) -->| | |
| | | | |
Figure 4: Fast downstream reservation
The message must have the ER bit set to indicate that the request is
for an existing session and triggered due to movement. The Path
Request message is forwarded through the intermediate RSVP routers
until it arrives at the LRSVP proxy. The message would then instruct
the proxy to initiate a local repair by sending the needed Path
message. The proxy must set the ER bit in the Session Object to
indicate that this Path message is not an ordinary refresh message
but instead triggered by a routing change and therefore must be
forwarded immediately to the next hop. If the ER bit is not set, the
Manner et al Expires July 2004 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Localized RSVP January 2004
RSVP router in Fig. 4 would not forward the Path message immediately
towards the mobile node but, instead, would wait until its own
scheduled refresh timeout.
If the movement of the mobile node results in packets to flow through
a new LRSVP proxy, the Path Request message would re-reserve the
local resources for the new path. In this case, the proxy notes that
the ER bit is set, but, since there is no existing state, it will
initiate a new reservation. The ER bit must not be set in the
following Path message since the reservation is a new one for this
route.
A enhancement to the scheme would allow a cross-over RSVP router that
has the reservation for the mobile node stored on a different
interface to send the needed Path message (Fig. 5). RSVP routers
inside the access network would look into Path Request messages. If
the router notices it is the cross-over router, it sends a Path
message towards the local end host. If an RSVP router sends the Path
message, it must not send the Path Request message any further. This
requires more processing from intermediate RSVP routers, but allows
for faster state updates. This functionality would be especially
important when the session is end-to-end instead of local: the Path
Request message would not go to the correspondent node, but trigger
the closer cross-over router to repair the local path of the
reservation.
[END HOST] [NEW AR] [X-OVER ROUTER] [PROXY]
| | | |
|- Path Request towards CN (LI,ER) ->| |
| | | |
| | (X-over router intercepts) |
| | | |
| |<--- Path (LI) ---| |
|<-- Path (LI) ---| | |
| | | |
|--- Resv (LI) -->| | |
| |--- Resv (LI) --->| |
| | | |
Figure 5: Enhancement of the fast downstream reservation
The LI flag must be set in all RSVP refresh messages if the
reservation is set for the local access network. This will prevent
refresh message, like the Path Request message, to be routed out of
the access network.
4. Security Consideration
The Path Request message triggers most processing at the LRSVP proxy.
This could potentially be used for Denial of Service attacks. A
possible solution is to make RSVP daemons located on access routers
make a sanity check on all Path Request (and Path Request Tear)
messages: the receiver of the stream must be a node on a link
Manner et al Expires July 2004 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Localized RSVP January 2004
connected to the AR. This has the benefit that the proxy may trust
that the access router has validated the message; this can be seen as
distributed processing of the authentication and authorization data.
The same considerations apply for the Path message. In order to
secure any RSVP signaling, a security association must be set up
between the local end hosts and the access routers.
The RSVP daemon at the end hosts and LRSVP proxy must also modify
their security/sanity checks to allow the end host to send the Path
Request with apparently suspicious session information (identifying
the correspondent node(s)). Also, the proxy must be able to send RSVP
messages "on-behalf" of external network nodes.
The LRSVP proxy must be configured to identify its ingress and egress
interfaces. If the proxy receives a Path or a Path Request message
with the LI bit set from outside the access network, it must drop the
message.
The two new messages can make use of the standard RSVP INTEGRITY and
POLICY objects. This requires that the MN and ARs share the required
keys. For the remaining functionality, the security considerations
with standard RSVP apply, which are analyzed well by the NSIS WG in
[17].
5. IANA Considerations
IANA needs to allocate the two flag bits in the RSVP Session Object,
the LI and ER bits. In addition, IANA needs to give two RSVP message
type numbers to the Path Request and Path Request Tear messages and
one Error Type indicating that a local resource reservation is not
allowed.
6. Summary
In summary, the Localized RSVP requires the following changes in the
standard RSVP protocol:
a) A new message type and number, named Path Request (initially
number 8).
b) A new message type and number, named Path Request Tear (initially
number 9).
c) A bit from the Session Object for the use as the Local Indication
(LI) (initially bit 0x8).
d) A bit from the Session Object for use as the Expedited Refresh
(ER) indication (initially bit 0x4).
e) An RSVP router must keep the LI bit set in all messages belonging
to that session, if it encounters packets with the bit set.
Manner et al Expires July 2004 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Localized RSVP January 2004
f) An RSVP router that is not also a proxy, must forward an RSVP
packet with a message type "Path Request" without storing state.
g) An RSVP router that is not also a proxy, must forward an RSVP
packet with a message type "Path Request Tear" without affecting the
stored state.
h) An access network RSVP router should be able to use the Path
Request as an indication of the need for a local repair. This can
enable faster reservation set up following a handover. This affects
point f), because the router that receives a Path Request must first
check if it has the Path state stored on another network interface.
If one is present, the Path Request message should not be forwarded
to the next hop and instead the router must send a Path message
towards the mobile node.
i) A new error code to indicate that the access network does not
support local reservations. If local resources cannot be requested,
the end-host can always try to do end-to-end signaling.
To summarize, these changes are small and would make RSVP more
appealing as a signaling protocol for IP access networks. The changes
are required only within access networks, unless the Path Request
message is deemed useful to use end-to-end through the Internet.
7. Normative References
[1] R. Braden, D. Clark, S. Shenker, "Integrated Services in the
Internet Architecture: an Overview". Internet Engineering Task Force,
Request for Comments 1633, June 1994.
[2] R. Braden, L. Zhang, S. Berson, S. Herzog, S. Jamin. "Resource
ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP), Version 1 Functional Specification.
Internet Engineering Task Force, Request for Comments 2205,
September, 1997.
[3] J. Wroclawski, "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated Services.
Internet Engineering Task Force, Request for Comments 2210,
September, 1997.
[4] S. Blake, D. Black, M. Carlson, E. Davies, Z. Wang, W. Weiss, "An
Architecture for Differentiated Services", Internet Engineering Task
Force, Request for Comments 2475, December, 1998.
[13] Y. Bernet,"Format of the RSVP DCLASS Object". Internet
Engineering Task Force, Request for Comments 2996, November 2000.
[18] R. Braden, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Message P rocessing Rules". Internet Engineering Task Force, RFC
2209, September 1997.
Manner et al Expires July 2004 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Localized RSVP January 2004
8. Non-Normative References
[5] G. Huston, "Next Steps for the IP QoS Architecture". Internet
Engineering Task Force, Request for Comments 2990, November 2000.
[6] K. Nichols, V. Jacobson, L. Zhang, "A Two-bit Differentiated
Services Architecture for the Internet". Internet Engineering Task
Force, Request for Comments 2638, July 1999.
[7] R. Yavatkar, D. Hoffman, Y. Bernet, F. Baker, M. Speer, "SBM
(Subnet Bandwidth Manager): A Protocol for RSVP-based Admission
Control over IEEE 802-style networks". Internet Engineering Task
Force, Request for Comments 2814, May 2000.
[8] Phil Chimento and Ben Teitelbaum, "QBone Bandwidth Broker
Architecture". The Internet2 initiative, June 2000.
(http://qbone.internet2.edu/bb/bboutline2.html).
[9] S. Gai, D. G. Dutt, N. Elfassy, Y. Bernet, "RSVP Proxy". Internet
Draft (work in progress), March 2002 (expired) (draft-ietf-rsvp-
proxy-03.txt).
[10] Jukka Manner and Kimmo Raatikainen, "Extended Quality-of-Service
for Mobile Networks". Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop
on Quality of Service (IWQoS), June 2001, pp. 275-280. Published in
the series Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS) 2092.
[11] IST-BRAIN Project, "Deliverable D2.2: BRAIN architecture
specifications and models, BRAIN functionality and protocol
specification". March 2001, (available at: http://www.ist-
brain.org).
[12] H. Schulzrinne, A. Rao, R. Lanphier, "Real Time Streaming
Protocol (RTSP)". Internet Engineering Task Force, Request for
Comments 2326, April 1998.
[14] Hamid Sued, "Capability Negotiation: The RSVP CAP Object".
Internet Draft (work in progress), May 2001 (expired) (draft-ietf-
issll-rsvp-cap-03.txt).
[15] J. Rosenberg et al., "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol". RFC
3261, June 2002
[16] J. Manner et al., "Mobility related terminology". Internet
Draft, (work in progress), November 2003.
[17] H. Tschofenig, "RSVP Security Properties". Internet Draft (work
in progress), March 2003.
Manner et al Expires July 2004 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Localized RSVP January 2004
9. Authors' Addresses
Questions about this document may be directed to:
Jukka Manner
Department of Computer Science
University of Helsinki
P.O. Box 26 (Teollisuuskatu 23)
FIN-00014 HELSINKI
Finland
Voice: +358-9-191-44210
Fax: +358-9-191-44441
E-Mail: jmanner@cs.helsinki.fi
Markku Kojo
Department of Computer Science
University of Helsinki
P.O. Box 26 (Teollisuuskatu 23)
FIN-00014 HELSINKI
Finland
Voice: +358-9-191-44179
Fax: +358-9-191-44441
E-Mail: kojo@cs.helsinki.fi
Kimmo Raatikainen
Department of Computer Science
University of Helsinki
P.O. Box 26 (Teollisuuskatu 23)
FIN-00014 HELSINKI
Finland
Voice: +358-50-483-6275
Fax: +358-9-191-44441
E-Mail: kraatika@cs.helsinki.fi
Tapio Suihko
VTT Information Technology
P.O. Box 1203
FIN-02044 VTT
Finland
Voice: +358-9-456-6078
Fax: +358-9-456-7028
E-Mail: tapio.suihko@vtt.fi
Manner et al Expires July 2004 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Localized RSVP January 2004
Mika Liljeberg
Nokia Research Center
P.O. Box 407
FIN-00045 Nokia Group
Finland
Voice: +358-50-4836791
E-Mail: Mika.Liljeberg@nokia.com
Acknowledgment
This work has been partially performed in the framework of the IST
project IST-2000-28584 MIND, which is partly funded by the European
Union. The authors would like to acknowledge the help of their
colleagues in preparing this document, in particular Eleanor Hepworth
and Alberto Lopez.
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
Manner et al Expires July 2004 [Page 18]