Considerations of Provider-to-Provider Agreements for Internet-Scale Quality of Service (QoS)
RFC 5160

 
Document Type RFC - Informational (March 2008; No errata)
Last updated 2013-03-02
Stream ISE
Formats plain text pdf html
Stream ISE state (None)
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state RFC 5160 (Informational)
Telechat date
Responsible AD Magnus Westerlund
Send notices to mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com, pierre.levis@orange-ftgroup.com, draft-levis-provider-qos-agreement@ietf.org

Email authors IPR References Referenced by Nits Search lists

Network Working Group                                           P. Levis
Request for Comments: 5160                                  M. Boucadair
Category: Informational                                   France Telecom
                                                              March 2008

           Considerations of Provider-to-Provider Agreements
              for Internet-Scale Quality of Service (QoS)

Status of This Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
   memo is unlimited.

IESG Note

   This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard.  The
   IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for any
   purpose and notes that the decision to publish is not based on IETF
   review apart from IESG review for conflict with IETF work.  The RFC
   Editor has chosen to publish this document at its discretion.  See
   RFC 3932 for more information.

Abstract

   This memo analyzes provider-to-provider Quality of Service (QoS)
   agreements suitable for a global QoS-enabled Internet.  It defines
   terminology relevant to inter-domain QoS models.  It proposes a new
   concept denoted by Meta-QoS-Class (MQC).  This concept could
   potentially drive and federate the way QoS inter-domain relationships
   are built between providers.  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            Informational                      [Page 1]
RFC 5160            MQC and Provider QoS Agreements           March 2008

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
   2.  Assumptions and Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   4.  Weaknesses of Provider-to-Provider QoS Agreements Based on
       SP Chains  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     4.1.  IP Connectivity Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.2.  Similarity between Provider and Customer Agreements  . . .  6
     4.3.  Liability for Service Disruption . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.4.  SP Chain Trap Leading to Glaciation  . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.  Provider-to-Provider Agreements Based on Meta-QoS-Class  . . .  7
     5.1.  Single Domain Covering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     5.2.  Binding l-QCs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     5.3.  MQC-Based Binding Process  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6.  The Internet as MQC Planes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   7.  Towards End-to-End QoS Services  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   9.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

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 multiple 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
   multiple domains and Internet areas deal with inter-domain aspects.
   However, they differ significantly in many ways, such as the number
   of domains and QoS paths involved, which are much higher and dynamic
   for the Internet area.  Multiple domains and Internet areas are
   therefore likely to differ in their respective solutions.  This memo
   is an attempt to investigate the Internet area from the point of view
   of provider-to-provider agreements.  It provides a framework for
   inter-domain QoS-enabled Internet.

   [MESCAL]provides a set of requirements to be met by any solution
   aiming to solve inter-domain QoS issues.  These requirements are not
   reproduced within this memo.  Readers are invited to refer to
   [MESCAL] for more elaborated description on the requirements.

Levis & Boucadair            Informational                      [Page 2]
RFC 5160            MQC and Provider QoS Agreements           March 2008

   This memo shows that for the sake of scalability, providers need not
   be concerned with what occurs more than one hop away (from their
Show full document text