This document presents a generic connection admission control (GCAC)
reference model and algorithm for IP/MPLS-based networks. Service provider
(SP) IP/MPLS networks need an MPLS GCAC mechanism, for example,
to reject voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) calls when additional calls
would adversely affect calls already in progress.
Working Group Summary
This document is being advanced as AD Sponsored.
This document was raised on the MPLS list but attracted no attention despite
pleas from the authors for review and comment. The document is relevant to
the WG, but is not disruptive to existing deployments nor competitive with
existing or planned working group work.
There is no specific MPLS charter item to cover this I-D, because the level of
interest in the working group (as gauged by mailing-list discussion) was minimal,
and because this is not a protocol specification (it is an experimental algortihm)
the MPLS chairs and AD agree that this does not need to be run through the
working group. Nevertheless, this is being progressed as an IETF document
because of its strong relevance to the MPLS working group.
The IETF last call was specifically notified to the MPLS and CCAMP working
groups to encourage comments from that specific community.
This document is experimental. The objective is to place the algorithm in public
view and encourage experimentation.
Young Lee (email@example.com) is the Document Shepherd
Adrian Farrel (firstname.lastname@example.org) is the Responsible AD
RFC Editor Note
Section 4 paragraph 2 bullet list
ADD to the end of the list
- [RFC5069] identifies a number of security threats against emergency
call marking and mapping. Section 6 of [RFC5069] lists security
requirements to counter these threats, and those requirements
should be followed by implementaitons of this document.
- The security requirements listed in Section 11 of [RFC4412] should
be followed. These requirements apply to use of the Communications
Resource Priority Header for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),
and concern aspects of authentication and aurthorization,
confidentiality and privacy requirements, protection against
denial-of-service attacks, and anonymity.
ADD at end of section.
Finally, Robert Sparks' thorough review and helpful suggestions
are sincerely appreciated.
Section 8 Add new references in the correct order
[RFC4412] Schulzrinne, H., Polk, J., "Communications Resource
Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
RFC 4412, February 2006.
[RFC5069] Taylor, T., et al., "Security Threats and Requirements for
Emergency Call Marking and Mapping", RFC 5069, January