Internet DRAFT - draft-eckert-intarea-flow-metadata-framework

draft-eckert-intarea-flow-metadata-framework







Internet Engineering Task Force                           T. Eckert, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                  R. Penno
Intended status: Informational                                A. Choukir
Expires: April 24, 2014                                         C. Eckel
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                        October 21, 2013


A Framework for Signaling Flow Characteristics between Applications and
                              the Network
            draft-eckert-intarea-flow-metadata-framework-02

Abstract

   This document provides a framework for communicating information
   elements (a.k.a. metadata) in a consistent manner between
   applications and the network to provide better visibility of
   application flows, thereby enabling differentiated treatment of those
   flows.  These information elements can be conveyed using various
   signaling protocols, including PCP, RSVP, and STUN.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 24, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect



Eckert, et al.           Expires April 24, 2014                 [Page 1]

Internet-DraftFramework for Signaling Flow Characteristics  October 2013


   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Background  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Deep packet inspection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.1.1.  Benefits  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.1.2.  Limitation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Explicit signaling methods  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Proposed framework  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.1.1.  Common, application independent, IPFIX registered,
               information elements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.1.2.  Cross-protocol information element encoding rules . .   7
       3.1.3.  Anticipated Usage Models  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
         3.1.3.1.  Informational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
         3.1.3.2.  Advisory  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
         3.1.3.3.  Service Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       3.1.4.  Considerations for signaling of common information
               elements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
         3.1.4.1.  Proxy originated information  . . . . . . . . . .   9
         3.1.4.2.  Authentication  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
         3.1.4.3.  Common encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
         3.1.4.4.  Usage Model to Protocol integration . . . . . . .  10
     3.2.  Proposed common information elements  . . . . . . . . . .  11
       3.2.1.  Bandwidth Attributes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
         3.2.1.1.  Maximum Bandwidth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
         3.2.1.2.  Minimum Bandwidth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
         3.2.1.3.  Bandwidth Pool  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       3.2.2.  Traffic Class Attributes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
         3.2.2.1.  RFC4594-DSCP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
         3.2.2.2.  Traffic Class Label (TCL) . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       3.2.3.  Acceptable Path Attributes  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
         3.2.3.1.  Delay Tolerance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
         3.2.3.2.  Loss Tolerance  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
         3.2.3.3.  Jitter Tolerance  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       3.2.4.  Application Identification  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
         3.2.4.1.  RFC 6759 style application identification . . . .  15
         3.2.4.2.  URL style application identification  . . . . . .  15
   4.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   5.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18





Eckert, et al.           Expires April 24, 2014                 [Page 2]

Internet-DraftFramework for Signaling Flow Characteristics  October 2013


1.  Introduction

   This document provides a framework for communicating information
   elements (a.k.a. metadata) in a consistent manner between
   applications and the network to provide better visibility of
   application flows, thereby enabling differentiated treatment of those
   flows.  These information elements can be conveyed using various
   signaling protocols, including PCP, RSVP, and STUN.

   The framework is built around the definition of four key components:

   1.  A set of application independent information elements (IEs)

   2.  An encoding of these IEs that is independent of the signaling
       protocol used as transport

   3.  Usages of these IEs to support various transactional semantics

   4.  A mapping of one of more to these usages to an initial set of
       signaling protocols, including PCP, RSVP, and STUN

   This document defines an initial set of IEs, a set of encoding rules,
   and initial usage model.  The actual encoding is defined in
   [I-D.choukir-tsvwg-flow-metadata-encoding].  Additional documents
   define the mapping to specific signaling protocols (e.g. RSVP
   [I-D.zamfir-tsvwg-flow-metadata-rsvp], STUN
   [I-D.martinsen-mmusic-malice], and PCP [I-D.wing-pcp-flowdata])

2.  Background

   This section provides background on the motivation for the framework.

   Identification and treatment of application flows are critical for
   the successful deployment and operation of applications based on a
   wide range of signaling protocols.  Historically, this functionality
   has been accomplished to the extent possible using heuristics, which
   inspect and infer flow characteristics.

   Heuristics may be based on port ranges, IP subnetting, or deep packet
   inspection (DPI), e.g. application level gateway (ALG).  Port based
   solutions suffer from port overloading and inconsistent port usage.
   IP subnetting solutions are error prone and result in network
   management hassle.  DPI is computationally expensive and becomes a
   challenge with the wider adoption of encrypted signaling and secured
   traffic.  An additional drawback of DPI is that the resulting
   insights are not available, or need to be recomputed, at network
   nodes further down the application flow path.




Eckert, et al.           Expires April 24, 2014                 [Page 3]

Internet-DraftFramework for Signaling Flow Characteristics  October 2013


   The proposed solution allows applications to explicitly signal their
   flow characteristics to the network.  It also provides network nodes
   with visibility of the application flow characteristics and enables
   them to contribute to the flow description.  The resulting flow
   description may be communicated as feedback from the network to
   applications.

   The proposed solution does not enhance existing heuristic based
   mechanisms, nor does it preclude the use of such mechansims.  Rather,
   it proposes a new mechanism that does not suffer the drawbacks of
   heuristic based mechanisms.

2.1.  Deep packet inspection

2.1.1.  Benefits

   Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) and other traffic observation methods
   (such as performance monitoring) are successfully being used for two
   type of workflows:

   1.  Provide network operators with visibility into traffic for
       troubleshooting, capacity planning, accounting and billing and
       other off network workflows.  This is done by exporting observed
       traffic analysis via protocol such as IPFIX and SNMP.

   2.  Provide differentiated network services for the traffic according
       to network operator defined rule sets, including policing and
       shaping of traffic, providing admission control, impacting
       routing, permitting passage of traffic (e.g. firewall functions),
       etc.

   Note: For the context of this document, we consider that DPI starts
   as early into packets as using ACLs with UDP/TCP port numbers to
   classify traffic.

2.1.2.  Limitation

   These two workflows, visibility and differentiated network services,
   are critical in many networks.  However, their reliance on inspection
   and observation limits the ability to enable these workflows more
   widely.

   o  Simple observation based classification, especially ones relying
      on TCP/UDP, ports often result in incorrect results due to port
      overloading (i.e. ports used by applications other than those
      claiming the port with IANA).





Eckert, et al.           Expires April 24, 2014                 [Page 4]

Internet-DraftFramework for Signaling Flow Characteristics  October 2013


   o  More and more traffic is encrypted, rendering deep packet
      inspection impossible or much more complex (e.g. needing to share
      encryption keys with network equipment).

   o  Observation generally requires inspecting the control and
      signaling traffic of applications.  This traffic may flow through
      a different network path than the actual application data traffic.
      Impacting the traffic behavior is ineffective in those scenarios.

   o  Observation of control, signaling and data traffic with DPI will
      in general result in less insight into the applications intent
      than if the application was explicitly signaling its intent to the
      network.

   o  Without explicit desire by the application to signal its intent to
      the network, it will also not consider to explicitly provide
      authentication to the network.  DPI mechanism have a more
      difficult job in analyzing application traffic when authentication
      mechanisms are in use (if they even can)

   o  Without explicit involvement of the application, network services
      leveraging DPI traffic classification impact the application
      behavior by impacting its traffic, but cannot provide explicit
      feedback to the application in the form of signaling.

2.2.  Explicit signaling methods

   There are a variety of existing and evolving signaling options that
   can provide explicit application to network signaling and serve the
   visibility and differentiated network services workflows where DPI is
   currently being used.  It seems clear that there will be no single
   one-protocol-fits-all solution.  Every protocol is currently defined
   in its own silo, creating duplicate or inconsistent information
   models.  This results in duplicate work, more operational complexity
   and an inability to easily convert information between protocols to
   easily leverage the best protocol option for each specific use case.
   Examples of existing signaling options include the following:

   o  RSVP is the original on path signaling protocol standardized by
      the IETF.  It operates on path out-of-band and could support any
      transport protocol traffic (it currently supports TCP and UDP).
      Its original goal was to provide admission control.  Arguably, its
      success was impacted by its reliance on router-alert because this
      often leads to RSVP packets being filtered by intervening
      networks.  To date, more lightweight signaling workflows utilizing
      RSVP have not been standardized within the IETF.





Eckert, et al.           Expires April 24, 2014                 [Page 5]

Internet-DraftFramework for Signaling Flow Characteristics  October 2013


   o  NSIS (next Steps in Signaling) is the next iteration of RSVP-like
      signaling defined by the IETF.  Because it focused on the same
      fundamental workflow as RSVP admission control as its main driver,
      and because it did not provide significant enough use-case
      benefits over RSVP, it has seen even less adoption than RSVP.

   o  STUN is an on path, in-band signaling protocol that could easily
      be extended to provide signaling to on path network devices
      because it provides an easily inspected packet signature, at least
      for transport protocols such as UDP and SCTP.  Through its
      extensions TURN and ICE, it is becoming quite popular in
      application signaling driven by the initial use-case of
      automatically opening up firewall pinholes and determining the
      best local and remote addresses for peer-to-peer connectivity
      (ICE).

   o  PCP is a protocol designed to support use cases similar to UPnP
      firewall traversal.  It also can easily be extended to provide
      more generic application to network signaling for traffic flows.
      Unlike the prior protocols, it is not meant to be used on path
      end-to-end but rather independently on one "edge" of a traffic
      flow.  It is therefore an attractive alternative (albeit with
      challenges under path redundancy) because it allows the
      introduction of application to network signaling without relying
      on the remote peer.  This is especially useful in multi-domain
      communications.

   o  In addition to these, depending on the devices where it is
      performed, different degrees of DPI may be used to achieve
      explicit signaling.  For example, inspection of HTTP connections
      is often viable in high-touch network devices.  Such inspection
      may provide explicit signaling if the application purposely keeps
      or inserts information elements that are meant to be signaled to
      the network in the clear, or knowingly uses an encryption scheme
      shared with the network.

   Rather than encourage independent, protocol specific solutions to
   this problem, this document provides a protocol and application
   independent framework that can be applied in a consistent fashion
   across the various protocols.

3.  Proposed framework









Eckert, et al.           Expires April 24, 2014                 [Page 6]

Internet-DraftFramework for Signaling Flow Characteristics  October 2013


3.1.  Overview

   The proposed framework includes the following elements:

3.1.1.  Common, application independent, IPFIX registered, information
        elements

   An application media flow may be expressed as a set of information
   elements that are defined and registered like observation-based IPFIX
   attributes.  We propose leveraging IPFIX as the information model
   (not necessarily as the transport signaling) for the following
   reasons:

   o  As outlined above, export of traffic information is one of the two
      big workflows.  IPFIX is arguably the most flexible, extensible
      and best defined option for this.  Leveraging the same information
      model for flow characteristics facilitates export of this
      information via IPFIX.

   o  IPFIX allows for IETF/IANA standardized information elements, but
      also for unambiguous vendor-defined attributes by including the
      so-called PEN (Private Enterprise Number) into the information
      element type.  Note that IPFIX has ongoing work to better
      disseminate vendor specific registration of attributes.  The
      framework defined here expects to be able to leverage the output
      of that work.

3.1.2.  Cross-protocol information element encoding rules

   The majority of the protocols listed previously (RSVP, NSIS, STUN/
   ICE, PCP) require (or favor) compact binary encoding of information
   elements.  This is natively supported by the information element
   registration of IPFIX.

   The IPFIX registry defines each information element's data-type, and
   there is a native binary network encoding for each of these types.
   At a minimum, every protocol leveraging common information elements
   would need to use an encoding that identifies the information
   element's PEN and IE-ID, and that leverages network standard binary
   encoding of the value including the length of the value.  Including
   the length of the value into the encoding is required for
   extensibility because otherwise new information elements could not be
   introduced without first having all network devices know the data-
   type, and therefore the length, of the information element.
   Leveraging network standard binary encoding is equally important to
   permit network elements to propagate information elements from one
   protocol to another protocol without understanding the information
   elements data-type.



Eckert, et al.           Expires April 24, 2014                 [Page 7]

Internet-DraftFramework for Signaling Flow Characteristics  October 2013


   In protocols that are not constrained to binary encoding, it is
   nevertheless highly desirable to include the equivalent information
   and therefore permit propagation between binary and non-binary
   transport of information elements without having to understand all
   information elements.

3.1.3.  Anticipated Usage Models

   The signaling of information elements may be from application to the
   network or from network to application.  When signaled within a given
   protocol, the information elements may be interpreted independently
   of that protocol, or it may be used in combination with the given
   protocol.

3.1.3.1.  Informational

   The most simplistic usage model is one in which applications signal
   information elements describing their anticipated or existing flows
   into the network along the path of those flows without expecting or
   requiring anything back from the network.  Network elements along the
   flow path may or may not do something with this information.

   This "informational" usage model enables network elements along the
   path to support the workflows traditionally performed via DPI
   mechanisms, as described previously.

3.1.3.2.  Advisory

   This usage model extends the "informational" usage in that the
   application expects or requests some information back from the
   network.  With this usage, the same information elements apply and
   may be communicated by the application into the network, but the
   application indicates its interest in receiving some feedback.

   Default values are defined for each information element to
   unambiguously support cases in which an application does not have a
   valid value to communicate with the network; rather, it wants the
   network to provide a value back to it in response.  In essence, this
   allows an application to ask a question and receive an answer from
   the network.  Of course, a network element may provide similar
   feedback for cases in which an application communicated a non-default
   value as well.  Network elements may also provide unsolicited
   advisory feedback.








Eckert, et al.           Expires April 24, 2014                 [Page 8]

Internet-DraftFramework for Signaling Flow Characteristics  October 2013


   In all cases, applications are not guaranteed to receive an answer or
   any specific service from the network.  In the event an answer is
   provided, that answer is similarly not a guarantee of any specific
   service or treatment by the network.  It is to be interpreted as
   advisory only.

   As mentioned previously, the same information elements are used in
   the signaling from the application to the network as well as from the
   network to the application.  The underlying transport protocol used
   to carry the information elements is expected to provide the
   necessary request/response semantics or some other mechanism by which
   the communication in both directions can be tied together.

3.1.3.3.  Service Request

   This usage model extends the "advisory" usage to operate as an
   explicit service request.  Unlike the advisory usage, information
   elements signalled by the application are interpreted by network
   elements within the context of a service request, and information
   elements signalled by the network back to the application are
   interpreted within the context of a response to that request.

   As with the advisory usage, the same information elements are used in
   the signaling from the application to the network as well as from the
   network to the application.  The underlying transport protocol used
   to carry the information elements is expected to provide the
   necessary service request/response semantics.

3.1.4.  Considerations for signaling of common information elements

3.1.4.1.  Proxy originated information

   The goal of this framework is to enable applications to explicitly
   signal common information elements about their traffic flows and
   optionally receive common information elements from the network as
   feedback.  Nevertheless, it is clear that broad adoption of such
   technology is improved by enabling the use of proxies.  The proxies
   can provide or amend the flow description information in the absence
   of Flow Metadata support by the application itself.

3.1.4.2.  Authentication

   Common information elements should provide for cryptographic
   authentication by the sender.  In general the authentication provides
   some form of identification of the sender and proves that the common
   information elements covered by the authentication were originated
   from, or approved by, that identity.




Eckert, et al.           Expires April 24, 2014                 [Page 9]

Internet-DraftFramework for Signaling Flow Characteristics  October 2013


3.1.4.3.  Common encoding

   A companion document [I-D.choukir-tsvwg-flow-metadata-encoding]
   covers recommended encoding rules that take the following aspects
   into account:

   o  Compact binary encoding rules

   o  Signaling for both sent and received traffic flows

   o  Signaling of standard and vendor specific information elements

   o  Minimizes protocol specific definition required to add
      informational or advisory common information elements into
      existing transactions

   o  Signaling of feedback from the network

   o  Identification of originator to support proxies and facilitate
      mitigation between common information elements from different
      originators

   o  Signaling of authenticators

3.1.4.4.  Usage Model to Protocol integration

   There is a range of options for how this framework is integrated with
   a particular transport protocol.  We describe two examples we
   consider useful:

3.1.4.4.1.  Common transport informative integration

   1.  A transport protocol signaling method is defined to carry the
       common encoded information elements at least in signaling from
       application to network.

   2.  If the transport by itself does not already have a mechanism to
       indicate a purely informative protocol transaction, then a
       protocol specific indication for this is added.

   In result, this integration achieves two option:

   1.  Informative common information elements can be sent from
       application to network by using the protocol's method to indicate
       the purely informational protocol transaction.  This option
       effectively leverages the protocol as transport for additional
       informative attribute based services without impacting the
       services and transactions of the protocol otherwise.



Eckert, et al.           Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 10]

Internet-DraftFramework for Signaling Flow Characteristics  October 2013


   2.  Informative common information elements can be sent alongside an
       existing protocol transaction.  In this case they may either be
       ships in the night (triggering informative attribute based
       services), or they may additionally be used by the policy rules
       of the protocol transaction itself which could be advisory or
       service request.  All feedback of the transaction would still
       rely on protocol specific information element (common information
       elements only used from host to network).

   This integration is for example defined in [I-D.wing-pcp-flowdata],
   [I-D.zamfir-tsvwg-flow-metadata-rsvp], and
   [I-D.martinsen-mmusic-malice].

3.1.4.4.2.  Common transport advisory integration

   In addition to the common transport informative integration, the
   transport encoding is extended to carry the common transport
   information element in feedback messages from the network to the host
   /application.  The method to indicate informative only transaction,
   when sending to the network is used to indicate advisory only
   transaction when signaling from the network.

   This option primarily enables informative and advisory usage models,
   but it can equally interact with pre-existing service-request options
   of the transport protocol and impact advisory feedback or the service
   request itself based on that interaction.

3.2.  Proposed common information elements

   The section defines an initial set of common information elements.
   These information elements are intended to be added to the set of
   IANA standardized information elements either by this or associated
   documents.  Additional documents are expected to define additional
   attributes that can use either IANA or other vendor-PEN.

   All information element definition must include the following:

   1.  Default value to be provided by an application when it does not
       have an informative value to provide to the network, but is
       interested in receiving an advisory value of the attribute from
       the network.  If no advisory feedback is requested, and no
       informative value is known, the attribute may simply not be sent.

   2.  Conflict resolution in the presence of different values for the
       same information element (e.g. two peers signaling information
       elements for both the upstream and downstream direction of a flow
       include different values for the information element)




Eckert, et al.           Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 11]

Internet-DraftFramework for Signaling Flow Characteristics  October 2013


3.2.1.  Bandwidth Attributes

3.2.1.1.  Maximum Bandwidth

   This attribute is used to convey the maximum sustained bandwidth for
   the flow.  It is an unsigned 64 bit value and is specified in bits
   per second.

   Default Value: 0

   Conflict Resolution: Minimum for the set of non-default values

3.2.1.2.  Minimum Bandwidth

   This attribute is used to convey the minimum sustained bandwidth for
   the flow.  It is an unsigned 64 bit value and is specified in bits
   per second.  Not sending the Minimum Bandwidth is equivalent to
   sending the same value as for Maximum Bandwidth.

   Default Value: 0

   Conflict Resolution: Minimum of the set of non-default values

3.2.1.3.  Bandwidth Pool

   This attribute is used to convey that the traffic dynamically shares
   bandwidth with other traffic using the same Bandwidth Pool.  Variable
   length GUID (Global Unique ID) of at least 48 bits.  The Maximum
   Bandwidth used by the pool is the largest Maximum Bandwidth indicated
   by any member, the Minimum Bandwidth of the Pool is the largest
   Minimum Bandwidth indicated by any member.

3.2.2.  Traffic Class Attributes

3.2.2.1.  RFC4594-DSCP

   This attribute is used to convey the DSCP value appropriate for the
   flow.  It is an unsigned 8 bit value.  Values signaled are assumed to
   be in compliance with [RFC4594] or backward compatible extensions
   thereof.  Other values are undefined.

   Default Value: 0xff

   Conflict Resolution: tbd

3.2.2.2.  Traffic Class Label (TCL)





Eckert, et al.           Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 12]

Internet-DraftFramework for Signaling Flow Characteristics  October 2013


   The data type of this information element is a string.  It carries
   the Traffic Class Label defined in
   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-traffic-class-for-sdp].  Depending on the outcome of
   that drafts standardization, the version carried as an information
   element may be slightly expanded over the its definition for SDP.
   The TCL is a structured string of the form:

   <category>.<application>(.adjective)(.adjective)

   category and application provide a base categorization of the traffic
   class that attempts to provide a simplified and extensible, framework
   for the traffic class definitions in [RFC4594].  These base
   classifications can be refined with zero or more adjectives.
   Examples of a TCL is "conversational.video.avconf".

   Default Value: Empty string

   Conflict Resolution: tbd

3.2.3.  Acceptable Path Attributes

   The following set of attributes deal with tolerance to various path
   impairments.  A discrete and ordered set of values is defined for
   each.  This way the values are applicable on a per hop basis as well
   as end to end.  The values may be mapped to relevant metrics within a
   given network, such as the mapping of delay tolerance and loss
   tolerance to QCI values as defined in [I-D.penno-pcp-mobile-qos]

3.2.3.1.  Delay Tolerance

   This attribute is used to convey the delay tolerance of an
   application with respect to the associated flow.  When provided by a
   network element, it indicates the delay tolerance expected of the
   application with respect to the associated flow.  It is a 3 bit field
   for which values are assigned as follows:

   0 = no information available

   1 = very low

   2 = low

   3 = medium

   4 = high

   5-7: reserved




Eckert, et al.           Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 13]

Internet-DraftFramework for Signaling Flow Characteristics  October 2013


   Default Value: 0

   Conflict Resolution: For application to network, the most strict of
   non-default values.  For network to application, the least strict of
   the set of non-default values.

3.2.3.2.  Loss Tolerance

   This attribute is used to convey the loss tolerance of an application
   with respect to the associated flow.  When provided by a network
   element, it indicates the loss tolerance expected of the application
   with respect to the associated flow.  It is a 3 bit field for which
   values are assigned as follows:

   0 = no information available

   1 = very low

   2 = low

   3 = medium

   4 = high

   5-7: reserved

   Default Value: 0

   Conflict Resolution: For application to network, the most strict of
   non-default values.  For network to application, the least strict of
   the set of non-default values.

3.2.3.3.  Jitter Tolerance

   This attribute is used to convey the jitter tolerance of an
   application with respect to the associated flow.  When provided by a
   network element, it indicates the jitter tolerance expected of the
   application with respect to the associated flow.  It is a 3 bit field
   for which values are assigned as follows:

   0 = no information available

   1 = very low

   2 = low

   3 = medium




Eckert, et al.           Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 14]

Internet-DraftFramework for Signaling Flow Characteristics  October 2013


   4 = high

   5-7: reserved

   Default Value: 0

   Conflict Resolution: For application to network, the most strict of
   non-default values.  For network to application, the least strict of
   the set of non-default values.

3.2.4.  Application Identification

   Application identification is clearly one of the more difficult
   classification goals.  The proposals included here are as of yet not
   widely vetted:

3.2.4.1.  RFC 6759 style application identification

   [RFC6759] defines the IPFIX IE-IDs that permit both IANA and vendor
   specific application identification.  Though defined for observation
   (a.k.a.: DPI), it could also be used with explicit signaling from
   applications.

   Applications that use one of the protocols for which there is an IANA
   port allocation could explicitly indicate this port via the IANA-L4
   engine-id in their application to network signaling.  This would
   identify the application even if the application is not using the
   IANA assigned port for it.  This covers cases in which applications
   use ports other than registered, such as HTTP servers running on
   other than 80, or when ports get mapped due to PAT.

   To avoid collision with DPI exported IANA-L4 classification, it is
   necessary to assign a new engine-id for application-self assigned
   IANA-L4 classification (e.g. new engine-id for IANA-L4-SELF-
   ASSIGNED).  If an application vendor has a PEN, the application can
   use a PANA-L7-PEN classification with the PEN of the originating
   application vendor.  Likewise, if applications are in general made
   available via "market" type reseller mechanism (common in mobile
   device applications), then the application vendor could request an
   application identification from the market owner and leverage the
   market owners PEN.

3.2.4.2.  URL style application identification

   One problem with [RFC6759] style application identification
   especially non-IANA registered ones is the complexity in making all
   network elements learn the semantic of the numeric encoding of e.g.
   the PANA-L7-PEN information element in signaling protocols that only



Eckert, et al.           Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 15]

Internet-DraftFramework for Signaling Flow Characteristics  October 2013


   use the numeric encoding of information elements.  The second problem
   may be to determine what PEN to use, because not every developer of
   an application may be a company that has a PEN or otherwise would
   intend to apply for one.  Application identification via a URL
   encoded string information element is a way to overcome both issues.
   Today, almost all applications have some DNS domain associated with
   them through which they are being marketed or that belongs to the
   company developing the application.  Therefore, one simple form of
   self assigned application identification is a new IPFIX information
   element: UrlAppId.  The value of this information element is an
   abbreviated URL of the following form:

   <fqdn> / <app-name> /[ <version> | <other-details> ]

   The idea is that the owner of <fqdn> (fully qualified domain name) is
   assigning an <app-name>, and by signaling both <domain-name> and
   <app-name>, this information element provides a self-identifying,
   unambiguous application identification.

   Example:

   example.com/network-lemmings/sdn-edition

   A game publishing house or application market operator with the
   domain name example.com is initially allocating the UrlAppId
   example.com/network-lemmings to that application.  After 35 years, a
   new variant of the game is released, the SDN edition, and the app-
   developer decides that it would best like to distinguish this
   application variant by the above UrlAppId example.com/network-
   lemmings/sdn-edition.

   In general, different traffic flows within a single application
   should best not be distinguished via the UrlAppId, but instead rely
   on attributes more specifically targeted for that purpose (such as
   the TrafficClassLabel).  If there is no adequate better attribute
   defined, application developers may choose to use the other-details
   section of the UrlAppId to distinguish flows within the same
   application.

   Formally, the only requirement against the UrlAppId is that the fqdn
   part is a DNS domain owned by the assigner, and that the rest of the
   string after the first / is as self explanatory as possible.









Eckert, et al.           Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 16]

Internet-DraftFramework for Signaling Flow Characteristics  October 2013


   It should be noted that in the context of DPI, classification of web-
   based application traffic is very often performed by URL inspection
   of HTTP traffic.  This proposed intent based information element
   leverages that model and makes it usable where it can not be
   currently used with just DPI: encrypted HTTP, non-HTTP applications,
   HTTP applications with non-descriptive URLs, etc.

4.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Dan Wing, Anca Zamfir, Paul Jones,
   and Tirumaleswar Reddy for their valuable contributions to this
   document.

5.  Informative References

   [I-D.choukir-tsvwg-flow-metadata-encoding]
              Eckert, T., Zamfir, A., Choukir, A., and C. Eckel,
              "Protocol Independent Encoding for Signaling Flow
              Characteristics", draft-choukir-tsvwg-flow-metadata-
              encoding-01 (work in progress), July 2013.

   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-traffic-class-for-sdp]
              Polk, J., Dhesikan, S., and P. Jones, "The Session
              Description Protocol (SDP) 'trafficclass' Attribute",
              draft-ietf-mmusic-traffic-class-for-sdp-04 (work in
              progress), July 2013.

   [I-D.martinsen-mmusic-malice]
              Penno, R., Martinsen, P., Wing, D., and A. Zamfir, "Meta-
              data Attribute signaLling with ICE", draft-martinsen-
              mmusic-malice-00 (work in progress), July 2013.

   [I-D.penno-pcp-mobile-qos]
              Penno, R., Reddy, T., Wing, D., Steeg, B., and M.
              Boucadair, "PCP Usage for Quality of Service (QoS) in
              Mobile Networks", draft-penno-pcp-mobile-qos-00 (work in
              progress), July 2013.

   [I-D.wing-pcp-flowdata]
              Wing, D., Penno, R., and T. Reddy, "PCP Flowdata Option",
              draft-wing-pcp-flowdata-00 (work in progress), July 2013.

   [I-D.zamfir-tsvwg-flow-metadata-rsvp]
              Eckert, T., Zamfir, A., and A. Choukir, "Flow Metadata
              Signaling with RSVP", draft-zamfir-tsvwg-flow-metadata-
              rsvp-00 (work in progress), July 2013.





Eckert, et al.           Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 17]

Internet-DraftFramework for Signaling Flow Characteristics  October 2013


   [RFC4594]  Babiarz, J., Chan, K., and F. Baker, "Configuration
              Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes", RFC 4594, August
              2006.

   [RFC6759]  Claise, B., Aitken, P., and N. Ben-Dvora, "Cisco Systems
              Export of Application Information in IP Flow Information
              Export (IPFIX)", RFC 6759, November 2012.

Authors' Addresses

   Toerless Eckert (editor)
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   San Jose
   US

   Email: eckert@cisco.com


   Reinaldo Penno
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose  95134
   USA

   Email: repenno@cisco.com


   Amine Choukir
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Lausanne
   CH

   Email: amchouki@cisco.com


   Charles Eckel
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   US

   Email: eckelcu@cisco.com









Eckert, et al.           Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 18]