Diameter Maintenance and J. Korhonen, Ed. Extensions (DIME) TeliaSonera Internet-Draft H. Tschofenig Intended status: Standards Track Nokia Siemens Networks Expires: April 1, 2008 September 29, 2007 Quality of Service Parameters for Usage with the AAA Framework draft-ietf-dime-qos-parameters-01.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 April 1, 2008. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). Abstract This document defines a number of Quality of Service (QoS) parameters that can be reused for conveying QoS information within RADIUS and Diameter. The payloads used to carry these QoS parameters are opaque for the AAA client and the AAA server itself and interpreted by the respective Resource Management Function. Korhonen & Tschofenig Expires April 1, 2008 [Page 1] Internet-Draft QoS Parameters September 2007 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Parameter Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. Traffic Model Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.2. Constraints Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.3. Traffic Handling Directives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.4. Traffic Classifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Parameter Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. Parameter Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.2. TMOD-1 Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.3. TMOD-2 Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.4. Path Latency Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.5. Path Jitter Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.6. Path PLR Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.7. Path PER Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.8. Slack Term Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.9. Preemption Priority amp; Defending Priority Parameters . . 9 4.10. Admission Priority Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.11. RPH Priority Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.12. Excess Treatment Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.13. PHB Class Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.14. DSTE Class Type Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.15. Y.1541 QoS Class Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6.1. QoS Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6.2. Parameter ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 21 Korhonen & Tschofenig Expires April 1, 2008 [Page 2] Internet-Draft QoS Parameters September 2007 1. Introduction This document defines a number of Quality of Service (QoS) parameters that can be reused for conveying QoS information within RADIUS and Diameter. The payloads used to carry these QoS parameters are opaque for the AAA client and the AAA server itself and interpreted by the respective Resource Management Function. 2. Terminology and Abbreviations The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [RFC2119]. 3. Parameter Overview 3.1. Traffic Model Parameter The Traffic Model (TMOD) parameter is a container consisting of four sub-parameters: o rate (r) o bucket size (b) o peak rate (p) o minimum policed unit (m) All four sub-parameters MUST be included in the TMOD parameter. The TMOD parameter is a mathematically complete way to describe the traffic source. If, for example, TMOD is set to specify bandwidth only, then set r = peak rate = p, b = large, m = large. As another example if TMOD is set for TCP traffic, then set r = average rate, b = large, p = large. 3.2. Constraints Parameters , , , and are QoS parameters describing the desired path latency, path jitter and path bit error rate respectively. The parameter refers to the accumulated latency of the packet forwarding process associated with each QoS aware node along the path, where the latency is defined to be the mean packet delay added by each such node. This delay results from speed-of-light propagation delay, from packet processing limitations, or both. The mean delay reflects the variable queuing delay that may be present. Korhonen & Tschofenig Expires April 1, 2008 [Page 3] Internet-Draft QoS Parameters September 2007 The purpose of this parameter is to provide a minimum path latency for use with services which provide estimates or bounds on additional path delay [RFC2212]. The procedures for collecting path latency information are outside the scope of this document. The parameter refers to the accumulated jitter of the packet forwarding process associated with each QoS aware node along the path, where the jitter is defined to be the nominal jitter added by each such node. IP packet jitter, or delay variation, is defined in Section 3.4 of RFC 3393 [RFC3393], (Type-P-One-way-ipdv), and where the selection function includes the packet with minimum delay such that the distribution is equivalent to 2-point delay variation in [Y.1540]. The suggested evaluation interval is 1 minute. This jitter results from packet processing limitations, and includes any variable queuing delay which may be present. The purpose of this parameter is to provide a nominal path jitter for use with services that provide estimates or bounds on additional path delay [RFC2212]. The procedures for collecting path jitter information are outside the scope of this document. The parameter refers to the accumulated packet loss rate (PLR) of the packet forwarding process associated with each QoS aware node along the path where the PLR is defined to be the PLR added by each such node. The parameter refers to the accumulated packet error rate (PER) of the packet forwarding process associated with each QoS aware node, where the PER is defined to be the PER added by each such node. The parameter refers to the difference between desired delay and delay obtained by using bandwidth reservation, and which is used to reduce the resource reservation for a flow [RFC2212]. The parameter refers to the priority of the new flow compared with the of previously admitted flows. Once a flow is admitted, the preemption priority becomes irrelevant. The parameter is used to compare with the preemption priority of new flows. For any specific flow, its preemption priority MUST always be less than or equal to the defending priority. and provide an essential way to differentiate flows for emergency services, ETS, E911, etc., and assign them a higher admission priority than normal priority flows and best-effort priority flows. Korhonen & Tschofenig Expires April 1, 2008 [Page 4] Internet-Draft QoS Parameters September 2007 3.3. Traffic Handling Directives The parameter describes how a QoS aware node will process excess traffic, that is, out-of-profile traffic. Excess traffic MAY be dropped, shaped and/or remarked. 3.4. Traffic Classifiers Resource reservations might refer to a packet processing with a particular DiffServ per-hop behavior (PHB) [RFC2475] or to a particular QoS class, e.g., Y.1541 QoS class or DiffServ-aware MPLS traffic engineering (DSTE) class type [RFC3564], [RFC4124]. 4. Parameter Encoding 4.1. Parameter Header Each QoS parameter is encoded in TLV format. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |M|r|r|r| Parameter ID |r|r|r|r| Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ M Flag: When set indicates the subsequent parameter MUST be interpreted. If the M flag is set and the parameter is not understood then it leads to an error. If the M flag is not set and then not understood then it can be ignored. The r bits are reserved. Parameter ID: Assigned to each individual QoS parameter 4.2. TMOD-1 Parameter =

[RFC2210] , [RFC2215] The above notation means that the 4 sub-parameters must be carried in the parameter. The coding for the parameter is as follows: Korhonen & Tschofenig Expires April 1, 2008 [Page 5] Internet-Draft QoS Parameters September 2007 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |M|r|r|r| 1 |r|r|r|r| 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TMOD Rate-1 [r] (32-bit IEEE floating point number) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TMOD Size-1 [b] (32-bit IEEE floating point number) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Peak Data Rate-1 [p] (32-bit IEEE floating point number) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Minimum Policed Unit-1 [m] (32-bit unsigned integer) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The parameters are represented by three floating point numbers in single-precision IEEE floating point format followed by one 32-bit integer in network byte order. The first floating point value is the rate (r), the second floating point value is the bucket size (b), the third floating point is the peak rate (p), and the first unsigned integer is the minimum policed unit (m). When r, b, and p terms are represented as IEEE floating point values, the sign bit MUST be zero (all values MUST be non-negative). Exponents less than 127 (i.e., 0) are prohibited. Exponents greater than 162 (i.e., positive 35) are discouraged, except for specifying a peak rate of infinity. Infinity is represented with an exponent of all ones (255) and a sign bit and mantissa of all zeroes. 4.3. TMOD-2 Parameter A description of the semantic of the parameter values can be found in [RFC2215]. The parameter may be needed in a DiffServ environment. The coding for the parameter is as follows: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |M|r|r|r| 2 |r|r|r|r| 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TMOD Rate-2 [r] (32-bit IEEE floating point number) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TMOD Size-2 [b] (32-bit IEEE floating point number) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Peak Data Rate-2 [p] (32-bit IEEE floating point number) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Minimum Policed Unit-2 [m] (32-bit unsigned integer) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Korhonen & Tschofenig Expires April 1, 2008 [Page 6] Internet-Draft QoS Parameters September 2007 When r, b, and p terms are represented as IEEE floating point values, the sign bit MUST be zero (all values MUST be non-negative). Exponents less than 127 (i.e., 0) are prohibited. Exponents greater than 162 (i.e., positive 35) are discouraged, except for specifying a peak rate of infinity. Infinity is represented with an exponent of all ones (255) and a sign bit and mantissa of all zeroes. 4.4. Path Latency Parameter A description of the semantic of the parameter values can be found in [RFC2210],[RFC2215]. The coding for the parameter is as follows: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |M|r|r|r| 3 |r|r|r|r| 1 | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | Path Latency (32-bit integer) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The Path Latency is a single 32-bit integer in network byte order. The composition rule for the parameter is summation with a clamp of (2**32 - 1) on the maximum value. The latencies are average values reported in units of one microsecond. A system with resolution less than one microsecond MUST set unused digits to zero. The total latency added across all QoS aware nodes along the path can range as high as (2**32)-2. 4.5. Path Jitter Parameter The coding for the parameter is as follows: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |M|r|r|r| 4 |r|r|r|r| 4 | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | Path Jitter STAT1(variance) (32-bit integer) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Path Jitter STAT2(99.9%-ile) (32-bit integer) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Path Jitter STAT3(minimum Latency) (32-bit integer) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Path Jitter STAT4(Reserved) (32-bit integer) | Korhonen & Tschofenig Expires April 1, 2008 [Page 7] Internet-Draft QoS Parameters September 2007 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The Path Jitter is a set of four 32-bit integers in network byte order. The Path Jitter parameter is the combination of four statistics describing the Jitter distribution with a clamp of (2**32 - 1) on the maximum of each value. The jitter STATs are reported in units of one microsecond. 4.6. Path PLR Parameter The coding for the parameter is as follows: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |M|r|r|r| 5 |r|r|r|r| 1 | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | Path Packet Loss Ratio (32-bit floating point) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The Path PLR is a single 32-bit single precision IEEE floating point number in network byte order. The PLRs are reported in units of 10^-11. A system with resolution less than one microsecond MUST set unused digits to zero. The total PLR added across all QoS aware nodes can range as high as 10^-1. 4.7. Path PER Parameter The coding for the parameter is as follows: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |M|r|r|r| 6 |r|r|r|r| 1 | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | Path Packet Error Ratio (32-bit floating point) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The Path PER is a single 32-bit single precision IEEE floating point number in network byte order. The PERs are reported in units of 10^-11. A system with resolution less than one microsecond MUST set unused digits to zero. The total PER added across all QoS aware nodes can range as high as 10^-1. Korhonen & Tschofenig Expires April 1, 2008 [Page 8] Internet-Draft QoS Parameters September 2007 4.8. Slack Term Parameter A description of the semantic of the parameter values can be found in [RFC2212], [RFC2215]. The coding for the parameter is as follows: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |M|r|r|r| 7 |r|r|r|r| 1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Slack Term [S] (32-bit integer) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The Slack Term parameter S is nonnegative and is measured in microseconds. S is represented as a 32-bit integer. Its value can range from 0 to (2**32)-1 microseconds. 4.9. Preemption Priority amp; Defending Priority Parameters A description of the semantic of the parameter values can be found in [RFC3181]. The coding for the & sub- parameters is as follows: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |M|r|r|r| 8 |r|r|r|r| 1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Preemption Priority | Defending Priority | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Preemption Priority: The priority of the new flow compared with the defending priority of previously admitted flows. Higher values represent higher priority. Defending Priority: Once a flow is admitted, the preemption priority becomes irrelevant. Instead, its defending priority is used to compare with the preemption priority of new flows. As specified in [RFC3181], & are 16-bit integer values. Korhonen & Tschofenig Expires April 1, 2008 [Page 9] Internet-Draft QoS Parameters September 2007 4.10. Admission Priority Parameter A description of the semantic of the parameter values can be found in [Y.1571]. The coding for the parameter is as follows: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |M|r|r|r| 9 |r|r|r|r| 1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Admis.Priority| (Reserved) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ High priority flows, normal priority flows, and best-effort priority flows can have access to resources depending on their admission priority value as follows: Admission Priority: 0 - best-effort priority flow 1 - normal priority flow 2 - high priority flow 255 - not used A reservation without an parameter (i.e., set to 255) MUST be treated as a reservation with an = 1. 4.11. RPH Priority Parameter A description of the semantic of the parameter values can be found in [RFC4412]. The coding for the parameter is as follows: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |M|r|r|r| 10 |r|r|r|r| 1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | RPH Namespace | RPH Priority | (Reserved) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ [RFC4412] defines a resource priority header (RPH) with parameters "RPH Namespace" and "RPH Priority" combination, and if populated is Korhonen & Tschofenig Expires April 1, 2008 [Page 10] Internet-Draft QoS Parameters September 2007 applicable only to flows with high admission priority, as follows: RPH Namespace: 0 - dsn 1 - drsn 2 - q735 3 - ets 4 - wps 255 - not used Each namespace has a finite list of relative priority-values. Each is listed here in the order of lowest priority to highest priority. RPH Priority: 4 - q735.4 3 - q735.3 2 - q735.2 1 - q735.1 0 - q735.0 4 - ets.4 3 - ets.3 2 - ets.2 1 - ets.1 0 - ets.0 4 - wps.4 3 - wps.3 2 - wps.2 1 - wps.1 0 - wps.0 For the 4 priority parameters, the following cases are permissible (procedures specified in references): 1 parameter: [Y.1571] 2 parameters: , [RFC4412] 2 parameters: , [RFC3181] 3 parameters: , , [3GPP-1, 3GPP-2, 3GPP-3] 4 parameters: , , , [3GPP-1, 3GPP-2, 3GPP-3] Korhonen & Tschofenig Expires April 1, 2008 [Page 11] Internet-Draft QoS Parameters September 2007 It is permissible to have without , but not permissible to have without (alternatively is ignored in instances without ). 4.12. Excess Treatment Parameter The coding for the parameter is as follows: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |M|r|r|r| 11 |r|r|r|r| 1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Excess Trtmnt | Remark Value | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Excess Treatment: Indicates how the QoS aware node should process out-of-profile traffic, that is, traffic not covered by the parameter. Allowed values are as follows: 0: drop 1: shape 2: remark 3: no metering or policing is permitted The default excess treatment in case that none is specified is that there are no guarantees to excess traffic, i.e., a QoS aware node can do what it finds suitable. When excess treatment is set to 'drop', all marked traffic MUST be dropped by a QoS aware node. When excess treatment is set to 'shape', it is expected that the QoS Desired object carries a TMOD parameter. Excess traffic is to be shaped to this TMOD. When the shaping causes unbounded queue growth at the shaper traffic can be dropped. When excess treatment is set to 'remark', the excess treatment parameter MUST carry the remark value. For example, packets may be remarked to drop remarked to pertain to a particular QoS class. In the latter case, remarking relates to a DiffServ-type model, where packets arrive marked as belonging to a certain QoS class, and when they are identified as excess, they should then be remarked to a different QoS Class. Korhonen & Tschofenig Expires April 1, 2008 [Page 12] Internet-Draft QoS Parameters September 2007 If 'no metering or policing is permitted' is signaled, the QoS aware node should accept the excess treatment parameter set by the sender with special care so that excess traffic should not cause a problem. To request the Null Meter [RFC3290] is especially strong, and should be used with caution. 4.13. PHB Class Parameter A description of the semantic of the parameter values can be found in [RFC3140]. The coding for the parameter is as follows: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |M|r|r|r| 12 |r|r|r|r| 1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | DSCP |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| (Reserved) | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ As prescribed in [RFC3140], the encoding for a single PHB is the recommended DSCP value for that PHB, left-justified in the 16 bit field, with bits 6 through 15 set to zero. The encoding for a set of PHBs is the numerically smallest of the set of encodings for the various PHBs in the set, with bit 14 set to 1. (Thus for the AF1x PHBs, the encoding is that of the AF11 PHB, with bit 14 set to 1.) 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | DSCP |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X 0| +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ PHBs not defined by standards action, i.e., experimental or local use PHBs as allowed by [RFC2474]. In this case an arbitrary 12 bit PHB identification code, assigned by the IANA, is placed left-justified in the 16 bit field. Bit 15 is set to 1, and bit 14 is zero for a single PHB or 1 for a set of PHBs. Bits 12 and 13 are zero. 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | PHD ID CODE |0 0 X 0| +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ Korhonen & Tschofenig Expires April 1, 2008 [Page 13] Internet-Draft QoS Parameters September 2007 Bits 12 and 13 are reserved either for expansion of the PHB identification code, or for other use, at some point in the future. In both cases, when a single PHBID is used to identify a set of PHBs (i.e., bit 14 is set to 1), that set of PHBs MUST constitute a PHB Scheduling Class (i.e., use of PHBs from the set MUST NOT cause intra-microflow traffic reordering when different PHBs from the set are applied to traffic in the same microflow). The set of AF1x PHBs [RFC2597] is an example of a PHB Scheduling Class. Sets of PHBs that do not constitute a PHB Scheduling Class can be identified by using more than one PHBID. The registries needed to use [RFC3140] already exist. Hence, no new registry needs to be created for this purpose. 4.14. DSTE Class Type Parameter A description of the semantic of the parameter values can be found in [RFC4124]. The coding for the parameter is as follows: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |M|r|r|r| 13 |r|r|r|r| 1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |DSTE Cls. Type | (Reserved) | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ DSTE Class Type: Indicates the DSTE class type. Values currently allowed are 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. A value of 255 (all 1's) means that the parameter is not used. 4.15. Y.1541 QoS Class Parameter A description of the semantic of the parameter values can be found in [Y.1541]. The coding for the parameter is as follows: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |M|r|r|r| 14 |r|r|r|r| 1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Y.1541 QoS Cls.| (Reserved) | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ Korhonen & Tschofenig Expires April 1, 2008 [Page 14] Internet-Draft QoS Parameters September 2007 Y.1541 QoS Class: Indicates the Y.1541 QoS Class. Values currently allowed are 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. A value of 255 (all 1's) means that the parameter is not used. Class 0: Mean delay <= 100 ms, delay variation <= 50 ms, loss ratio <= 10^-3. Real-time, highly interactive applications, sensitive to jitter. Application examples include VoIP, Video Teleconference. Class 1: Mean delay <= 400 ms, delay variation <= 50 ms, loss ratio <= 10^-3. Real-time, interactive applications, sensitive to jitter. Application examples include VoIP, Video Teleconference. Class 2: Mean delay <= 100 ms, delay variation unspecified, loss ratio <= 10^-3. Highly interactive transaction data. Application examples include signaling. Class 3: Mean delay <= 400 ms, delay variation unspecified, loss ratio <= 10^-3. Interactive transaction data. Application examples include signaling. Class 4: Mean delay <= 1 sec, delay variation unspecified, loss ratio <= 10^-3. Low Loss Only applications. Application examples include short transactions, bulk data, video streaming. Class 5: Mean delay unspecified, delay variation unspecified, loss ratio unspecified. Unspecified applications. Application examples include traditional applications of default IP networks. Class 6: Mean delay <= 100 ms, delay variation <= 50 ms, loss ratio <= 10^-5. Applications that are highly sensitive to loss, such as television transport, high-capacity TCP transfers, and TDM circuit emulation. Korhonen & Tschofenig Expires April 1, 2008 [Page 15] Internet-Draft QoS Parameters September 2007 Class 7: Mean delay <= 400 ms, delay variation <= 50 ms, loss ratio <= 10^-5. Applications that are highly sensitive to loss, such as television transport, high-capacity TCP transfers, and TDM circuit emulation. 5. Extensibility This document is designed with extensibility in mind given that different organizations and groups are used to define their own Quality of Service parameters. This document provides an initial QoS profile with common set of parameters. Ideally, these parameters should be used whenever possible but there are cases where additional parameters might be needed, or where the parameters specified in this document are used with a different semantic. In this case it is advisable to define a new QoS profile that may consist of new parameters in addition to parameters defined in this document or an entirely different set of parameters. To enable the definition of new QoS profiles a 8 octet registry is defined field that is represented by a 4-octet vendor and 4-octet specifier field. The vendor field indicates the type as either standards-specified or vendor-specific. If the four octets of the vendor field are 0x00000000, then the value is standards-specified and the registry is maintained by IANA, and any other value represents a vendor-specific Object Identifier (OID). IANA created registry is split into two value ranges; one range uses the "Standards Action" and the second range uses "Specification Required" allocation policy. The latter range is meant to be used by organizations outside the IETF. 6. IANA Considerations This document reuses the namespace created in [I-D.ietf-nsis-qspec] for 1. Admission Priority Parameter 2. RPH Namespace Parameter 3. RPH Priority Parameter 4. Excess Treatment Parameter 5. DSTE Class Type Parameter 6. Y.1541 QoS Class Parameter IANA is requested to create the following registries: QoS Profile (32 bits), and Parameter ID (12 bits) Korhonen & Tschofenig Expires April 1, 2008 [Page 16] Internet-Draft QoS Parameters September 2007 6.1. QoS Profile The QoS Profile refers to a 64 bit long field that is represented by a 4-octet vendor and 4-octet specifier field. The vendor field indicates the type as either standards-specified or vendor-specific. If the four octets of the vendor field are 0x00000000, then the value is standards-specified and the registry is maintained by IANA, and any other value represents a vendor-specific Object Identifier (OID). The specifier field indicates the actual QoS profile. The vendor field 0x00000000 is reserved to indicate that the values in the specifier field are maintained by IANA. This document requests IANA to create such a registry and to allocate the value zero (0) for the QoS profile defined in this document. For any other vendor field, the specifier field is maintained by the vendor. For the IANA maintained QoS profiles the following allocation policy is defined: 1 to 511: Standards Action 512 to 4095: Specification Required Standards action is required to depreciate, delete, or modify existing QoS profile values in the range of 0-511 and a specification is required to depreciate, delete, or modify existing QoS profile values in the range of 512-4095. 6.2. Parameter ID The Parameter ID refers to a 12 bit long field. The following values are allocated by this specification. Korhonen & Tschofenig Expires April 1, 2008 [Page 17] Internet-Draft QoS Parameters September 2007 (0): (1): (2): (3): (4): (5): (6): (7): & (8): (9): (10): (11): (12): (13): The allocation policies for further values are as follows: 14-127: Standards Action 128-255: Private/Experimental Use 255-4095: Specification Required A standards track document is required to depreciate, delete, or modify existing Parameter IDs. 7. Security Considerations This document does not raise any security concerns as it only defines QoS parameters. 8. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the NSIS QSPEC [I-D.ietf-nsis-qspec] authors (Cornelia Kappler, Jerry Ash, Attila Bader, Dave Oran), the NSIS working group chairs (John Loughney and Martin Stiemerling) and the former Transport Area Directors (Allison Manking, Jon Peterson) for their help. 9. References 9.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Korhonen & Tschofenig Expires April 1, 2008 [Page 18] Internet-Draft QoS Parameters September 2007 [RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated Services", RFC 2210, September 1997. [RFC2212] Shenker, S., Partridge, C., and R. Guerin, "Specification of Guaranteed Quality of Service", RFC 2212, September 1997. [RFC2215] Shenker, S. and J. Wroclawski, "General Characterization Parameters for Integrated Service Network Elements", RFC 2215, September 1997. [RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black, "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, December 1998. [RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z., and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated Services", RFC 2475, December 1998. [RFC2597] Heinanen, J., Baker, F., Weiss, W., and J. Wroclawski, "Assured Forwarding PHB Group", RFC 2597, June 1999. [RFC3140] Black, D., Brim, S., Carpenter, B., and F. Le Faucheur, "Per Hop Behavior Identification Codes", RFC 3140, June 2001. [RFC3181] Herzog, S., "Signaled Preemption Priority Policy Element", RFC 3181, October 2001. [RFC3290] Bernet, Y., Blake, S., Grossman, D., and A. Smith, "An Informal Management Model for Diffserv Routers", RFC 3290, May 2002. [RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393, November 2002. [RFC3564] Le Faucheur, F. and W. Lai, "Requirements for Support of Differentiated Services-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 3564, July 2003. [RFC4124] Le Faucheur, F., "Protocol Extensions for Support of Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4124, June 2005. [RFC4412] Schulzrinne, H. and J. Polk, "Communications Resource Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", Korhonen & Tschofenig Expires April 1, 2008 [Page 19] Internet-Draft QoS Parameters September 2007 RFC 4412, February 2006. [Y.1541] "Network Performance Objectives for IP-Based Services", , 2006. 9.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-nsis-qspec] Ash, J., "QoS NSLP QSPEC Template", draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-17 (work in progress), July 2007. [Y.1540] "Internet Protocol Data Communication Service - IP Packet Transfer and Availability Performance Parameters", , December 2002. Authors' Addresses Jouni Korhonen (editor) TeliaSonera Teollisuuskatu 13 Sonera FIN-00051 Finland Email: jouni.korhonen@teliasonera.com Hannes Tschofenig Nokia Siemens Networks Otto-Hahn-Ring 6 Munich, Bavaria 81739 Germany Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@nsn.com URI: http://www.tschofenig.com Korhonen & Tschofenig Expires April 1, 2008 [Page 20] Internet-Draft QoS Parameters September 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). Korhonen & Tschofenig Expires April 1, 2008 [Page 21]