| TOC |
|
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 July 24, 2008.
This document extends the QoSFilterRule AVP functionality of the Diameter Base protocol and the functionality of the QoS-Filter-Rule AVP defined in RFC 4005. The ability to convey Quality of Service information using the AVPs defined in this document is available to existing Diameter applications where permitted by the command ABNF and to all new applications.
1.
Introduction
2.
Terminology
3.
Diameter QoS Defined AVPs
3.1.
QoS-Capability AVP
3.2.
QoS-Profile-Template AVP
3.3.
QoS-Resources AVP
3.4.
Extended-QoS-Filter-Rule AVP
3.5.
QoS-Semantics
3.6.
QoS-Parameters AVP
3.7.
QoS-Rule-Precedence AVP
3.8.
QoS-Flow-State AVP
3.9.
QoS-Flow-Direction AVP
4.
Semantics of QoS Parameters
5.
Examples
5.1.
Diameter EAP with QoS Information
5.2.
Diameter NASREQ with QoS Information
5.3.
QoS Authorization
5.4.
Diameter Server Initiated Re-authorization of QoS
5.5.
Diameter Credit Control with QoS Information
6.
Acknowledgments
7.
IANA Considerations
8.
Security Considerations
9.
References
9.1.
Normative References
9.2.
Informative References
§
Authors' Addresses
§
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements
| TOC |
This document defines a number of Diameter Quality of Service (QoS) related AVPs that can be used in existing Diameter applications where permitted by the command ABNF and in all new applications. The Extended-QoS-Filter-Rule AVP thereby replaces the QoSFilterRule, defined in RFC 3588 [RFC3588] (Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J. Arkko, “Diameter Base Protocol,” September 2003.), and the QoS-Filter-Rule, defined in RFC 4005 [RFC4005] (Calhoun, P., Zorn, G., Spence, D., and D. Mitton, “Diameter Network Access Server Application,” August 2005.).
| TOC |
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119] (Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,” March 1997.).
| TOC |
The following table lists the Diameter AVPs used by this document, their AVP code values, types, possible flag values, and whether the AVP may be encrypted.
+------------------+
| AVP Flag Rules |
+-------------------------------------------------|----+---+----+----+
| AVP Section |MUST|MAY|SHLD|MUST|
| Attribute Name Code Defined Data Type | | | NOT| NOT|
+-------------------------------------------------+----+---+----+----+
|QoS-Capability TBD 3.1 Grouped | |M,P| | V |
|QoS-Profile-Template TBD 3.2 Unsigned64 | |M,P| | V |
|QoS-Resources TBD 3.3 Grouped | |M,P| | V |
|Extended-QoS-Filter-Rule TBD 3.4 Grouped | |M,P| | V |
|QoS-Semantics TBD 3.5 Enumerated | |M,P| | V |
|QoS-Parameters TBD 3.6 OctetString| |M,P| | V |
|QoS-Rule-Precedence TBD 3.7 Unsigned32 | |M,P| | V |
|QoS-Flow-State TBD 3.8 Enumerated | |M,P| | V |
|QoS-Flow-Direction TBD 3.9 Enumerated | |M,P| | V |
+-------------------------------------------------+----+---+----+----+
| TOC |
The QoS-Capability AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Grouped and contains a list of supported Quality of Service profile templates (and therefore the support of the respective parameter AVPs).
QoS-Capability ::= < AVP Header: XXX >
1* { QoS-Profile-Template }
* [ AVP ]
| TOC |
The QoS-Profile-Template AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned64 and contains the vendor and a specifier field. The 64-bit value in the QoS-Profile-Template AVP is structured as shown below.
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Vendor | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Specifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- Vendor Field:
32 bits of IANA SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Code. The Vendor-ID 0x00000000 is reserved for IANA registered QoS profiles.
- Specifier Field:
32-bit unsigned integer, representing the defined profile value.
An initial QoS profile template is defined with vendor field set to 0x00000000 and the specifier field set to 0, as described in [I‑D.ietf‑dime‑qos‑parameters] (Korhonen, J., Tschofenig, H., and E. Davies, “Quality of Service Parameters for Usage with Diameter,” May 2009.). The registry for the QoS profile templates is created with the same document.
| TOC |
The QoS-Resources AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Grouped and includes a description of the Quality of Service resources for policing traffic flows.
QoS-Resources ::= < AVP Header: XXX >
0* [ Extended-QoS-Filter-Rule ]
[ QoS-Flow-State ]
* [ AVP ]
| TOC |
The Extended-QoS-Filter-Rule AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Grouped and defines one or more traffic flows together with a set of QoS parameters that should be applied to the flow(s) by the Resource Management Function. This AVP re-uses the RADIUS NAS-Traffic-Rule AVP [I‑D.ietf‑radext‑filter‑rules] (Congdon, P., “RADIUS Attributes for Filtering and Redirection,” July 2007.) to describe traffic flows. At least either one of the NAS-Traffic-Rule or the QoS-Flow-Direction AVPs SHOULD be included.
Extended-QoS-Filter-Rule ::= < AVP Header: XXX >
{ QoS-Semantics }
{ QoS-Profile-Template }
[ QoS-Parameters ]
[ QoS-Rule-Precedence ]
[ NAS-Traffic-Rule ]
[ QoS-Flow-Direction ]
* [ AVP ]
| TOC |
The QoS-Semantics AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Enumerated and provides the semantics for the QoS-Profile-Template and QoS-Parameters AVPs in the Extended-QoS-Filter-Rule AVP.
This document defines the following values:
(0): QoS-Desired (1): QoS-Available (2): QoS-Reserved (3): Minimum-QoS (4): QoS-Authorized
| TOC |
The QoS-Parameters AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type OctetString and contains Quality of Service parameters. These parameters are defined in a separate document, see [I‑D.ietf‑dime‑qos‑parameters] (Korhonen, J., Tschofenig, H., and E. Davies, “Quality of Service Parameters for Usage with Diameter,” May 2009.).
| TOC |
The QoS-Rule-Precedence AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32 and specifies the execution order of the rules expressed in the QoS-Resources AVP. Rules with equal precedence MAY be executed in parallel if supported by the Resource Management Function. If the QoS-Rule-Precedence AVP is absent from the Extended-QoS-Filter-Rule AVP, the rules SHOULD be executed in the order in which they appear in the QoS-Resources AVP.
| TOC |
The QoS-Flow-State AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Enumerated. It gives an indication as to how the flow has to be treated. The Extended-QoS-Filter-Rule already provides an indicate whether a flow is permitted or denied. This optional AVP provides additional information about the treatment. Currently, a single value is defined; further values are available via IANA registration.
Value | Name and Semantic
------+------------------------------------------------------------
0 | QOS_FLOW_STATE_PENDING - The QoS reservation is kept
| pending. The QoS resources are not installed and subsequent
| QoS signaling is necessary to active them.
| TOC |
The QoS-Flow-Direction AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Enumerated. It gives an indication of the direction the provided QoS information should be applied to. The QoS information can be applied to downlink flows or to uplink flows. The QoS-Flow-Direction AVP may be used in conjunction with the NAS-Traffic-Rule AVP. In a case conflicting definitions between the QoS-Flow-Direction and the NAS-Traffic-Rule, the QoS-Flow-Direction has precedence meaning the filter rules are applied only to the flows going to the direction indicated by the QoS-Flow-Direction AVP. In the absence of the QoS-Flow-Direction the default treatment is to both directions.
Value | Name and Semantic
------+------------------------------------------------------------
0 | QOS_FLOW_DIRECTION_BOTH - The QoS information in applied to
| both downlink and uplink flows. This is also the default.
1 | QOS_FLOW_DIRECTION_DL - The QoS information in applied to
| downlink flows only.
2 | QOS_FLOW_DIRECTION_UL - The QoS information in applied to
| uplink flows only.
| TOC |
The QoS parameters carried in the QoS-Resources AVP may appear in different messages. The semantic of the QoS parameters depend on the information provided in the QoS-Semantics AVP which currently defines 5 values, namely QoS-Desired (0), QoS-Available (1), QoS-Reserved (2), Minimum-QoS (3), and QoS-Authorized (4).
The semantics of the different values are as follows:
Object Type Direction Semantic
----------------------------------------------------------------------
QoS-Desired C->S Please authorize the indicated QoS
QoS-Desired C<-S NA
QoS-Available C->S Admission Control at router indicates
that this QoS is available. (note 1)
QoS-Available C<-S Indicated QoS is available. (note 2)
QoS-Reserved C->S Used for reporting during accounting.
QoS-Reserved C<-S NA
Minimum-QoS C->S Indicates that the client is not interested
interested in authorizing QoS that is
lower than Min. QoS
Minimum-QoS C<-S The client must not provide QoS guarantees
lower than Min. QoS
QoS-Authorized C->S NA
QoS-Authorized C<-S Indicated QoS authorized
Legend:
C: Diameter client
S: Diameter server
NA: Not applicable to this document;
no semantic defined in this specification
Notes:
(1) QoS-Available is only useful in relationship with QoS-Desired
(and optionally with Minimum-QoS).
(2) QoS-Available is only useful when the AAA server performs
admission control and knows about the resources in the network.
| TOC |
This section shows a number of signaling flows where QoS negotiation and authorization is part of the conventional NASREQ, EAP or Credit Control applications message exchanges. The signalling flows for the Diameter QoS Application are described in [I‑D.ietf‑dime‑diameter‑qos] (Sun, D., McCann, P., Tschofenig, H., ZOU), T., Doria, A., and G. Zorn, “Diameter Quality of Service Application,” March 2010.).
| TOC |
Figure 1 (Example of a Diameter EAP enhanced with QoS Information) shows a simple signaling flow where a NAS
(Diameter Client) announces its QoS awareness and capabilities included into the DER
message and as part of the access authentication procedure. Upon completion of the
EAP exchange, the Diameter Server provides a pre-provisioned QoS profile with the
QoS-Semantics in the Extended-QoS-Filter-Rule AVP set to "QoS-Authorized", to the
NAS in the final DEA message.
End Diameter Diameter Host Client server | | | | (initiate EAP) | | |<------------------------------>| | | | Diameter-EAP-Request | | | EAP-Payload(EAP Start) | | | QoS-Capability | | |------------------------------->| | | | | | Diameter-EAP-Answer | | Result-Code=DIAMETER_MULTI_ROUND_AUTH | | | EAP-Payload(EAP Request #1) | | |<-------------------------------| | EAP Request(Identity) | | |<-------------------------------| | : : : : <<<more message exchanges>>> : : : : | | | | EAP Response #N | | |------------------------------->| | | | Diameter-EAP-Request | | | EAP-Payload(EAP Response #N) | | |------------------------------->| | | | | | Diameter-EAP-Answer | | | Result-Code=DIAMETER_SUCCESS | | | EAP-Payload(EAP Success) | | | [EAP-Master-Session-Key] | | | (authorization AVPs) | | | QoS-Resources(QoS-Authorized) | | |<-------------------------------| | | | | EAP Success | | |<-------------------------------| | | | |
| Figure 1: Example of a Diameter EAP enhanced with QoS Information |
| TOC |
Figure 2 (Example of a Diameter NASREQ enhanced with QoS Information) shows a similar pre-provisioned QoS signaling as in Figure 1 (Example of a Diameter EAP enhanced with QoS Information) but using the NASREQ application instead of EAP application.
End Diameter
Host NAS Server
| | |
| Start Network | |
| Attachment | |
|<---------------->| |
| | |
| |AA-Request |
| |NASREQ-Payload |
| |QoS-Capability |
| +----------------------------->|
| | |
| | AA-Answer|
| Result-Code=DIAMETER_MULTI_ROUND_AUTH|
| NASREQ-Payload(NASREQ Request #1)|
| |<-----------------------------+
| | |
| Request | |
|<-----------------+ |
| | |
: : :
: <<<more message exchanges>>> :
: : :
| Response #N | |
+----------------->| |
| | |
| |AA-Request |
| |NASREQ-Payload ( Response #N )|
| +----------------------------->|
| | |
| | AA-Answer|
| | Result-Code=DIAMETER_SUCCESS|
| | (authorization AVPs)|
| |QoS-Resources(QoS-Authorized) |
| |<-----------------------------+
| | |
| Success | |
|<-----------------+ |
| | |
| Figure 2: Example of a Diameter NASREQ enhanced with QoS Information |
| TOC |
Figure 3 (Example of an Authorization-Only Message Flow) shows an example of authorization only QoS signaling as part of the NASREQ message exchange. The NAS provides the Diameter server with the "QoS-Desired" QoS-Semantics AVP included in the QoS-Resources AVP. The Diameter server then either authorizes the indicated QoS or rejects the request and informs the NAS about the result. In this scenario the NAS does not need to include the QoS-Capability AVP in the AAR message as the QoS-Resources AVP implicitly does the same and also the NAS is authorizing a specific QoS profile, not a pre-provisioned one.
End Diameter
Host NAS Server
| | |
| | |
| QoS Request | |
+----------------->| |
| | |
| |AA-Request |
| |Auth-Request-Type=AUTHORIZE_ONLY
| |NASREQ-Payload |
| |QoS-Resources(QoS-Desired) |
| +----------------------------->|
| | |
| | AA-Answer|
| | NASREQ-Payload(Success)|
| | QoS-Resources(QoS-Authorized)|
| |<-----------------------------+
| Accept | |
|<-----------------+ |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| Figure 3: Example of an Authorization-Only Message Flow |
| TOC |
Figure 4 (Example of a Server-initiated Re-Authorization Procedure) shows a message exchange for a Diameter server initiated QoS re-authorization procedure. The Diameter server sends the NAS a RAR message requesting re-authorization for an existing session and the NAS acknowledges it with a RAA message. The NAS is aware of its existing QoS profile and information for the ongoing session that the Diameter server requested for re-authorization. Thus, the NAS must initiate re-authorization of the existing QoS profile. The re-authorization procedure is the same as in Figure 3 (Example of an Authorization-Only Message Flow).
End Diameter
Host NAS Server
| | |
| | |
: : :
: <<<Initial Message Exchanges>>> :
: : :
| | |
| | RA-Request |
| |<-----------------------------+
| | |
| |RA-Answer |
| |Result-Code=DIAMETER_SUCCESS |
| +----------------------------->|
| | |
| | |
| |AA-Request |
| |NASREQ-Payload |
| |Auth-Request-Type=AUTHORIZE_ONLY
| |QoS-Resources(QoS-Desired) |
| +----------------------------->|
| | |
| | AA-Answer|
| | Result-Code=DIAMETER_SUCCESS|
| | (authorization AVPs)|
| | QoS-Resources(QoS-Authorized)|
| |<-----------------------------+
| | |
| Figure 4: Example of a Server-initiated Re-Authorization Procedure |
| TOC |
In this case the User is charged as soon as the Service Element (CC client) receives
the service request. In this case the client uses the "QoS-Desired" QoS-Semantics
parameter in the QoS-Resources AVP that it sends to the Accounitng server. The server
responds with a "QoS-Available" QoS-Semantics parameter in the QoS-Resources AVP
Service Element
End User (CC Client) B CC Server
| | | |
|(1) Service Request | | |
|-------------------->| | |
| |(2) CCR (event, DIRECT_DEBITING,|
| | QoS-Resources[QoS-desired]) |
| |-------------------------------->|
| |(3) CCA (Granted-Units, QoS- |
| | Resources[QoS-Authorized]) |
| |<--------------------------------|
|(4) Service Delivery | | |
|<--------------------| | |
|(5) Begin service | | |
|<------------------------------------>| |
| | | |
. . . .
. . . .
| Figure 5: Example for a One-Time Diameter Credit Control Charging Event |
| TOC |
We would like to thank Victor Fajardo, Tseno Tsenov, Robert Hancock, Jukka Manner, Cornelia Kappler, Xiaoming Fu, Frank Alfano, Avi Lior, Tolga Asveren, Mike Montemurro, Glen Zorn, Avri Doria, Dong Sun, Tina Tsou, Pete McCann, Georgios Karagiannis and Elwyn Davies for their comments.
| TOC |
This specification requests IANA to assignment of new AVPs from the AVP Code namespace defined in RFC 3588 [RFC3588] (Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J. Arkko, “Diameter Base Protocol,” September 2003.). Section 3 (Diameter QoS Defined AVPs) lists the newly defined AVPs.
IANA is requested to allocate a registry for the QoS-Semantics. The following values are allocated by this specification.
(0): QoS-Desired
(1): QoS-Available
(2): QoS-Reserved
(3): Minimum-QoS
(4): QoS-Authorized
A specification is required to add a new value to the registry. A standards track document is required to depreciate, delete, or modify existing values.
IANA is requested to allocate a registry for the QoS-Flow-State. The following values are allocated by this specification.
Value | Name ------+------------------------------------------------------------ 0 | QOS_FLOW_STATE_PENDING
A specification is required to add a new value to the registry. A standards track document is required to depreciate, delete, or modify existing values.
| TOC |
This document describes the extension of Diameter for conveying Quality of Service information. The security considerations of the Diameter protocol itself have been discussed in RFC 3588 [RFC3588] (Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J. Arkko, “Diameter Base Protocol,” September 2003.). Use of the AVPs defined in this document MUST take into consideration the security issues and requirements of the Diameter Base protocol.
| TOC |
| TOC |
| [I-D.ietf-dime-qos-parameters] | Korhonen, J., Tschofenig, H., and E. Davies, “Quality of Service Parameters for Usage with Diameter,” draft-ietf-dime-qos-parameters-11 (work in progress), May 2009 (TXT). |
| [I-D.ietf-radext-filter-rules] | Congdon, P., “RADIUS Attributes for Filtering and Redirection,” draft-ietf-radext-filter-rules-03 (work in progress), July 2007 (TXT). |
| [RFC2119] | Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,” BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997 (TXT, HTML, XML). |
| [RFC3588] | Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J. Arkko, “Diameter Base Protocol,” RFC 3588, September 2003 (TXT). |
| [RFC4005] | Calhoun, P., Zorn, G., Spence, D., and D. Mitton, “Diameter Network Access Server Application,” RFC 4005, August 2005 (TXT). |
| TOC |
| [I-D.ietf-dime-diameter-qos] | Sun, D., McCann, P., Tschofenig, H., ZOU), T., Doria, A., and G. Zorn, “Diameter Quality of Service Application,” draft-ietf-dime-diameter-qos-15 (work in progress), March 2010 (TXT). |
| TOC |
| 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 |
| Mayutan Arumaithurai | |
| University of Goettingen | |
| Email: | mayutan.arumaithurai@gmail.com |
| Mark Jones | |
| Bridgewater Systems | |
| 303 Terry Fox Drive | |
| Ottawa, Ontario K2K 3J1 | |
| Canada | |
| Email: | mark.jones@bridgewatersystems.com |
| TOC |
Copyright © The IETF Trust (2008).
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.
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.