One document matched: draft-ietf-rap-rsvp-ext-02.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-rap-rsvp-ext-01.txt
Internet Draft Shai Herzog
Expiration: July 1999 IPHighway
File: draft-ietf-rap-rsvp-ext-02.txt
RSVP Extensions for Policy Control
January 22, 1999
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet Draft. 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.
Internet Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
documents at any time. It is not appropriate to use Internet Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as a "working draft" or
"work in progress".
To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the
1id-abstracts.txt listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow
Directories on ftp.ietf.org, nic.nordu.net, ftp.isi.edu, or
munnari.oz.au.
A revised version of this draft document will be submitted to the RFC
editor as a Proposed Standard for the Internet Community. Discussion
and suggestions for improvement are requested. This document will
expire at the expiration date listed above. Distribution of this draft
is unlimited.
Abstract
This memo presents a set of extensions for supporting generic policy
based admission control in RSVP. It should be perceived as an extension
to the RSVP functional specifications [RSVP]
These extensions include the standard format of POLICY_DATA objects,
and a description of RSVP's handling of policy events.
This document does not advocate particular policy control mechanisms;
however, a Router/Server Policy Protocol description for these
extensions can be found in [RAP, COPS, COPS-RSVP].
Internet Draft [Page 1]
Internet Draft RSVP Ext. for Policy Control January 22, 1999
Table of Contents
Abstract...............................................................1
Table of Contents......................................................2
1. Introduction........................................................3
2. Policy Data Object Format...........................................3
2.1. Base Format.......................................................4
2.2. Options...........................................................4
2.2.1.Native RSVP Options..............................................5
2.2.2.Other Options....................................................6
2.3. Policy Elements...................................................7
3. Processing Rules....................................................7
3.1. Basic Signaling...................................................7
3.2. Default Handling..................................................7
3.3. Error Signaling...................................................8
4. IANA Considerations.................................................8
5. References..........................................................9
6. Acknowledgments.....................................................9
7. Author Information..................................................9
A. Appendix: Policy Error Codes.......................................10
Shai Herzog [Page 2]
Internet Draft RSVP Ext. for Policy Control January 22, 1999
1. Introduction
RSVP, by definition, discriminates between users, by providing some
users with better service at the expense of others. Therefore, it is
reasonable to expect that RSVP be accompanied by mechanisms for
controlling and enforcing access and usage policies. Historically,
when RSVP Ver. 1 was developed, the knowledge and understanding of
policy issues was in its infancy. As a result, Ver. 1 of the RSVP
Functional Specifications [RSVP] left a place holder for policy support
in the form of POLICY_DATA objects. However, it deliberately refrained
from specifying mechanisms, message formats, or providing insight into
how policy enforcement should be carried out. This document is intended
to fill in this void.
The current RSVP Functional Specification describes the interface to
admission (traffic) control that is based "only" on resource
availability. In this document we describe a set of extensions to RSVP
for supporting policy based admission control as well. The scope of
this document is limited to these extensions and does not advocate
specific architectures for policy based controls.
For the purpose of this document we do not differentiate between Policy
Decision Point (PDP) and Local Decision Point (LDPs) as described in
[RAP]. The term PDP should be assumed to include LDP as well.
2. Policy Data Object Format
The following replaces section A.13 in [RSVP].
POLICY_DATA objects are carried by RSVP messages and contain policy
information. All policy-capable nodes (at any location in the network)
can generate, modify, or remove policy objects, even when senders or
receivers do not provide, and may not even be aware of policy data
objects.
The exchange of POLICY_DATA objects between policy-capable nodes along
the data path, supports the generation of consistent end-to-end
policies. Furthermore, such policies can be successfully deployed
across multiple administrative domains when border nodes manipulate and
translate POLICY_DATA objects according to established sets of
bilateral agreements.
Shai Herzog [Page 3]
Internet Draft RSVP Ext. for Policy Control January 22, 1999
2.1. Base Format
POLICY_DATA class=14
o Type 1 POLICY_DATA object: Class=14, C-Type=1
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Length | POLICY_DATA | 1 |
+---------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| Data Offset | 0 (reserved) |
+---------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| |
// Option List //
| |
+-------------------------------------------------------+
| |
// Policy Element List //
| |
+-------------------------------------------------------+
Data Offset: 16 bits
The offset in bytes of the data portion (from the first
byte of the object header).
Reserved: 16 bits
Always 0.
Option List: Variable length
The list of options and their usage is defined in Section 2.2.
Policy Element List: Variable length
The contents of policy elements is opaque to RSVP. See more
details in Section 2.3.
2.2. Options
This section describes a set of options that may appear in POLICY_DATA
objects. All policy options appear as RSVP objects; some use their
valid original format while others appear as NULL objects.
Shai Herzog [Page 4]
Internet Draft RSVP Ext. for Policy Control January 22, 1999
2.2.1. Native RSVP Options
The following objects retain the same format specified in [RSVP]
however, they gain different semantics when used inside POLICY_DATA
objects.
FILTER_SPEC object (list) or SCOPE object
The set of senders associated with the POLICY_DATA object. If none is
provided, the policy information is assumed to be associated with all
the flows of the session. These two types of objects are mutually
exclusive, and cannot be mixed.
This option is only useful for WF or SE reservation styles, where
merged reservations may have originally been intended for different
subsets of senders. It can also be used to prevent “policy loops” in a
manner similar to the usage of RSVP’s SCOPE object. Using this option
may have significant impact on scaling and size of POLICY_DATA objects
and therefore should be taken with care.
Originating RSVP_HOP
The RSVP_HOP object identifies the neighbor/peer policy-capable node
that constructed the policy object. When policy is enforced at border
nodes, peer policy nodes may be several RSVP hops away from each other
and the originating RSVP_HOP is the basis for the mechanism that allows
them to recognize each other and communicate safely and directly.
If no RSVP_HOP object is present, the policy data is implicitly assumed
to have been constructed by the RSVP_HOP indicated in the RSVP message
itself (i.e., the neighboring RSVP node is policy-capable).
Destination RSVP_HOP
A second RSVP_HOP object may follow the originating RSVP_HOP object.
This second RSVP_HOP identifies the destination policy node. This is
used to ensure the POLICY_DATA object is delivered to targeted policy
nodes. It may be used to emulate unicast delivery in multicast Path
messages. It may also help prevent using a policy object in other parts
of the network (replay attack).
On the receiving side, a policy node should ignore any POLCY_DATA that
includes a destination RSVP_HOP that doesn’t match its own IP address.
INTEGRITY Object
The INTEGRITY object provides guarantees that the object was not
compromised. It follows the rules from [MD5], and is calculated over
the POLICY_DATA object, the SESSION object, and the message type field
Shai Herzog [Page 5]
Internet Draft RSVP Ext. for Policy Control January 22, 1999
(byte, padded with zero to 32 bit) as if they formed one continuous in-
order message. This concatenation is designed to prevent copy and
replay attacks of POLICY_DATA objects from other sessions, flows,
message types or even other network locations.
2.2.2. Other Options
All options that do not use a valid RSVP object format, should use the
NULL RSVP object format with different CType values. This document
defines only one such option, however, several other may be considered
in future versions. (e.g., Fragmentation, NoChange, etc.).
o Policy Refresh Period (PRP)
The Policy Refresh Period (PRP) option is used slow down policy refresh
frequency for policies that have looser timing constraints compared
with RSVP. If the PRP option is present, policy refreshes can be
withheld as long as at least one refresh is sent before the policy
refresh timer expires (PRP must be bigger than R).
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 8 | NULL | 1 |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Policy Refresh Period (PRP) (in seconds) |
+-------------+-------------+---------------------------+
It is recommended that this infrequent policy refresh would be
piggybacked with normal RSVP refreshes. Given an RSVP refresh R, the
policy must be refreshed at least once in N RSVP refreshes, where
N=Floor(PRP/R) and the Floor function provides the integer portion of
the result.
In effect, state cleanup rules apply specifically to the POLICY_DATA
object as if the RSVP refresh period was N*R.
Any RSVP update must include the full policy information. For example,
a policy being refreshed at time T, T+N, T+2N,... may encounter a route
change detected at T+X such that T < T+X < T+N. The update event would
force an immediate update of the policy and change its refresh times to
T+X, T+X+N, T+X+2N,...
When network nodes restart, it is possible that an RSVP message in
between policy refreshes would be rejected since it arrives to a node
that did not receive the original POLICY_DATA object. This error
situation would clear with the next periodic policy refresh or by an
update triggered by ResvErr or PathErr messages.
This option is especially useful to combine strong (high overhead) and
weak (low overhead) authentication certificates. In such schemes the
Shai Herzog [Page 6]
Internet Draft RSVP Ext. for Policy Control January 22, 1999
weak certificate supports admitting a reservation only for a limited
time, after which the strong certificate is required.
This approach may reduce the overhead of POLICY_DATA processing. Strong
certificates could be transmitted less frequently, while weak
certificates could be included in every RSVP refresh.
2.3. Policy Elements
The content of policy elements is opaque to RSVP; their internal format
is understood by policy peers e.g. an RSVP Local Decision Point (LDP)
or a Policy Decision Point (PDP) [RAP]. A registry of policy element
codepoints and their meaning is maintained by [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS]
(also see Section 4).
Policy Elements have the following format:
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Length | P-Type |
+---------------------------+---------------------------+
| |
// Policy information (Opaque to RSVP) //
| |
+-------------------------------------------------------+
3. Processing Rules
These sections describe the minimal required policy processing rules
for RSVP.
3.1. Basic Signaling
It is generally agreed that policy control should only be enforced for
Path, Resv, PathErr, and ResvErr. PathTear and ResvTear and assumed not
to require policy control based on two assumptions: First, that
Integrity verification [MD5] guarantee that the Tear is received from
the same node that sent the installed reservation, and second, that it
is functionally equivalent to that node holding-off refreshes for this
reservation.
3.2. Default Handling
It is generally assumed that policy enforcement (at least in its
initial stages) is likely to concentrate on border nodes between
autonomous systems. Consequently, policy objects transmitted at one
edge of an autonomous cloud may traverse intermediate policy ignorant
RSVP nodes (PINs). A PIN is required at a minimum to forward the
received POLICY_DATA objects in the appropriate outgoing messages
according to the following rules:
o POLICY_DATA objects are to be forwarded as is, without any
modifications.
Shai Herzog [Page 7]
Internet Draft RSVP Ext. for Policy Control January 22, 1999
o Multicast merging (splitting) nodes:
In the upstream direction:
When multiple POLICY_DATA objects arrive from downstream, the
RSVP node should concatenate all of them and forward them with
the outgoing (upstream) message.
On the downstream direction:
When a single incoming POLICY_DATA object arrives from
upstream, it should be forwarded (copied) to all downstream
branches of the multicast tree.
The same rules apply to unrecognized policies (sub-objects) within the
POLICY_DATA object. However, since this can only occur in a policy-
capable node, it is the responsibility of the PDP and not RSVP.
3.3. Error Signaling
Policy errors are reported by either ResvErr or PathErr messages with a
policy failure error code in the ERROR_SPEC object. Policy error
message must include a POLICY_DATA object; the object contains details
of the error type and reason in a P-Type specific format.
If a multicast reservation fails due to policy reasons, RSVP should not
attempt to discover which reservation caused the failure (as it would
do for Blockade State). Instead, it should attempt to deliver the
policy ResvErr to ALL downstream hops, and have the PDP (or LDP) decide
where messages should be sent. This mechanism allows the PDP to limit
the error distribution by deciding which "culprit" next-hops should be
informed. It also allows the PDP to prevent further distribution of
ResvErr or PathErr messages by performing local repair (e.g.
substituting the failed POLICY_DATA object with a different one).
Error codes are described in Appendix A.
4. IANA Considerations
RSVP Policy Elements
Following the policies outlined in [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS],numbers 0-
49151 are allocated as standard policy elements by IETF Consensus
action, numbers in the range 49152-53247 are allocated as vendor
specific (one per vendor) by First Come First Serve, and numbers 53248-
65535 are reserved for private use and are not assigned by IANA.
Shai Herzog [Page 8]
Internet Draft RSVP Ext. for Policy Control January 22, 1999
5. References
[RAP] Yavatkar, R., et al., "A Framework for Policy Based Admission
Control",IETF <draft-ietf-rap-framework-02.txt>, Jan., 1999.
[COPS] Boyle, J., Cohen, R., Durham, D., Herzog, S., Raja,n R., Sastry,
A., "The COPS (Common Open Policy Service) Protocol", IETF
<draft-ietf-rap-cops-05.txt>, Jan. 1999.
[RSVP] Braden, R. ed., "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -
Functional Specification.", IETF RFC 2205, Proposed Standard,
Sep. 1997.
[MD5] Baker, F., Linden B., Talwar, M. “RSVP Cryptographic
Authentication" Internet-Draft, <draft-ietf-rsvp-md5-07.txt>,
Nov. 1998.
[IANA-CONSIDERATIONS] Alvestrand, H. and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 2434,
October 1998.
6. Acknowledgments
This document incorporates inputs from Lou Berger, Bob Braden, Deborah
Estrin, Roch Guerin, Timothy O'Malley, Dimitrios Pendarakis, Raju
Rajan, Scott Shenker, Andrew Smith, Raj Yavatkar, and many others.
7. Author Information
Shai Herzog, IPHighway
Parker Plaza, Suite 1500
400 Kelby St.
Fort-Lee, NJ 07024
(201) 585-0800
herzog@iphighway.com
Shai Herzog [Page 9]
Internet Draft RSVP Ext. for Policy Control January 22, 1999
A. Appendix: Policy Error Codes
This Appendix expends the list of error codes described in Appendix B
of [RSVP].
Note that Policy Element specific errors are reported as described in
Section 3.3 and cannot be reported through RSVP (using this mechanism).
However, this mechanism provides a simple, less secure mechanism for
reporting generic policy errors. Most likely the two would be used in
concert such that a generic error code is provided by RSVP, while
Policy Element specific errors are encapsulated in a return POLICY_DATA
object (as in Section 3.3).
ERROR_SPEC class = 6
Error Code = 02: Policy Control failure
Error Value: 16 bit
0 = ERR_INFO : Information reporting
1 = ERR_WARN : Warning
2 = ERR_UNKNOWN : Reason unknown
3 = ERR_REJECT : Generic Policy Rejection
4 = ERR_EXCEED : Quota or Accounting violation
5 = ERR_PREEMPT : Flow was preempted
6 = ERR_EXPIRED : Previously installed policy expired (not refreshed)
7 = ERR_REPLACED: Previous policy data was replaced & caused rejection
8 = ERR_MERGE : Policies could not be merged (multicast)
9 = ERR_PDP : PDP down or non functioning
10= ERR_SERVER : Third Party Server (e.g., Kerberos) unavailable
11= ERR_PD_SYNTX: POLICY_DATA object has bad syntax
12= ERR_PD_INTGR: POLICY_DATA object failed Integrity Check
13= ERR_PE_BAD : POLICY_ELEMENT object has bad syntax
14= ERR_PD_MISS : Mandatory PE Missing (Empty PE is in the PD object)
15= ERR_NO_RSC : PEP Out of resources to handle policies.
16= ERR_RSVP : PDP encountered bad RSVP objects or syntax
17= ERR_SERVICE : Service type was rejected
18= ERR_STYLE : Reservation Style was rejected
19= ERR_FL_SPEC : FlowSpec was rejected (too large)
Values between 2^15 and 2^16-1 can be used for site and/or vendor error
values.
Shai Herzog [Page 10]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 00:17:25 |