One document matched: draft-manner-nsis-peering-data-00.txt
Network Working Group J. Manner
Internet-Draft L. Liuhto
Intended status: Standards Track N. Varis
Expires: December 20, 2007 T. Huovila
University of Helsinki
June 18, 2007
Peering Data for NSIS Signaling Layer Protocols
draft-manner-nsis-peering-data-00.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 December 20, 2007.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
When an NSLP protocol initiates a signaling session and requests
either reliable or secure transport (or both), NSLP data can not be
carried within the GIST Query. Thus the NSLP at the receiving node
can not have NSLP specific information for peering decisions. Next
generation NSLP protocols may need more information to be able to
make right peering decisions. This draft presents a new Peering
Manner, et al. Expires December 20, 2007 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Peering Data June 2007
Information Object (PIO) for GIST intended to carry NSLP-specific
peering data.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Peering Information Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. GIST API Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 8
Manner, et al. Expires December 20, 2007 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Peering Data June 2007
1. Introduction
The General Internet Signaling Transport (GIST) [I-D.ietf-nsis-ntlp]
provides a signaling transport service to NSIS Signaling Layer
Protocols (NSLP). When an NSLP application wants to send a message
to its next peer, GIST starts setting up a Routing State (RS) by
sending a Query message. This Query carries the NSLP identifier
(NSLP ID) and Message Routing Information (MRI) among others. The
receiving GIST node running the same NSLP provides the MRI to the
NSLP application and requests it to make a decision on whether to
peer with the querying node.
The MRI carries very little information about the session that is to
be set up, about the querying node, or its real intentions towards
the signaling set up. It would be most beneficial to be able to
include additional peering information to the receiving node. This
would allow making a better decision on whether the session should
actually be set up with this particular NSLP node, or perhaps another
one.
This specification presents a Peering Information Object (PIO) for
GIST that can be used by NSLP applications to give more information
for the receiving peer about the session being set up. The content
of the PIO is opaque to GIST and only carried in a Query when setting
up or refreshing Routing State. Since a Query is not protected in
any way, the content of the PIO is not protected either. Since the
content is NSLP-specific, it is possible to use various hashes and
shared encryption keys between NSLP nodes to protect this data. Any
such mechanism is out of scope of this specification, and do not
affect GIST either.
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 BCP 14, RFC 2119
[RFC2119].
All other terminology is taken from the GIST specification
[I-D.ietf-nsis-ntlp].
3. Peering Information Object
The Peering Information Object (PIO) carries NSLP-specific data to
help conditional peering decisions at the receiver. The PIO object
is carried in a Query message.
Manner, et al. Expires December 20, 2007 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Peering Data June 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A|B|r|r| Type |r|r|r|r| Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Peering data //
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
The value for the Type field comes from shared GIST object type
space. The Length field is given in units of 32 bit words and
measures the length of the Value component of the TLV object (i.e. it
does not include the standard header).
Type: 0x0b (TBD by IANA)
Length: Variable
The leading two bits of the TLV header are used to signal the desired
treatment for objects whose Type field is unknown at the receiver
[I-D.ietf-nsis-ntlp]. The following three categories of object have
been identified, and are described here.
AB=00 ("Mandatory"): If the object is not understood, the entire
message containing it MUST be rejected with an "Object Type Error"
message (Appendix A.4.4.9) with subcode 1 ("Unrecognised Object").
AB=01 ("Ignore"): If the object is not understood, it MUST be deleted
and the rest of the message processed as usual.
AB=10 ("Forward"): If the object is not understood, it MUST be
retained unchanged in any message forwarded as a result of message
processing, but not stored locally.
The AB-flags SHOULD have a value of "00" when used with the Peering
Information Object. Any other value would result in an undesirable
result, specifically:
1. AB=01 ("Ignore"): The RS is set up but the peer NSLPs will not
know that the Peering Information was not honored. Thus, the
peering decision was made with less information than originally
intended. Subsequent peering decisions will also be made with
limited information. No indication is given to subsequent NSLP
nodes on the path peering data was originally given by the
signaling initiator.
2. AB=10 ("Forward"): Same as above, but subsequent peering
decisions may or may not be based on the peering data. The
signaling initiator has no control of how the peering decisions
Manner, et al. Expires December 20, 2007 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Peering Data June 2007
are done downstream.
With the value of "00", a peer node that does not support the Peering
Information object will return to the sender an "Object Type Error".
This can then be used by the querying node to inform the NSLP that
peering data can not be used. Currently, the GIST specification
leaves it somewhat open as to which errors are propagated to the
NSLP. The error in understanding the PIO object SHOULD be provided
by GIST to the NSLP. Otherwise the querying NSLP node will not know
why the session was not set up, and can not, e.g., try a fallback
mechanism and set up a session without additional peering data.
If, when using the new Peering Information Object, the NSLP runs into
an unmodified GIST implementation, it can use hop-by-hop NSLP layer
forwarding to deliver Messaging Application data to the correct
recipient. When using hop-by-hop as a fall-back method, also replies
are delivered hop-by-hop.
GIST implementations SHOULD include a Peering Information Object
within Queries just after the possible NSLP Data object, if such data
was provided by application via NSLP API. GIST SHOULD store the PIO
in case of resending a Query message is needed. Stored PIO may also
be needed after the peering process, namely for Routing State refresh
Queries.
At this stage this specification does not support stacking of PIO
objects. Thus, if an NSLP needs to include complex peering data, it
can do so by encoding the structure within the PIO object data. The
content of the PIO is of no concern to GIST, same as with the NSLP
Data.
Note that GIST fragmentation rules apply. Thus, the peering data
must be limited in size to keep the Query messages under the MTU.
4. GIST API Issues
GIST specifies several abstract API calls between the NSLP
applications. The SendMessage and RecvMessage calls need
modifications to support passing peering data to GIST to be sent in
the Query and at the receiving end to give the peering data to the
local NSLP. The new updated API calls are as follows:
SendMessage ( NSLP-Data, NSLP-Data-Size, Peering-Information-Data,
Peering-Information-Data-Size, NSLP-Message-Handle, NSLPID,
Session-ID, MRI, SII-Handle, Transfer-Attributes, Timeout, IP-TTL,
GIST-Hop-Count )
Manner, et al. Expires December 20, 2007 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Peering Data June 2007
o Peering-Information-Data: Data to support conditional peering
decisions.
o Peering-Information-Data-Size: Length of Peering Information Data.
RecvMessage ( NSLP-Data, NSLP-Data-Size, Peering-Information-Data,
Peering-Information-Data-Size, NSLPID, Session-ID, MRI, Routing-
State-Check, SII-Handle, Transfer-Attributes, IP-TTL, IP-Distance,
GIST-Hop-Count, Inbound-Interface )
o Peering-Information-Data: Data to support conditional peering
decisions.
o Peering-Information-Data-Size: Length of Peering Information Data.
5. Security Considerations
The peering data is sent in a Query message. This means the data is
unprotected. Therefore, NSLP nodes that want to include some
additional peering data for the receiver must understand that GIST is
unable to protect it.
6. IANA Considerations
This specification makes the following request to IANA:
Assign a new object value for the Peering Information object (PIO)
from the GIST object value space.
7. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-nsis-ntlp]
Schulzrinne, H. and R. Hancock, "GIST: General Internet
Signalling Transport", draft-ietf-nsis-ntlp-13 (work in
progress), April 2007.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Manner, et al. Expires December 20, 2007 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Peering Data June 2007
Authors' Addresses
Jukka Manner
University of Helsinki
P.O. Box 68
University of Helsinki FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
Finland
Email: jmanner@cs.helsinki.fi
URI: http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/jmanner/
Lauri Liuhto
University of Helsinki
P.O. Box 68
University of Helsinki FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
Finland
Email: lliuhto@cs.helsinki.fi
URI: http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/lliuhto/
Nuutti Varis
University of Helsinki
P.O. Box 68
University of Helsinki FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
Finland
Email: nvaris@cs.helsinki.fi
URI: http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/nvaris/
Teemu Huovila
University of Helsinki
P.O. Box 68
University of Helsinki FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
Finland
Email: thuovila@cs.helsinki.fi
URI: http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/thuovila/
Manner, et al. Expires December 20, 2007 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Peering Data June 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).
Manner, et al. Expires December 20, 2007 [Page 8]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 21:02:20 |