| 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 April 1, 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 is made available to the Diameter Network Access Server Application, the Diameter Credit Control Application and the Diameter Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Application. Future Diameter applications can easily integrate Quality of Service support in addition to packet filtering.
1.
Introduction
2.
Terminology
3.
Commands, AVPs and Advertising Application Support
3.1.
Command Codes
3.2.
Diameter-EAP-Request (DER)
3.3.
Diameter-EAP-Answer (DEA)
3.4.
Credit-Control-Request (CCR)
3.5.
Credit-Control-Answer (CCA)
3.6.
AA-Request (AAR)
3.7.
AA-Answer (AAA)
4.
Diameter QoS Defined AVPs
4.1.
QoS-Capability AVP
4.2.
QoS-Profile AVP
4.3.
QoS-Resources AVP
4.4.
Extended-QoS-Filter-Rule AVP
4.5.
QoSBlob-Group AVP
4.6.
QoS-ID AVP
4.7.
QoS-ObjectType
4.8.
QoSBlob AVP
4.9.
QoS-Flow-State AVP
4.10.
QoS-Flow-Direction AVP
5.
Semantics of QoS Parameters
6.
Examples
6.1.
Diameter EAP with QoS Information
6.2.
Diameter NASREQ with QoS Information
6.3.
QoS Authorization
6.4.
Diameter Server Initiated Re-authorization of QoS
6.5.
Diameter Credit Control with QoS Information
7.
AVP Occurrence Tables
7.1.
DER and DEA Commands AVP Table
7.2.
CCR and CCA Commands AVP Table
7.3.
AAR and AAA Commands AVP Table
8.
Acknowledgments
9.
IANA Considerations
10.
Security Considerations
11.
References
11.1.
Normative References
11.2.
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 with the Diameter Base protocol, and the Diameter Credit Control Application, the Diameter Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Application and the Diameter Network Access Server Application to convey Quality of Service information. 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 |
| TOC |
This document re-uses the Diameter Base protocol [RFC3588] (Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J. Arkko, “Diameter Base Protocol,” September 2003.), Diameter Credit Control [RFC4006] (Hakala, H., Mattila, L., Koskinen, J-P., Stura, M., and J. Loughney, “Diameter Credit-Control Application,” August 2005.), Diameter NASREQ [RFC4005] (Calhoun, P., Zorn, G., Spence, D., and D. Mitton, “Diameter Network Access Server Application,” August 2005.) and Diameter EAP [RFC4072] (Eronen, P., Hiller, T., and G. Zorn, “Diameter Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Application,” August 2005.) application commands. The following commands are re-used to carry QoS related AVPs:
Command-Name Abbrev. Code Reference Diameter-EAP-Request DER 268 RFC 4072 Diameter-EAP-Answer DEA 268 RFC 4072 Credit-Control-Request CCR 272 RFC 4006 Credit-Control-Answer CCA 272 RFC 4006 AA-Request AAR 265 RFC 4005 AA-Answer AAA 265 RFC 4005
| Figure 1: Command Codes |
When the Re-Auth-Request (RAR), Re-Auth-Answer (RAA), Session-Termination-Request (STR), Session-Termination-Answer (STA), Abort-Session-Request (ASR), Abort-Session-Answer (ASA), Accounting-Request (ACR), and Accounting-Answer (ACA) commands are used together with this specification they follow the rules in Diameter NASREQ [RFC4005] (Calhoun, P., Zorn, G., Spence, D., and D. Mitton, “Diameter Network Access Server Application,” August 2005.), Diameter EAP [RFC4072] (Eronen, P., Hiller, T., and G. Zorn, “Diameter Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Application,” August 2005.), Credit Control [RFC4006] (Hakala, H., Mattila, L., Koskinen, J-P., Stura, M., and J. Loughney, “Diameter Credit-Control Application,” August 2005.) and Diameter Base Protocol [RFC3588] (Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J. Arkko, “Diameter Base Protocol,” September 2003.). The accounting commands use the Application Identifier value of the respective application.
| TOC |
The Diameter-EAP-Request (DER) command [RFC4072] (Eronen, P., Hiller, T., and G. Zorn, “Diameter Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Application,” August 2005.), indicated by the Command-Code field set to 268 and the 'R' bit set in the Command Flags field, may be sent by the NAS to the Diameter server providing network access authentication and authorization services. At the same time as the network access authentication and authorization, the NAS MAY request the Diameter server to authorize provisioning of QoS resources.
The message format is the same as defined in [RFC4072] (Eronen, P., Hiller, T., and G. Zorn, “Diameter Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Application,” August 2005.) with an addition of QoS specific AVPs. Figure 2 (Diameter EAP Request Command) shows the DER message used with the QoS specific AVPs:
<Diameter-EAP-Request> ::= < Diameter Header: 268, REQ, PXY >
< Session-Id >
{ Auth-Application-Id }
{ Origin-Host }
{ Origin-Realm }
{ Destination-Realm }
{ Auth-Request-Type }
[ Destination-Host ]
[ User-Name ]
[ QoS-Capability ]
* [ QoS-Resources ]
...
* [ AVP ]
| Figure 2: Diameter EAP Request Command |
| TOC |
The Diameter-EAP-Answer (DEA) message defined in [RFC4072] (Eronen, P., Hiller, T., and G. Zorn, “Diameter Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Application,” August 2005.), indicated by the Command- Code field set to 268 and 'R' bit cleared in the Command Flags field is sent in response to the Diameter-EAP-Request message (DER). If the QoS service is successfully authorized and the Diameter server was able to fulfill the QoS Authorization request (if needed) then the response MAY include the QoS-Resources AVPs.
The message format is the same as defined in [RFC4072] (Eronen, P., Hiller, T., and G. Zorn, “Diameter Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Application,” August 2005.) with an addition of QoS specific AVPs. Figure 3 (Diameter EAP Answer Command) shows the DEA message used with the QoS specific AVPs:
<Diameter-EAP-Answer> ::= < Diameter Header: 268, PXY >
< Session-Id >
{ Auth-Application-Id }
{ Auth-Request-Type }
{ Result-Code }
{ Origin-Host }
{ Origin-Realm }
* [ QoS-Resources ]
[ Session-Timeout ]
[ User-Name ]
...
* [ AVP ]
| Figure 3: Diameter EAP Answer Command |
| TOC |
The Credit-Control-Request (CCR) command [RFC4006] (Hakala, H., Mattila, L., Koskinen, J-P., Stura, M., and J. Loughney, “Diameter Credit-Control Application,” August 2005.), indicated by the Command-Code field set to 272 and the 'R' bit set in the Command Flags field, may be sent by the NAS to the Diameter-QoS server to request QoS credit authorization for a given QoS provisioning request. In that case the CCR command MAY also carry the QoS-Resources AVPs.
The message format is the same as defined in [RFC4006] (Hakala, H., Mattila, L., Koskinen, J-P., Stura, M., and J. Loughney, “Diameter Credit-Control Application,” August 2005.) with an addition of QoS specific AVPs. Figure 4 (Credit Control Request Command) shows the CCR message used with the QoS specific AVPs:
<Credit-Control-Request> ::= < Diameter Header: 272, REQ, PXY >
< Session-Id >
{ Auth-Application-Id }
{ Origin-Host }
{ Origin-Realm }
{ Destination-Realm }
{ Auth-Request-Type }
{ Service-Context-Id }
{ CC-Request-Type }
{ CC-Request-Number }
[ Destination-Host ]
[ User-Name ]
[ QoS-Capability ]
* [ QoS-Resources ]
...
* [ AVP ]
| Figure 4: Credit Control Request Command |
| TOC |
The Credit-Control-Answer (CCA) command [RFC4006] (Hakala, H., Mattila, L., Koskinen, J-P., Stura, M., and J. Loughney, “Diameter Credit-Control Application,” August 2005.), indicated by the Command-Code field set to 272 and the 'R' bit set in the Command Flags field is sent in response to the CC-Request (CCR) message to acknowledge a CC-Request command. If the Diameter QoS server was able to fulfill the QoS request (if needed) then the response MAY include the QoS-Resources AVPs.
The message format is the same as defined in [RFC4006] (Hakala, H., Mattila, L., Koskinen, J-P., Stura, M., and J. Loughney, “Diameter Credit-Control Application,” August 2005.) with an addition of QoS specific AVPs. Figure 5 (Credit Control Answer Command) shows the CCA message used with the QoS specific AVPs:
<Credit-Control-Answer> ::= < Diameter Header: 272, PXY >
< Session-Id >
{ Result-Code }
{ Origin-Host }
{ Origin-Realm }
{ Auth-Application-Id }
{ CC-Request-Type }
{ CC-Request-Number }
[ User-Name ]
[ CC-Session-Failover ]
[ CC-Sub-Session-Id ]
[ Acct-Multi-Session-Id ]
[ Origin-State-Id ]
[ Event-Timestamp ]
* [ QoS-Resources ]
...
* [ AVP ]
| Figure 5: Credit Control Answer Command |
| TOC |
The AA-Request (AAR) message, indicated by the Command-Code field set to 265 and 'R' bit set in the Command Flags field, may be sent by the NAS to the Diameter server providing network access configuration services. At the same time as the network access authentication and authorization, the NAS MAY request the Diameter server to authorize provisioning of QoS resources.
The message format is the same as defined in [RFC4005] (Calhoun, P., Zorn, G., Spence, D., and D. Mitton, “Diameter Network Access Server Application,” August 2005.) with an addition of QoS specific AVPs. Figure 6 (AA Request Command) shows the AAR message used with the QoS specific AVPs:
<AA-Request> ::= < Diameter Header: 265, REQ, PXY >
< Session-Id >
{ Auth-Application-Id }
{ Origin-Host }
{ Origin-Realm }
{ Destination-Realm }
{ Auth-Request-Type }
[ QoS-Capability ]
* [ QoS-Resources ]
[ Destination-Host ]
...
* [ AVP ]
| Figure 6: AA Request Command |
| TOC |
The AA-Answer (AAA) message, indicated by the Command-Code field set to 265 and 'R' bit cleared in the Command Flags field is sent in response to the AA-Request (AAR) message for confirmation of the result of QoS provisioning. If the QoS service is successfully authorized and the Diameter server was able to fulfill the QoS provisioning request (if needed) then the response MAY include the QoS-Resources AVPs.
The message format is the same as defined in [RFC4005] (Calhoun, P., Zorn, G., Spence, D., and D. Mitton, “Diameter Network Access Server Application,” August 2005.) with an addition of QoS specific AVPs. Figure 7 (AA Answer Command) shows the AAA message used with the QoS specific AVPs:
<AA-Answer> ::= < Diameter Header: 265, PXY >
< Session-Id >
{ Auth-Application-Id }
{ Auth-Request-Type }
{ Result-Code }
{ Origin-Host }
{ Origin-Realm }
* [ QoS-Resources ]
[ User-Name ]
[ Session-Timeout ]
...
* [ AVP ]
| Figure 7: AA Answer Command |
| 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 4.1 Grouped | |M,P| | V |
|QoS-Profile TBD 4.2 Unsigned32 | |M,P| | V |
|QoS-Resources TBD 4.3 Grouped | |M,P| | V |
|Extended-QoS-Filter-Rule TBD 4.4 Grouped | |M,P| | V |
|QoSBlob-Group TBD 4.5 Grouped | |M,P| | V |
|QoS-ID TBD 4.6 Unsigned32 | |M,P| | V |
|QoS-ObjectType TBD 4.7 Enumerated | |M,P| | V |
|QoSBlob TBD 4.8 OctetString| |M,P| | V |
|QoS-Flow-State TBD 4.9 Enumerated | |M,P| | V |
|QoS-Flow-Direction TBD 4.10 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 profiles (and therefore the support of respective AVPs).
QoS-Capability ::= < AVP Header: XXX >
1* { QoS-Profile }
* [ AVP ]
| TOC |
The QoS-Profile AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned64 and contains the vendor and a specifier field. The 64-bit value in the QoS-Profile 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 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 profiles is created with the same document.
| TOC |
The QoS-Resources AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Grouped and includes description of the Quality of Service resources.
QoS-Resources ::= < AVP Header: XXX >
0* [ Extended-QoS-Filter-Rule ]
0* [ QoSBlob-Group ]
[ QoS-Flow-State ]
* [ AVP ]
| TOC |
TheExtended-QoS-Filter-Rule AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Grouped. The QoS filter rule associated with the QoS-ID re-uses the RADIUS NAS-Traffic-Rule AVP [I‑D.ietf‑radext‑filter‑rules] (Congdon, P., “RADIUS Attributes for Filtering and Redirection,” July 2007.). This AVP ties a specific filter to a QoS-ID that in turn refers to a specific QoSBlob-Group. 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-ID }
[ NAS-Traffic-Rule ]
[ QoS-Flow-Direction ]
* [ AVP ]
| TOC |
The QoSBlob-Group AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Grouped and ties the QoS-ID AVP together to the QoSBlob AVP. All parameters followed by the QoSBlob-Type AVP refer to the same QoS model/profile.
QoSBlob-Group ::= < AVP Header: XXX >
{ QoS-ID }
{ QoS-ObjectType }
{ QoS-Profile }
0* [ QoSBlob ]
* [ AVP ]
It is possible to have predefined QoS profiles that contains very specific QoS values and refer to it only using a specifically assigned QoS-Profile AVP value. In this case including QoSBlob AVP is not needed.
| TOC |
The QoS-ID AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32 and references the QoSBlob.
| TOC |
The QoS-ObjectType AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Enumerated and provides the semantic for the content of the QoSBlob AVP.
This document defines the following values:
(0): QoS-Desired (1): QoS-Available (2): QoS-Reserved (3): Minimum-QoS (4): QoS-Authorized
| TOC |
The QoSBlob 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-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. Currently, three values are defined; further values are available via IANA registration.
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 Object Type defined 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 Object Type currently lists 5 values, namely QoS-Desired (0), QoS-Available (1), QoS-Reserved (2), Minimum-QoS (3), and QoS-Authorized (4).
The semantics of the different Object Types 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 Adminission 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.
| TOC |
Figure 8 (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-ObjectType in the QoSBlob-Group 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 8: Example of a Diameter EAP enhanced with QoS Information |
| TOC |
Figure 9 (Example of a Diameter NASREQ enhanced with QoS Information) shows a similar pre-provisioned QoS signaling as in Figure 8 (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 9: Example of a Diameter NASREQ enhanced with QoS Information |
| TOC |
Figure 10 (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-ObjectType 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 10: Example of an Authorization-Only Message Flow |
| TOC |
Figure 11 (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 10 (Example of an Authorization-Only Message Flow).
End Diameter
Host NAS Server
| | |
| | |
: : :
: <<<Initial Messag 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 11: 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-ObjectType
parameter in the QoS-Resources AVP that it sends to the Accounitng server. The server
responds with a "QoS-Available" QoS-ObjectType 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 12: Example for a One-Time Diameter Credit Control Charging Event |
| TOC |
| TOC |
The following table lists the Quality of Service specific AVPs defined in this document that may be present in the DER and DEA Commands, as defined in this document and in [RFC4072] (Eronen, P., Hiller, T., and G. Zorn, “Diameter Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Application,” August 2005.).
+---------------+
| Command-Code |
|-------+-------+
Attribute Name | DER | DEA |
-------------------------------+-------+-------+
QoS-Capability | 0-1 | 0 |
QoS-Resources | 0+ | 0+ |
+-------+-------+
| Figure 13: DER and DEA Commands AVP table |
| TOC |
The following table lists the Quality of Service specific AVPs defined in this document that may be present in the CCR and CCA Commands, as defined in this document and in [RFC4006] (Hakala, H., Mattila, L., Koskinen, J-P., Stura, M., and J. Loughney, “Diameter Credit-Control Application,” August 2005.).
+---------------+
| Command-Code |
|-------+-------+
Attribute Name | CCR | CCA |
-------------------------------+-------+-------+
QoS-Capability | 0-1 | 0 |
QoS-Resources | 0+ | 0+ |
+-------+-------+
| Figure 14: CCR and CCA Commands AVP table |
| TOC |
The following table lists the Quality of Service specific AVPs defined in this document that may be present in the AAR and AAA Commands, as defined in this document and in [RFC4005] (Calhoun, P., Zorn, G., Spence, D., and D. Mitton, “Diameter Network Access Server Application,” August 2005.).
+---------------+
| Command-Code |
|-------+-------+
Attribute Name | AAR | AAA |
-------------------------------+-------+-------+
QoS-Capability | 0-1 | 0 |
QoS-Resources | 0+ | 0+ |
+-------+-------+
| Figure 15: AAR and AAA Commands AVP table |
| 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 4 (Diameter QoS Defined AVPs) lists the newly defined AVPs.
IANA is requested to allocate a registry for the QoS-ObjectType. 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.
IANA is requested to allocate a registry for the QoS-Flow-Direction. The following values are allocated by this specification.
Value | Name ------+------------------------------------------------------------ 0 | QOS_FLOW_DIRECTION_BOTH 1 | QOS_FLOW_DIRECTION_DL 2 | QOS_FLOW_DIRECTION_UL
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). |
| [RFC2234] | Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, “Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF,” RFC 2234, November 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). |
| [RFC4006] | Hakala, H., Mattila, L., Koskinen, J-P., Stura, M., and J. Loughney, “Diameter Credit-Control Application,” RFC 4006, August 2005 (TXT). |
| [RFC4072] | Eronen, P., Hiller, T., and G. Zorn, “Diameter Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Application,” RFC 4072, August 2005 (TXT). |
| TOC |
| 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 |
| TOC |
Copyright © 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.
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.