14.11.2014 Views

A Service Provider View on SLSs - ist tequila

A Service Provider View on SLSs - ist tequila

A Service Provider View on SLSs - ist tequila

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

A <str<strong>on</strong>g>Service</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Provider</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>View</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />

<str<strong>on</strong>g>Service</str<strong>on</strong>g> Level Specs BOF<br />

Victor Mendoza Grado<br />

IETF 49<br />

San Diego, CA<br />

Nov 20, 2000 AT&T Labs Business IP Svcs 1


Objective<br />

• Describe case for a semantics of<br />

negotiati<strong>on</strong> to provide QoS-enabled<br />

services across an IP network<br />

• Importance of such specificati<strong>on</strong>s for<br />

deployment of services across a multivendor<br />

and multi-provider envir<strong>on</strong>ment.<br />

• General guidelines for a WG from the<br />

perspective of a provider.<br />

Nov 20, 2000 AT&T Labs Business IP Svcs 2


Issues<br />

• Need to standardize interfaces<br />

• Possible Deliverables<br />

• The Data Representati<strong>on</strong><br />

• The Negotiati<strong>on</strong> Protocol<br />

• The Negotiati<strong>on</strong> Model<br />

• Negotiati<strong>on</strong> Elements<br />

• Summary<br />

Nov 20, 2000 AT&T Labs Business IP Svcs 3


Need to standardize the<br />

specificati<strong>on</strong> of QoS<br />

<str<strong>on</strong>g>Service</str<strong>on</strong>g> Level negotiati<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong><br />

interfaces<br />

• Intra-domain interfaces<br />

• inter-domain interfaces for the<br />

customer-provider relati<strong>on</strong>ship<br />

• inter-domain QoS provisi<strong>on</strong>ing for the<br />

provider-provider relati<strong>on</strong>ship<br />

Nov 20, 2000 AT&T Labs Business IP Svcs 4


Need to standardize the<br />

specificati<strong>on</strong> of Intradomain<br />

interfaces<br />

• Example: a softswitch interface towards<br />

the NM platform for automatic sizing of<br />

trunks between voice gateways<br />

Softswitch<br />

PC Ph<strong>on</strong>e<br />

NM<br />

AT&T<br />

Teleph<strong>on</strong>e<br />

Gateway<br />

Nov 20, 2000 AT&T Labs Business IP Svcs 5


Need to standardize the<br />

specificati<strong>on</strong> of Intradomain<br />

interfaces<br />

• Work in progress in the Policy WG<br />

• Interacti<strong>on</strong>s?<br />

Nov 20, 2000 AT&T Labs Business IP Svcs 6


Inter-domain interfaces for<br />

the customer-provider<br />

relati<strong>on</strong>ship<br />

• Example: allowing an automated VPN<br />

c<strong>on</strong>fig be managed by the customer <strong>on</strong><br />

the ISP domain<br />

Site 1<br />

AT&T<br />

Site 2<br />

Site 3 Site 4<br />

Nov 20, 2000 AT&T Labs Business IP Svcs 7


Inter-domain interfaces for<br />

the customer-provider<br />

relati<strong>on</strong>ship<br />

• SLA gaining importance<br />

• Different demands from different types<br />

of users<br />

– Access the global Net<br />

– C<strong>on</strong>nect different sites<br />

– Access proprietary networks<br />

• Need precise semantics<br />

Nov 20, 2000 AT&T Labs Business IP Svcs 8


Inter-domain QoS<br />

provisi<strong>on</strong>ing for the<br />

provider-provider<br />

relati<strong>on</strong>ship<br />

• Example: relati<strong>on</strong>ship over multiple IP<br />

service providers<br />

Downstream ISP<br />

Customer<br />

AT&T<br />

Peer ISP<br />

Nov 20, 2000 AT&T Labs Business IP Svcs 9


Inter-domain QoS<br />

provisi<strong>on</strong>ing for the<br />

provider-provider<br />

relati<strong>on</strong>ship<br />

• How are QoS policies of neighbors known?<br />

• How an admissi<strong>on</strong> system act up<strong>on</strong> them?<br />

• How about the policies downstream in the<br />

path?<br />

• How to communicate changes back?<br />

• What levels of specificity we need?<br />

Nov 20, 2000 AT&T Labs Business IP Svcs 10


Possible Deliverables<br />

• Framework document (including<br />

architecture)<br />

• Protocol independent SLS informati<strong>on</strong><br />

model document<br />

• Negotiati<strong>on</strong> Requirements and<br />

Semantics document<br />

• Interface protocol standardizati<strong>on</strong> (e.g.<br />

XML/LDAP/....)<br />

• others ? Priorities?<br />

Nov 20, 2000 AT&T Labs Business IP Svcs 11


Data Representati<strong>on</strong><br />

• What should be the protocol<br />

independent data representati<strong>on</strong><br />

language ?<br />

–PCIM<br />

–XML<br />

–BNF<br />

– others?<br />

• Proposal: XML?<br />

Nov 20, 2000 AT&T Labs Business IP Svcs 12


Negotiati<strong>on</strong> Protocol<br />

• What are the negotiati<strong>on</strong> protocols that<br />

make sense in the chosen<br />

envir<strong>on</strong>ment?<br />

• Choices: PPP, WAP, HTTP, SIP,<br />

RSVP, shared LDAP directories, COPS,<br />

…<br />

• Proposal: COPS & LDAP?<br />

Nov 20, 2000 AT&T Labs Business IP Svcs 13


Negotiati<strong>on</strong> Protocol<br />

• Logical Layout<br />

Applicati<strong>on</strong>s<br />

WAP<br />

Multicast<br />

Protocols<br />

HTTP/XML COPS LDAP SIP<br />

RSVP<br />

TCP<br />

UDP<br />

IP & IP Multicasting<br />

Sub-IP Layer (Label Switching, etc)<br />

Nov 20, 2000 AT&T Labs Business IP Svcs 14


Negotiati<strong>on</strong> Model<br />

• Subscriber signup w/ no c<strong>on</strong>firmati<strong>on</strong><br />

• Subscriber signup with c<strong>on</strong>firmati<strong>on</strong><br />

• <str<strong>on</strong>g>Provider</str<strong>on</strong>g> sends menu followed subscriber<br />

signup with our without c<strong>on</strong>firmati<strong>on</strong><br />

• <str<strong>on</strong>g>Provider</str<strong>on</strong>g> sends menu followed by subscriber<br />

signup with c<strong>on</strong>firmati<strong>on</strong> and m<strong>on</strong>itoring<br />

updates<br />

• <str<strong>on</strong>g>Provider</str<strong>on</strong>g> sends menu followed by more<br />

complex negotiati<strong>on</strong> process with<br />

c<strong>on</strong>firmati<strong>on</strong> and m<strong>on</strong>itoring updates and<br />

potential re-negotiati<strong>on</strong><br />

Nov 20, 2000 AT&T Labs Business IP Svcs 15


Negotiati<strong>on</strong> Elements<br />

• Which formats make sense for<br />

documentati<strong>on</strong> of the syntax of<br />

negotiati<strong>on</strong> elements?<br />

• Choices: XML DDTs, LDAP schemata,<br />

COPS PIBs, PPP elements (?), RSVP<br />

Policy Elements, …<br />

• Proposal: LDAP schemata, COPS<br />

PIBS?<br />

Nov 20, 2000 AT&T Labs Business IP Svcs 16


Summary<br />

• Issues for <str<strong>on</strong>g>Service</str<strong>on</strong>g> Level specificati<strong>on</strong><br />

from providers side<br />

• Standards needed to communicate QoS<br />

policies between different domains<br />

Nov 20, 2000 AT&T Labs Business IP Svcs 17

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!