A Service Provider View on SLSs - ist tequila
A Service Provider View on SLSs - ist tequila
A Service Provider View on SLSs - ist tequila
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