Tech-invite3GPPspaceIETF RFCsSIP
93929190898887868584838281807978777675747372717069686766656463626160595857565554535251504948474645444342414039383736353433323130292827262524232221201918171615141312111009080706050403020100
in Index   Prev   Next

RFC 3644

Policy Quality of Service (QoS) Information Model

Pages: 73
Proposed Standard
Part 1 of 3 – Pages 1 to 23
None   None   Next

Top   ToC   RFC3644 - Page 1
Network Working Group                                            Y. Snir
Request for Comments: 3644                                    Y. Ramberg
Category: Standards Track                                  Cisco Systems
                                                            J. Strassner
                                                              Intelliden
                                                                R. Cohen
                                                               Ntear LLC
                                                                B. Moore
                                                                     IBM
                                                           November 2003


           Policy Quality of Service (QoS) Information Model

Status of this Memo

   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

This document presents an object-oriented information model for representing Quality of Service (QoS) network management policies. This document is based on the IETF Policy Core Information Model and its extensions. It defines an information model for QoS enforcement for differentiated and integrated services using policy. It is important to note that this document defines an information model, which by definition is independent of any particular data storage mechanism and access protocol.
Top   ToC   RFC3644 - Page 2

Table of Contents

1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.1. The Process of QoS Policy Definition. . . . . . . . . . 5 1.2. Design Goals and Their Ramifications. . . . . . . . . . 8 1.2.1. Policy-Definition Oriented. . . . . . . . . . . 8 1.2.1.1. Rule-based Modeling . . . . . . . . . 9 1.2.1.2. Organize Information Hierarchically . 9 1.2.1.3. Goal-Oriented Policy Definition . . . 10 1.2.2. Policy Domain Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.2.2.1. Model QoS Policy in a Device- and Vendor-Independent Manner . . . . . . 11 1.2.2.2. Use Roles for Mapping Policy to Network Devices . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.2.2.3. Reusability . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1.2.3. Enforceable Policy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1.2.4. QPIM Covers Both Signaled And Provisioned QoS . 14 1.2.5. Interoperability for PDPs and Management Applications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 1.3. Modeling Abstract QoS Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1.4. Rule Hierarchy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1.4.1. Use of Hierarchy Within Bandwidth Allocation Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1.4.2. Use of Rule Hierarchy to Describe Drop Threshold Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 1.4.3. Restrictions of the Use of Hierarchy Within QPIM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 1.5. Intended Audiences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2. Class Hierarchies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2.1. Inheritance Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2.2. Relationship Hierarchy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3. QoS Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.1. Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.2. RSVP Policy Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3.2.1. Example: Controlling COPS Stateless Decision. . 28 3.2.2. Example: Controlling the COPS Replace Decision. 29 3.3. Provisioning Policy Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 3.3.1. Admission Actions: Controlling Policers and Shapers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 3.3.2. Controlling Markers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 3.3.3. Controlling Edge Policies - Examples. . . . . . 33 3.4. Per-Hop Behavior Actions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 3.4.1. Controlling Bandwidth and Delay . . . . . . . . 35 3.4.2. Congestion Control Actions. . . . . . . . . . . 35 3.4.3. Using Hierarchical Policies: Examples for PHB Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 4. Traffic Profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 4.1. Provisioning Traffic Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Top   ToC   RFC3644 - Page 3
        4.2.  RSVP Traffic Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
   5.   Pre-Defined QoS-Related Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
   6.   QoS Related Values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
   7.   Class Definitions: Association Hierarchy. . . . . . . . . . . 44
        7.1.  The Association "QoSPolicyTrfcProfInAdmissionAction". . 44
              7.1.1.  The Reference "Antecedent". . . . . . . . . . . 44
              7.1.2.  The Reference "Dependent" . . . . . . . . . . . 44
        7.2.  The Association "PolicyConformAction" . . . . . . . . . 44
              7.2.1.  The Reference "Antecedent". . . . . . . . . . . 45
              7.2.2.  The Reference "Dependent" . . . . . . . . . . . 45
        7.3.  The Association "QoSPolicyExceedAction" . . . . . . . . 45
              7.3.1.  The Reference "Antecedent". . . . . . . . . . . 46
              7.3.2.  The Reference "Dependent" . . . . . . . . . . . 46
        7.4.  The Association "PolicyViolateAction" . . . . . . . . . 46
              7.4.1.  The Reference "Antecedent". . . . . . . . . . . 46
              7.4.2.  The Reference "Dependent" . . . . . . . . . . . 47
        7.5.  The Aggregation
              "QoSPolicyRSVPVariableInRSVPSimplePolicyAction" . . . . 47
              7.5.1.  The Reference "GroupComponent". . . . . . . . . 47
              7.5.2.  The Reference "PartComponent" . . . . . . . . . 47
   8.   Class Definitions: Inheritance Hierarchy. . . . . . . . . . . 48
        8.1.  The Class QoSPolicyDiscardAction. . . . . . . . . . . . 48
        8.2.  The Class QoSPolicyAdmissionAction. . . . . . . . . . . 48
              8.2.1.  The Property qpAdmissionScope . . . . . . . . . 48
        8.3.  The Class QoSPolicyPoliceAction . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
        8.4.  The Class QoSPolicyShapeAction. . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
        8.5.  The Class QoSPolicyRSVPAdmissionAction. . . . . . . . . 50
              8.5.1.  The Property qpRSVPWarnOnly . . . . . . . . . . 50
              8.5.2.  The Property qpRSVPMaxSessions. . . . . . . . . 51
        8.6.  The Class QoSPolicyPHBAction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
              8.6.1.  The Property qpMaxPacketSize. . . . . . . . . . 51
        8.7.  The Class QoSPolicyBandwidthAction. . . . . . . . . . . 52
              8.7.1.  The Property qpForwardingPriority . . . . . . . 52
              8.7.2.  The Property qpBandwidthUnits . . . . . . . . . 52
              8.7.3.  The Property qpMinBandwidth . . . . . . . . . . 53
              8.7.4.  The Property qpMaxBandwidth . . . . . . . . . . 53
              8.7.5.  The Property qpMaxDelay . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
              8.7.6.  The Property qpMaxJitter. . . . . . . . . . . . 53
              8.7.7.  The Property qpFairness . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
        8.8.  The Class QoSPolicyCongestionControlAction. . . . . . . 54
              8.8.1.  The Property qpQueueSizeUnits . . . . . . . . . 54
              8.8.2.  The Property qpQueueSize. . . . . . . . . . . . 55
              8.8.3.  The Property qpDropMethod . . . . . . . . . . . 55
              8.8.4.  The Property qpDropThresholdUnits . . . . . . . 55
              8.8.5.  The Property qpDropMinThresholdValue. . . . . . 55
              8.8.6.  The Property qpDropMaxThresholdValue. . . . . . 56
        8.9.  The Class QoSPolicyTrfcProf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
        8.10. The Class QoSPolicyTokenBucketTrfcProf. . . . . . . . . 57
Top   ToC   RFC3644 - Page 4
              8.10.1. The Property qpTBRate . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
              8.10.2. The Property qpTBNormalBurst. . . . . . . . . . 57
              8.10.3. The Property qpTBExcessBurst. . . . . . . . . . 57
        8.11. The Class QoSPolicyIntServTrfcProf. . . . . . . . . . . 57
              8.11.1. The Property qpISTokenRate. . . . . . . . . . . 58
              8.11.2. The Property qpISPeakRate . . . . . . . . . . . 58
              8.11.3. The Property qpISBucketSize . . . . . . . . . . 58
              8.11.4. The Property qpISResvRate . . . . . . . . . . . 58
              8.11.5. The Property qpISResvSlack. . . . . . . . . . . 59
              8.11.6. The Property qpISMinPolicedUnit . . . . . . . . 59
              8.11.7. The Property qpISMaxPktSize . . . . . . . . . . 59
        8.12. The Class QoSPolicyAttributeValue . . . . . . . . . . . 59
              8.12.1. The Property qpAttributeName. . . . . . . . . . 60
              8.12.2. The Property qpAttributeValueList . . . . . . . 60
        8.13. The Class QoSPolicyRSVPVariable . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
        8.14. The Class QoSPolicyRSVPSourceIPv4Variable . . . . . . . 61
        8.15. The Class QoSPolicyRSVPDestinationIPv4Variable. . . . . 61
        8.16. The Class QoSPolicyRSVPSourceIPv6Variable . . . . . . . 62
        8.17. The Class QoSPolicyRSVPDestinationIPv6Variable. . . . . 62
        8.18. The Class QoSPolicyRSVPSourcePortVariable . . . . . . . 62
        8.19. The Class QoSPolicyRSVPDestinationPortVariable. . . . . 63
        8.20. The Class QoSPolicyRSVPIPProtocolVariable . . . . . . . 63
        8.21. The Class QoSPolicyRSVPIPVersionVariable. . . . . . . . 63
        8.22. The Class QoSPolicyRSVPDCLASSVariable . . . . . . . . . 64
        8.23. The Class QoSPolicyRSVPStyleVariable. . . . . . . . . . 64
        8.24. The Class QoSPolicyRSVPIntServVariable. . . . . . . . . 65
        8.25. The Class QoSPolicyRSVPMessageTypeVariable. . . . . . . 65
        8.26. The Class QoSPolicyRSVPPreemptionPriorityVariable . . . 65
        8.27. The Class QoSPolicyRSVPPreemptionDefPriorityVariable. . 66
        8.28. The Class QoSPolicyRSVPUserVariable . . . . . . . . . . 66
        8.29. The Class QoSPolicyRSVPApplicationVariable. . . . . . . 66
        8.30. The Class QoSPolicyRSVPAuthMethodVariable . . . . . . . 67
        8.31. The Class QosPolicyDNValue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
              8.31.1. The Property qpDNList . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
        8.32. The Class QoSPolicyRSVPSimpleAction . . . . . . . . . . 68
              8.32.1. The Property qpRSVPActionType . . . . . . . . . 68
   9.   Intellectual Property Rights Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . 69
   10.  Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
   11.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
   12.  References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
        12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
        12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
   13.  Authors' Addresses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
   14.  Full Copyright Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Top   ToC   RFC3644 - Page 5

1. Introduction

The QoS Policy Information Model (QPIM) establishes a standard framework and constructs for specifying and representing policies that administer, manage, and control access to network QoS resources. Such policies will be referred to as "QoS policies" in this document. The framework consists of a set of classes and relationships that are organized in an object-oriented information model. It is agnostic of any specific Policy Decision Point (PDP) or Policy Enforcement Point (PEP) (see [TERMS] for definitions) implementation, and independent of any particular QoS implementation mechanism. QPIM is designed to represent QoS policy information for large-scale policy domains (the term "policy domain" is defined in [TERMS]). A primary goal of this information model is to assist human administrators in their definition of policies to control QoS resources (as opposed to individual network element configuration). The process of creating QPIM data instances is fed by business rules, network topology and QoS methodology (e.g., Differentiated Services). This document is based on the IETF Policy Core Information Model and its extensions as specified by [PCIM] and [PCIMe]. QPIM builds upon these two documents to define an information model for QoS enforcement for differentiated and integrated services ([DIFFSERV] and [INTSERV], respectively) using policy. It is important to note that this document defines an information model, which by definition is independent of any particular data storage mechanism and access protocol. This enables various data models (e.g., directory schemata, relational database schemata, and SNMP MIBs) to be designed and implemented according to a single uniform model. 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 [KEYWORDS].

1.1. The Process of QoS Policy Definition

This section describes the process of using QPIM for the definition QoS policy for a policy domain. Figure 1 illustrates information flow and not the actual procedure, which has several loops and feedback not depicted.
Top   ToC   RFC3644 - Page 6
    ----------        ----------       -----------
   | Business |      | Topology |     |   QoS     |
   | Policy   |      |          |     |Methodology|
    ----------        ----------       -----------
        |                  |               |
        |                  |               |
        ------------------------------------
                           |
                           V
                    ---------------
                   |  QPIM/PCIM(e) |
                   |   modeling    |
                    ---------------
                           |
                           |            --------------
                           |<----------| Device info, |
                           |           | capabilities |
                           |            --------------
                           V
                    (---------------)
                    (    device     )---)
                    ( configuration )   )---)
                    (---------------)   )   )
                         (--------------)   )
                              (-------------)

               Figure 1: The QoS definition information flow

   The process of QoS policy definition is dependent on three types of
   information: the topology of the network devices under management,
   the particular type of QoS methodology used (e.g., DiffServ) and the
   business rules and requirements for specifying service(s) [TERMS]
   delivered by the network.  Both topology and business rules are
   outside the scope of QPIM.  However, important facets of both must be
   known and understood for correctly specifying the QoS policy.

   Typically, the process of QoS policy definition relies on a
   methodology based on one or more QoS methodologies.  For example, the
   DiffServ methodology may be employed in the QoS policy definition
   process.

   The topology of the network consists of an inventory of the network
   elements that make up the network and the set of paths that traffic
   may take through the network.  For example, a network administrator
   may decide to use the DiffServ architectural model [DIFFSERV] and
   classify network devices using the roles "boundary" and "core" (see
   [TERMS] for a definition of role, and [PCIM] for an explanation of
Top   ToC   RFC3644 - Page 7
   how they are used in the policy framework).  While this is not a
   complete topological view of the network, many times it may suffice
   for the purpose of QoS policy definition.

   Business rules are informal sets of requirements for specifying the
   behavior of various types of traffic that may traverse the network.
   For example, the administrator may be instructed to implement policy
   such that VoIP traffic manifests behavior that is similar to legacy
   voice traffic over telephone networks.  Note that this business rule
   (indirectly) prescribes specific behavior for this traffic type
   (VoIP), for example in terms of minimal delay, jitter and loss.
   Other traffic types, such as WEB buying transactions, system backup
   traffic, video streaming, etc., will express their traffic
   conditioning requirements in different terms.  Again, this
   information is required not by QPIM itself, but by the overall policy
   management system that uses QPIM.  QPIM is used to help map the
   business rules into a form that defines the requirements for
   conditioning different types of traffic in the network.

   The topology, QoS methodology, and business rules are necessary
   prerequisites for defining traffic conditioning.  QPIM enables a set
   of tools for specifying traffic conditioning policy in a standard
   manner.  Using a standard QoS policy information model such as QPIM
   is needed also because different devices can have markedly different
   capabilities.  Even the same model of equipment can have different
   functionality if the network operating system and software running in
   those devices is different.  Therefore, a means is required to
   specify functionality in a standard way that is independent of the
   capabilities of different vendors' devices.  This is the role of
   QPIM.

   In a typical scenario, the administrator would first determine the
   role(s) that each interface of each network element plays in the
   overall network topology.  These roles define the functions supplied
   by a given network element independent of vendor and device type.
   The [PCIM] and [PCIMe] documents define the concept of a role.  Roles
   can be used to identify what parts of the network need which type of
   traffic conditioning.  For example, network interface cards that are
   categorized as "core" interfaces can be assigned the role name
   "core-interface".  This enables the administrator to design policies
   to configure all interfaces having the role "core-interface"
   independent of the actual physical devices themselves.  QPIM uses
   roles to help the administrator map a given set of devices or
   interfaces to a given set of policy constructs.
Top   ToC   RFC3644 - Page 8
   The policy constructs define the functionality required to perform
   the desired traffic conditioning for particular traffic type(s).  The
   functions themselves depend on the particular type of networking
   technologies chosen.  For example, the DiffServ methodology
   encourages us to aggregate similar types of traffic by assigning to
   each traffic class a particular per-hop forwarding behavior on each
   node.  RSVP enables bandwidth to be reserved.  These two
   methodologies can be used separately or in conjunction, as defined by
   the appropriate business policy.  QPIM provides specific classes to
   enable DiffServ and RSVP conditioning to be modeled.

   The QPIM class definitions are used to create instances of various
   policy constructs such as QoS actions and conditions that may be
   hierarchically organized in rules and groups (PolicyGroup and
   PolicyRule as defined in [PCIM] and [PCIMe]).  Examples of policy
   actions are rate limiting, jitter control and bandwidth allocation.
   Policy conditions are constructs that can select traffic according to
   a complex Boolean expression.

   A hierarchical organization was chosen for two reasons.  First, it
   best reflects the way humans tend to think about complex policy.
   Second, it enables policy to be easily mapped onto administrative
   organizations, as the hierarchical organization of policy mirrors
   most administrative organizations.  It is important to note that the
   policy definition process described here is done independent of any
   specific device capabilities and configuration options.  The policy
   definition is completely independent from the details of the
   implementation and the configuration interface of individual network
   elements, as well as of the mechanisms that a network element can use
   to condition traffic.

1.2. Design Goals and Their Ramifications

This section explains the QPIM design goals and how these goals are addressed in this document. This section also describes the ramifications of the design goals and the design decisions made in developing QPIM.

1.2.1. Policy-Definition Oriented

The primary design goal of QPIM is to model policies controlling QoS behavior in a way that as closely as possible reflects the way humans tend to think about policy. Therefore, QPIM is designed to address the needs of policy definition and management, and not device/network configuration.
Top   ToC   RFC3644 - Page 9
   There are several ramifications of this design goal.  First, QPIM
   uses rules to define policies, based on [PCIM] and [PCIMe].  Second,
   QPIM uses hierarchical organizations of policies and policy
   information extensively.  Third, QPIM does not force the policy
   writer to specify all implementation details; rather, it assumes that
   configuration agents (PDPs) interpret the policies and match them to
   suit the needs of device-specific configurations.

1.2.1.1. Rule-based Modeling
Policy is best described using rule-based modeling as explained and described in [PCIM] and [PCIMe]. A QoS policy rule is structured as a condition clause and an action clause. The semantics are simple: if the condition clause evaluates to TRUE, then a set of QoS actions (specified in the action clause) can be executed. For example, the rule: "WEB traffic should receive at least 50% of the available bandwidth resources or more, when more is available" can be formalized as: "<If protocol == HTTP> then <minimum BW = 50%>" where the first angle bracketed clause is a traffic condition and the second angle bracketed clause is a QoS action. This approach differs from data path modeling that describes the mechanisms that operates on the packet flows to achieve the desired effect. Note that the approach taken in QPIM specifically did NOT subclass the PolicyRule class. Rather, it uses the SimplePolicyCondition, CompoundPolicyCondition, SimplePolicyAction, and CompoundPolicyAction classes defined in [PCIMe], as well as defining subclasses of the following classes: Policy, PolicyAction, SimplePolicyAction, PolicyImplicitVariable, and PolicyValue. Subclassing the PolicyRule class would have made it more difficult to combine actions and conditions defined within different functional domains [PCIMe] within the same rules.
1.2.1.2. Organize Information Hierarchically
The organization of the information represented by QPIM is designed to be hierarchical. To do this, QPIM utilizes the PolicySetComponent aggregation [PCIMe] to provide an arbitrarily nested organization of policy information. A policy group functions as a container of
Top   ToC   RFC3644 - Page 10
   policy rules and/or policy groups.  A policy rule can also contain
   policy rules and/or groups, enabling a rule/sub-rule relationship to
   be realized.

   The hierarchical design decision is based on the realization that it
   is natural for humans to organize policy rules in groups.  Breaking
   down a complex policy into a set of simple rules is a process that
   follows the way people tend to think and analyze systems.  The
   complexity of the abstract, business-oriented policy is simplified
   and made into a hierarchy of simple rules and grouping of simple
   rules.

   The hierarchical information organization helps to simplify the
   definition and readability of data instances based on QPIM.
   Hierarchies can also serve to carry additional semantics for QoS
   actions in a given context.  An example, detailed in section 2.3,
   demonstrates how hierarchical bandwidth allocation policies can be
   specified in an intuitive form, without the need to specify complex
   scheduler structures.

1.2.1.3. Goal-Oriented Policy Definition
QPIM facilitates goal-oriented QoS policy definition. This means that the process of defining QoS policy is focused on the desired effect of policies, as opposed to the means of implementing the policy on network elements. QPIM is intended to define a minimal specification of desired network behavior. It is the role of device-specific configuration agents to interpret policy expressed in a standard way and fill in the necessary configuration details that are required for their particular application. The benefit of using QPIM is that it provides a common lingua franca that each of the device- and/or vendor-specific configuration agents can use. This helps ensure a common interpretation of the general policy as well as aid the administrator in specifying a common policy to be implemented across different devices. This is analogous to the fundamental object- oriented paradigm of separating specification from implementation. Using QPIM, traffic conditioning can be specified in a general manner that can help different implementations satisfy a common goal. For example, a valid policy may include only a single rule that specifies that bandwidth should be reserved for a given set of traffic flows. The rule does not need to include any of the various other details that may be needed for implementing a scheduler that supports this bandwidth allocation (e.g., the queue length required). It is assumed that a PDP or the PEPs would fill in these details using (for example) their default queue length settings. The policy
Top   ToC   RFC3644 - Page 11
   writer need only specify the main goal of the policy, making sure
   that the preferred application receives enough bandwidth to operate
   adequately.

1.2.2. Policy Domain Model

An important design goal of QPIM is to provide a means for defining policies that span numerous devices. This goal differentiates QPIM from device-level information models, which are designed for modeling policy that controls a single device, its mechanisms and capabilities. This design goal has several ramifications. First, roles [PCIM] are used to define policies across multiple devices. Second, the use of abstract policies frees the policy definition process from having to deal with individual device peculiarities, and leaves interpretation and configuration to be modeled by PDPs or other configuration agents. Third, QPIM allows extensive reuse of all policy building blocks in multiple rules used within different devices.
1.2.2.1. Model QoS Policy in a Device- and Vendor-Independent Manner
QPIM models QoS policy in a way designed to be independent of any particular device or vendor. This enables networks made up of different devices that have different capabilities to be managed and controlled using a single standard set of policies. Using such a single set of policies is important because otherwise, the policy will itself reflect the differences between different device implementations.
1.2.2.2. Use Roles for Mapping Policy to Network Devices
The use of roles enables a policy definition to be targeted to the network function of a network element, rather than to the element's type and capabilities. The use of roles for mapping policy to network elements provides an efficient and simple method for compact and abstract policy definition. A given abstract policy may be mapped to a group of network elements without the need to specify configuration for each of those elements based on the capabilities of any one individual element. The policy definition is designed to allow aggregating multiple devices within the same role, if desired. For example, if two core network interfaces operate at different rates, one does not have to define two separate policy rules to express the very same abstract policy (e.g., allocating 30% of the interface bandwidth to a given
Top   ToC   RFC3644 - Page 12
   preferred set of flows).  The use of hierarchical context and
   relative QoS actions in QPIM addresses this and other related
   problems.

1.2.2.3. Reusability
Reusable objects, as defined by [PCIM] and [PCIMe], are the means for sharing policy building blocks, thus allowing central management of global concepts. QPIM provides the ability to reuse all policy building blocks: variables and values, conditions and actions, traffic profiles, and policy groups and policy rules. This provides the required flexibility to manage large sets of policy rules over large policy domains. For example, the following rule makes use of centrally defined objects being reused (referenced): If <DestinationAddress == FinanceSubNet> then <DSCP = MissionCritical> In this rule, the condition refers to an object named FinanceSubNet, which is a value (or possibly a set of values) defined and maintained in a reusable objects container. The QoS action makes use of a value named MissionCritical, which is also a reusable object. The advantage of specifying a policy in this way is its inherent flexibility. Given the above policy, whenever business needs require a change in the subnet definition for the organization, all that's required is to change the reusable value FinanceSubNet centrally. All referencing rules are immediately affected, without the need to modify them individually. Without this capability, the repository that is used to store the rules would have to be searched for all rules that refer to the finance subnet, and then each matching rule's condition would have to be individually updated. This is not only much less efficient, but also is more prone to error. For a complete description of reusable objects, refer to [PCIM] and [PCIMe].

1.2.3. Enforceable Policy

Policy defined by QPIM should be enforceable. This means that a PDP can use QPIM's policy definition in order to make the necessary decisions and enforce the required policy rules. For example, RSVP admission decisions should be made based on the policy definitions specified by QPIM. A PDP should be able to map QPIM policy definitions into PEP configurations, using either standard or proprietary protocols.
Top   ToC   RFC3644 - Page 13
   QPIM is designed to be agnostic of any particular, vendor-dependent
   technology.  However, QPIM's constructs SHOULD always be interpreted
   so that policy-compliant behavior can be enforced on the network
   under management.  Therefore, there are three fundamental
   requirements that QPIM must satisfy:

   1. Policy specified by QPIM must be able to be mapped to actual
      network elements.

   2. Policy specified by QPIM must be able to control QoS network
      functions without making reference to a specific type of device or
      vendor.

   3. Policy specified by QPIM must be able to be translated into
      network element configuration.

   QPIM satisfies requirements #1 and #2 above by using the concept of
   roles (specifically, the PolicyRoles property, defined in PCIM).  By
   matching roles assigned to policy groups and to network elements, a
   PDP (or other enforcement agent) can determine what policy should be
   applied to a given device or devices.

   The use of roles in mapping policy to network elements supports model
   scalability.  QPIM policy can be mapped to large-scale policy domains
   by assigning a single role to a group of network elements.  This can
   be done even when the policy domain contains heterogeneous devices.
   So, a small set of policies can be deployed to large networks without
   having to re-specify the policy for each device separately.  This
   QPIM property is important for QoS policy management applications
   that strive to ease the task of policy definition for large policy
   domains.

   Requirement #2 is also satisfied by making QPIM domain-oriented (see
   [TERMS] for a definition of "domain").  In other words, the target of
   the policy is a domain, as opposed to a specific device or interface.

   Requirement #3 is satisfied by modeling QoS conditions and actions
   that are commonly configured on various devices.  However, QPIM is
   extensible to allow modeling of actions that are not included in
   QPIM.

   It is important to note that different PEPs will have different
   capabilities and functions, which necessitate different individual
   configurations even if the different PEPs are controlled by the same
   policy.
Top   ToC   RFC3644 - Page 14

1.2.4. QPIM Covers Both Signaled And Provisioned QoS

The two predominant standards-based QoS methodologies developed so far are Differentiated Services (DiffServ) and Integrated Services (IntServ). The DiffServ provides a way to enforce policies that apply to a large number of devices in a scalable manner. QPIM provides actions and conditions that control the classification, policing and shaping done within the differentiated service domain boundaries, as well as actions that control the per-hop behavior within the core of the DiffServ network. QPIM does not mandate the use of DiffServ as a policy methodology. Integrated services, together with its signaling protocol (RSVP), provides a way for end nodes (and edge nodes) to request QoS from the network. QPIM provides actions that control the reservation of such requests within the network. As both methodologies continue to evolve, QPIM does not attempt to provide full coverage of all possible scenarios. Instead, QPIM aims to provide policy control modeling for all major scenarios. QPIM is designed to be extensible to allow for incorporation of control over newly developed QoS mechanisms.

1.2.5. Interoperability for PDPs and Management Applications

Another design goal of QPIM is to facilitate interoperability among policy systems such as PDPs and policy management applications. QPIM accomplishes this interoperability goal by standardizing the representation of policy. Producers and consumers of QoS policy need only rely on QPIM-based schemata (and resulting data models) to ensure mutual understanding and agreement on the semantics of QoS policy. For example, suppose that a QoS policy management application, built by vendor A writes its policies based on the LDAP schema that maps from QPIM to a directory implementation using LDAP. Now assume that a separately built PDP from vendor B also relies on this same LDAP schema derived from QPIM. Even though these are two vendors with two different PDPs, each may read the schema of the other and "understand" it. This is because both the management application and the PDP were architected to comply with the QPIM specification. The same is true with two policy management applications. For example, vendor B's policy application may run a validation tool that computes whether there are conflicts within rules specified by the other vendor's policy management application.
Top   ToC   RFC3644 - Page 15
   Interoperability of QPIM producers/consumers is by definition at a
   high level, and does not guarantee that the same policy will result
   in the same PEP configuration.  First, different PEPs will have
   different capabilities and functions, which necessitate different
   individual configurations even if the different PEPs are controlled
   by the same policy.  Second, different PDPs will also have different
   capabilities and functions, and may choose to translate the high-
   level QPIM policy differently depending on the functionality of the
   PDP, as well as on the capabilities of the PEPs that are being
   controlled by the PDP.  However, the different configurations should
   still result in the same network behavior as that specified by the
   policy rules.

1.3. Modeling Abstract QoS Policies

This section provides a discussion of QoS policy abstraction and the way QPIM addresses this issue. As described above, the main goal of the QPIM is to create an information model that can be used to help bridge part of the conceptual gap between a human policy maker and a network element that is configured to enforce the policy. Clearly this wide gap implies several translation levels, from the abstract to the concrete. At the abstract end are the business QoS policy rules. Once the business rules are known, a network administrator must interpret them as network QoS policy and represent this QoS policy by using QPIM constructs. QPIM facilitates a formal representation of QoS rules, thus providing the first concretization level: formally representing humanly expressed QoS policy. When a human business executive defines network policy, it is usually done using informal business terms and language. For example, a human may utter a policy statement that reads: "human resources applications should have better QoS than simple web applications" This might be translated to a slightly more sophisticated form, such as: "traffic generated by our human resources applications should have a higher probability of communicating with its destinations than traffic generated by people browsing the WEB using non-mission- critical applications" While this statement clearly defines QoS policy at the business level, it isn't specific enough to be enforceable by network elements. Translation to "network terms and language" is required.
Top   ToC   RFC3644 - Page 16
   On the other end of the scale, a network element functioning as a
   PEP, such as a router, can be configured with specific commands that
   determine the operational parameters of its inner working QoS
   mechanisms.  For example, the (imaginary) command "output-queue-depth
   = 100" may be an instruction to a network interface card of a router
   to allow up to 100 packets to be stored before subsequent packets are
   discarded (not forwarded).  On a different device within the same
   network, the same instruction may take another form, because a
   different vendor built that device or it has a different set of
   functions, and hence implementation, even though it is from the same
   vendor.  In addition, a particular PEP may not have the ability to
   create queues that are longer than, say, 50 packets, which may result
   in a different instruction implementing the same QoS policy.

   The first example illustrates 'abstract policy', while the second
   illustrates 'concrete configuration'.  Furthermore, the first example
   illustrates end-to-end policy, which covers the conditioning of
   application traffic throughout the network.  The second example
   illustrates configuration for a particular PEP or a set thereof.
   While an end-to-end policy statement can only be enforced by
   configuration of PEPs in various parts of the network, the
   information model of policy and that of the mechanisms that a PEP
   uses to implement that policy are vastly different.

   The translation process from abstract business policy to concrete PEP
   configuration is roughly expressed as follows:

   1. Informal business QoS policy is expressed by a human policy maker
      (e.g., "All executives' WEB requests should be prioritized ahead
      of other employees' WEB requests")

   2. A network administrator analyzes the policy domain's topology and
      determines the roles of particular device interfaces.  A role may
      be assigned to a large group of elements, which will result in
      mapping a particular policy to a large group of device interfaces.

   3. The network administrator models the informal policy using QPIM
      constructs, thus creating a formal representation of the abstract
      policy.  For example, "If a packet's protocol is HTTP and its
      destination is in  the 'EXECUTIVES' user group, then assign IPP 7
      to the packet header".

   4. The network administrator assigns roles to the policy groups
      created in the previous step matching the network elements' roles
      assigned in step #2 above.
Top   ToC   RFC3644 - Page 17
   5. A PDP translates the abstract policy constructs created in step #3
      into device-specific configuration commands for all devices
      effected by the new policy (i.e., devices that have interfaces
      that are assigned a role matching the new policy constructs'
      roles).  In this process, the PDP consults the particular devices'
      capabilities to determine the appropriate configuration commands
      implementing the policy.

   6. For each PEP in the network, the PDP (or an agent of the PDP)
      issues the appropriate device-specific instructions necessary to
      enforce the policy.

   QPIM, PCIM and PCIMe are used in step #3 above.

1.4. Rule Hierarchy

Policy is described by a set of policy rules that may be grouped into subsets [PCIMe]. Policy rules and policy groups can be nested within other policy rules, providing a hierarchical policy definition. Nested rules are also called sub-rules, and we use both terms in this document interchangeably. The aggregation PolicySetComponent (defined in [PCIMe] is used to represent the nesting of a policy rule or group in another policy rule. The hierarchical policy rule definition enhances policy readability and reusability. Within the QoS policy information model, hierarchy is used to model context or scope for the sub-rule actions. Within QPIM, bandwidth allocation policy actions and drop threshold actions use this hierarchal context. First we provide a detailed example of the use of hierarchy in bandwidth allocation policies. The differences between flat and hierarchical policy representation are discussed. The use of hierarchy in drop threshold policies is described in a following subsection. Last but not least, the restrictions on the use of rule hierarchies within QPIM are described.

1.4.1. Use of Hierarchy Within Bandwidth Allocation Policies

Consider the following example where the informal policy reads: On any interface on which these rules apply, guarantee at least 30% of the interface bandwidth to UDP flows, and at least 40% of the interface bandwidth to TCP flows. The QoS Policy information model follows the Policy Core information model by using roles as a way to specify the set of interfaces on which this policy applies. The policy does not assume that all interfaces are run at the same speed, or have any other property in
Top   ToC   RFC3644 - Page 18
   common apart from being able to forward packets.  Bandwidth is
   allocated between UDP and TCP flows using percentages of the
   available interface bandwidth.  Assume that we have an available
   interface bandwidth of 1 Mbits/sec.  Then this rule will guarantee
   300Kbits/sec to UDP flows.  However, if the interface bandwidth was
   instead only 64kbits/sec, then this rule would correspondingly
   guarantee 19.2kb/sec.

   This policy is modeled within QPIM using two policy rules of the
   form:

      If (IP protocol is UDP) THEN (guarantee 30% of available BW) (1)
      If (IP protocol is TCP) THEN (guarantee 40% of available BW) (2)

   Assume that these two rules are grouped within a PolicySet [PCIMe]
   carrying the appropriate role combination.  A possible implementation
   of these rules within a PEP would be to use a Weighted-Round-Robin
   scheduler with 3 queues.  The first queue would be used for UDP
   traffic, the second queue for TCP traffic and the third queue for the
   rest of the traffic.  The weights of the Weighted-Round-Robin
   scheduler would be 30% for the first queue, 40% for the second queue
   and 30% for the last queue.

   The actions specifying the bandwidth guarantee implicitly assume that
   the bandwidth resource being guaranteed is the bandwidth available at
   the interface level.  A PolicyRoleCollection is a class defined in
   [PCIMe] whose purpose is to identify the set of resources (in this
   example, interfaces) that are assigned to a particular role.  Thus,
   the type of managed elements aggregated within the
   PolicyRoleCollection defines the bandwidth resource being controlled.
   In our example, interfaces are aggregated within the
   PolicyRoleCollection.  Therefore, the rules specify bandwidth
   allocation to all interfaces that match a given role.  Other behavior
   could be similarly defined by changing what was aggregated within the
   PolicyRoleCollection.

   Normally, a full specification of the rules would require indicating
   the direction of the traffic for which bandwidth allocation is being
   made.  Using the direction variable defined in [PCIMe], the rules can
   be specified in the following form:

      If (direction is out)
          If (IP protocol is UDP) THEN (guarantee 30% of available BW)
          If (IP protocol is TCP) THEN (guarantee 40% of available BW)

   where indentation is used to indicate rule nesting.  To save space,
   we omit the direction condition from further discussion.
Top   ToC   RFC3644 - Page 19
   Rule nesting provides the ability to further refine the scope of
   bandwidth allocation within a given traffic class forwarded via these
   interfaces.  The example below adds two nested rules to refine
   bandwidth allocation for UDP and TCP applications.

      If (IP protocol is UDP) THEN (guarantee 30% of available BW) (1)
         If (protocol is TFTP) THEN (guarantee 10% of available BW) (1a)
         If (protocol is NFS) THEN (guarantee 40% of available BW) (1b)
      If (IP protocol is TCP) THEN (guarantee 40% of available BW) (2)
         If (protocol is HTTP) THEN guarantee 20% of available BW) (2a)
         If (protocol is FTP) THEN (guarantee 30% of available BW) (2b)

   Subrules 1a and 1b specify bandwidth allocation for UDP applications.
   The total bandwidth resource being partitioned among UDP applications
   is the bandwidth available for the UDP traffic class (i.e., 30%), not
   the total bandwidth available at the interface level.  Furthermore,
   TFTP and NFS are guaranteed to get at least 10% and 40% of the total
   available bandwidth for UDP, while other UDP applications aren't
   guaranteed to receive anything.  Thus, TFTP and NFS are guaranteed to
   get at least 3% and 12% of the total bandwidth.  Similar logic
   applies to the TCP applications.

   The point of this section will be to show that a hierarchical policy
   representation enables a finer level of granularity for bandwidth
   allocation to be specified than is otherwise available using a non-
   hierarchical policy representation.  To see this, let's compare this
   set of rules with a non-hierarchical (flat) rule representation.  In
   the non-hierarchical representation, the guaranteed bandwidth for
   TFTP flows is calculated by taking 10% of the bandwidth guaranteed to
   UDP flows, resulting in 3% of the total interface bandwidth
   guarantee.

      If (UDP AND TFTP) THEN (guarantee 3% of available BW) (1a)
      If (UDP AND NFS) THEN (guarantee 12% of available BW) (1b)
      If (other UDP APPs) THEN (guarantee 15% of available BW) (1c)
      If (TCP AND HTTP) THEN guarantee 8% of available BW) (2a)
      If (TCP AND FTP) THEN (guarantee 12% of available BW) (2b)
      If (other TCP APPs) THEN (guarantee 20% of available BW) (2c)

   Are these two representations identical?  No, bandwidth allocation is
   not the same.  For example, within the hierarchical representation,
   UDP applications are guaranteed 30% of the bandwidth.  Suppose a
   single UDP flow of an application different from NFS or TFTP is
   running.  This application would be guaranteed 30% of the interface
   bandwidth in the hierarchical representation but only 15% of the
   interface bandwidth in the flat representation.
Top   ToC   RFC3644 - Page 20
   A two stage scheduler is best modeled by a hierarchical
   representation whereas a flat representation may be realized by a
   non-hierarchical scheduler.

   A schematic hierarchical Weighted-Round-Robin scheduler
   implementation that supports the hierarchical rule representation is
   described below.

      --UDP AND TFTP queue--10%
      --UDP AND NFS  queue--40%-Scheduler-30%--+
      --Other UDP    queue--50%     A1         |
                                               |
      --TCP AND HTTP queue--20%                |
      --TCP AND FTP  queue--30%-Scheduler-40%--Scheduler--Interface
      --Other TCP    queue--50%     A2         |   B
                                               |
      ------------Non UDP/TCP traffic-----30%--+

   Scheduler A1 extracts packets from the 3 UDP queues according to the
   weight specified by the UDP sub-rule policy.  Scheduler A2 extracts
   packets from the 3 TCP queues specified by the TCP sub-rule policy.
   The second stage scheduler B schedules between UDP, TCP and all other
   traffic according to the policy specified in the top most rule level.

   Another difference between the flat and hierarchical rule
   representation is the actual division of bandwidth above the minimal
   bandwidth guarantee.  Suppose two high rate streams are being
   forwarded via this interface: an HTTP stream and an NFS stream.
   Suppose that the rate of each flow is far beyond the capacity of the
   interface.  In the flat scheduler implementation, the ratio between
   the weights is 8:12 (i.e., HTTP:NFS), and therefore HTTP stream would
   consume 40% of the bandwidth while NFS would consume 60% of the
   bandwidth.  In the hierarchical scheduler implementation the only
   scheduler that has two queues filled is scheduler B, therefore the
   ratio between the HTTP (TCP) stream and the NFS (UDP) stream would be
   30:40, and therefore the HTTP stream would consume approximately 42%
   of the interface bandwidth while NFS would consume 58% of the
   interface bandwidth.  In both cases both HTTP and NFS streams got
   more than the minimal guaranteed bandwidth, but the actual rates
   forwarded via the interface differ.

   The conclusion is that hierarchical policy representation provides
   additional structure and context beyond the flat policy
   representation.  Furthermore, policies specifying bandwidth
   allocation using rule hierarchies should be enforced using
   hierarchical schedulers where the rule hierarchy level is mapped to
   the hierarchical scheduler level.
Top   ToC   RFC3644 - Page 21

1.4.2. Use of Rule Hierarchy to Describe Drop Threshold Policies

Two major resources govern the per hop behavior in each node. The bandwidth allocation resource governs the forwarding behavior of each traffic class. A scheduler priority and weights are controlled by the bandwidth allocation policies, as well as the (minimal) number of queues needed for traffic separation. A second resource, which is not controlled by bandwidth allocation policies, is the queuing length and drop behavior. For this purpose, queue length and threshold policies are used. Rule hierarchy is used to describe the context on which thresholds act. The policy rule's condition describes the traffic class and the rule's actions describe the bandwidth allocation, the forwarding priority and the queue length. If the traffic class contains different drop precedence sub-classes that require different thresholds within the same queue, the sub-rules actions describe these thresholds. Below is an example of the use of rule nesting for threshold control purposes. Let's look at the following rules: If (protocol is FTP) THEN (guarantee 10% of available BW) (queue length equals 40 packets) (drop technique is random) if (src-ip is from net 2.x.x.x) THEN min threshold = 30% max threshold = 70% if (src-ip is from net 3.x.x.x) THEN min threshold = 40% max threshold = 90% if (all other) THEN min threshold = 20% max threshold = 60% The rule describes the bandwidth allocation, the queue length and the drop technique assigned to FTP flows. The sub-rules describe the drop threshold priorities within those FTP flows. FTP packets received from all networks apart from networks 2.x.x.x and 3.x.x.x are randomly dropped when the queue threshold for FTP flows accumulates to 20% of the queue length. Once the queue fills to 60%, all these packets are dropped before queuing. The two other sub rules provide other thresholds for FTP packets coming from the specified two subnets. The Assured Forwarding per hop behavior (AF) is another good example of the use of hierarchy to describe the different drop preferences within a traffic class. This example is provided in a later section.
Top   ToC   RFC3644 - Page 22

1.4.3. Restrictions of the Use of Hierarchy Within QPIM

Rule nesting is used within QPIM for two important purposes: 1) Enhance clarity, readability and reusability. 2) Provide hierarchical context for actions. The second point captures the ability to specify context for bandwidth allocation, as well as providing context for drop threshold policies. When is a hierarchy level supposed to specify the bandwidth allocation context, when is the hierarchy used for specifying the drop threshold context, and when is it used merely for clarity and reusability? The answer depends entirely on the actions. Bandwidth control actions within a sub-rule specify how the bandwidth allocated to the traffic class determined by the rule's condition clause should be further divided among the sub-rules. Drop threshold actions control the traffic class's queue drop behavior for each of the sub- rules. The bandwidth control actions have an implicit pointer saying: the bandwidth allocation is relative to the bandwidth resources defined by the higher level rule. Drop threshold actions have an implicit pointer saying: the thresholds are taken from the queue resources defined by the higher level rule. Other actions do not have such an implicit pointer, and for these actions hierarchy is used only for reusability and readability purposes. Each rule that includes a bandwidth allocation action implies that a queue should be allocated to the traffic class defined by the rule's condition clause. Therefore, once a bandwidth allocation action exists within the actions of a sub-rule, a threshold action within this sub-rule cannot refer to thresholds of the parent rule's queue. Instead, it must refer to the queue of the sub-rule itself. Therefore, in order to have a clear and unambiguous definition, refinement of thresholds and refinements of bandwidth allocations within sub-rules should be avoided. If both refinements are needed for the same rule, threshold refinements and bandwidth refinements rules should each be aggregated to a separate group, and these groups should be aggregated under the policy rule, using the PolicySetComponent aggregation.
Top   ToC   RFC3644 - Page 23

1.5. Intended Audiences

QPIM is intended for several audiences. The following lists some of the intended audiences and their respective uses: 1. Developers of QoS policy management applications can use this model as an extensible framework for defining policies to control PEPs and PDPs in an interoperable manner. 2. Developers of Policy Decision Point (PDP) systems built to control resource allocation signaled by RSVP requests. 3. Developers of Policy Decision Points (PDP) systems built to create QoS configuration for PEPs. 4. Builders of large organization data and knowledge bases who decide to combine QoS policy information with other networking policy information, assuming all modeling is based on [PCIM] and [PCIMe]. 5. Authors of various standards may use constructs introduced in this document to enhance their work. Authors of data models wishing to map a storage specific technology to QPIM must use this document as well.


(page 23 continued on part 2)

Next Section