[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]
Versions: 00
Network Working Group F. Dressler
Internet-Draft G. Carle
Expires: January 9, 2005 University of Tuebingen
C. Fan
C. Kappler
H. Tschofenig
Siemens AG
July 11, 2004
NSLP for Accounting Configuration Signaling
<draft-dressler-nsis-accounting-nslp-00.txt>
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3668.
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 January 9, 2005.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
Monitoring, metering and accounting of packets are increasingly
important functionality that needs to be provided in the Internet.
This document proposes the definition of a new NSIS NSLP which allows
the dynamic configuration of accounting entities on the data path. A
problem statement, scenarios for a QoS monitoring and a charging
Dressler, et al. draft-dressler-nsis-accounting-nslp-00.txt [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Accounting NSLP July 2004
application, and requirements presented. Finally, the usage of NSIS
for this purpose is motivated.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1 Charging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2 QoS Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3 Configuration information common to both scenarios . . . . 8
5. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1 General requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1.1 Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1.2 Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1.3 Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1.4 Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2 Flexible accounting model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3 Distinguishing flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.4 Flexible data collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.5 Location of accounting entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.6 Location of the collector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.7 Configuration protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.7.1 Configuration of accounting entities . . . . . . . . . 11
5.7.2 Selection of accounting entities . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.7.3 Accounting Configuration State installation and
removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.7.4 Initiation and maintenance of accounting tasks . . . . 11
5.7.5 Collection of information on available accounting
entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.8 Accounting across domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Applicability of NSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 18
Dressler, et al. draft-dressler-nsis-accounting-nslp-00.txt [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Accounting NSLP July 2004
1. Introduction
Monitoring, metering and accounting of packets is an important
functionality in many networks today. Several working groups have
described mechanisms to collect and report usage data for resource
consumption in a network by a particular entity. For example, the
IPFIX WG defines a protocol to collect such data. RADIUS (see
[RFC2865], [RFC2866] and
[I-D.draft-lior-radius-prepaid-extensions-03]) and DIAMETER (see
[RFC3588] and [I-D.ietf-aaa-diameter-cc]) are also protocols which
provide information about consumed resources via accounting records.
The Meter MIB [RFC2720] is a MIB for collecting flow information.
However, it is also necessary to configure and coordinate the
entities doing the accounting. In more complex network topologies
and architectures these entities are not only located at the edges of
a network. Instead, these accounting entities are distributed along
the data path. While it is possible to configure these entities with
protocols such as RADIUS or DIAMETER (or SNMP for the Meter MIB), it
is also cumbersome.
This draft introduces a new NSLP the Accounting NSLP for
configuration and coordination of accounting entities in a
path-coupled fashion.
This draft is organized as follows: We give a problem description in
Section 3, and then illustrate it with a number of scenarios in
Section 4. Subsequently, we list a few requirements in Section 5.
Finally, we discuss the suitability of NSIS for the configuration of
accounting entities in Section 6.
2. Terminology
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 [RFC2119].
Furthermore, this document uses the following terms:
Accounting Data
Accounting data describe utilized resources concerning a
particular flow or service for a later charging process. Examples
for such data are packet counter, timers, and information
describing the end user or system.
Dressler, et al. draft-dressler-nsis-accounting-nslp-00.txt [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Accounting NSLP July 2004
Accounting Record
An accounting record represents aggregated and/or correlated
accounting data.
Monitoring Probe
A monitoring probe is an entity that examines the data flow in
order to gather accounting data. This accounting data is exported
to an accounting entity.
Accounting entity
An accounting entity produces accounting data describing the
resource utilization of a particular flow or service. Typically,
this information is collected from accociated monitoring probes.
Collector
A collector receives accounting data from one or multiple
accounting entities. This accounting data is aggregated,
correlated, and stored in form of accounting records.
3. Problem Statement
There is a need in industry and the Internet research community to
collect and export information on data flows. We call such
information accounting records. Accounting records are useful in
mediation systems, accounting systems, and network management systems
to facilitate services such as Internet research, measurement,
accounting, billing, QoS monitoring, intrusion detection, and traffic
profiling/engineering. In recognition of the need for such
accounting the IPFIX WG was founded.
While the purpose for collecting accounting records in each case is
different, the basic architecture of such accounting systems is
usually identical, cf. Figure 1. Measurement data is collected by a
monitoring probe, and from there transported to an accounting entity.
The accounting entity produces accounting data from the measurement
data or additional data such as session information. Monitoring
probe and accounting entity may be collocated, and one accounting
entity may control several monitoring probes; in any event the
monitoring probe is controlled by an accounting entity. The
accounting entity transmits its accounting data to the actual
collector. The collector correlates accounting data relating to the
same event from different accounting entities and produces an
accounting record. There may be more than one collector depending on
Dressler, et al. draft-dressler-nsis-accounting-nslp-00.txt [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Accounting NSLP July 2004
the actual tasks.
+-----------------+
| Collector |
| +-------------+ |
| | Acc. Record | |
| +-------------+ |
+-----------------+
^ ^ ^ ^
**** * * ****
**** * * ****
**** * * ****
**** * * ****
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
| +-----+| | +-----+| | +-----+| | +-----+|
===>| AE | Acc.||===>| AE | Acc.||===>| AE | Acc.||===>| AE | Acc.||===>
| | Data|| | | Data|| | | Data|| | | Data||
| +-----+| | +-----+| | +-----+| | +-----+|
+-----------+ | | +-----------+ +-----------+
^ ^ | | ^
* * | | *
+----+ +----+ | | +-----+
--->| MP | | MP |--->| MP |------>| MP |----------------------->
+----+ +----+ +-----------+ +-----+
+--+
|AE| = Accounting === = Acc. Configuration --- = Data Flow
+--+ Entity Signaling Messages
+--+
|MP| = Monitoring *** = other
+--+ Probe Signaling Messages
Figure 1: Schematic Accounting Architecture
In this context two problems need to be solved, such as
o measurement data needs to be transported from the monitoring
probes to the accounting entities. Accounting data needs to be
transported from the accounting entities to the collector.
[I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol] is a protocol suitable for this task.
o The accounting entities need to be configured and coordinated.
This document suggests the usage of NSIS for this purpose.
In a flexible environment, it must be possible to dynamically
configure and coordinate accounting entities rather than hardwiring
them. Configuration and coordination includes e.g. what entities do
the accounting for a particular flow or session, providing triggers
Dressler, et al. draft-dressler-nsis-accounting-nslp-00.txt [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Accounting NSLP July 2004
to start or stop accounting, distribution of identifiers for the
collector, flows or user, and so forth. The IPFIX WG has identified
the needs for such configurations but has defined the work currently
as "out of the scope" [I-D.ietf-ipfix-reqs]. RADIUS and DIAMETER
allow for configuration of single accounting entities. Nevertheless
configuration and coordination of distributed accounting entities is
not supported. Since accounting entities usually are found along the
path of the data they are accounting, a path-coupled signaling
protocol for distributing such information seems useful. In Section
4 we discuss in more detail two possible applications for
configuration of accounting entities, namely QoS monitoring and
charging.
4. Scenarios
This section describes two scenarios for the usage of the Accounting
NSLP: Charging and QoS monitoring
4.1 Charging
While flexible usage-based charging today is mainly a problem in
mobile telecommunication networks such as 3GPP, it is expected to
also play an important role in other networks in the future.
As a prerequisite to charging, accounting entities along the data
path independently need to collect accounting data for the same
session. For example, when streaming a video from an application
server to a WLAN user, accounting may be performed independently by
the application server, the WLAN access point and ingress nodes of
several transit networks. When a handover occurs yet other,
initially unforeseen, accounting entities become involved. Yet, the
user would like to be presented a single bill in the end. Even more
difficult, the user may wish to know the total costs in advance.
This implies accounting data collected (or estimated) by the
different accounting entities needs to be correlated and aggregated
in order to avoid the user pays duplicate fees. Accounting entities
need to know to what collector they must send their accounting data.
A further problem of data correlation is the identification of
related records by the collector.
Existing accounting concepts are based on static configuration of
accounting entities [Ref 3GPP?]. Currently there exists no mechanism
to provide dynamic discovery of accounting entities with a unique
correlation identifier related to one service.
Figure 2 shows an example where a data receiver expects data from a
data sender via two routers Router 1 and Router 2. The
administrative domain (referred as Accounting Domain) is responsible
Dressler, et al. draft-dressler-nsis-accounting-nslp-00.txt [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Accounting NSLP July 2004
for configuring accounting functionality at Router 1, Router 2 and at
the application server (i.e., data sender).
+------------------------------------------+
Data Receiver | Router 1 Router 2 Data Sender |
+-----------+ | +----+ +----+ +-----------+ |
|Application|<-----| |<-----| |<-----|Application| |
| +--+ | | |+--+| |+--+| | +--+ | |
| |AE| | | ||AE||<====>||AE||<====>| |AE| | |
| +--+ | | |+--+| |+--+| | +--+ | |
+-----------+ | +----+ +----+ +-----------+ |
| Accounting Domain |
+------------------------------------------+
+--+
|AE| = Accounting === = Signaling --- = Data Flow
+--+ Entity Messages
Figure 2: Signaling to configure accounting for later charging
Different configuration needs arise for different use cases. In the
case that a pure content charging scheme should be applied later,
only the content accessed is relevant for later charging. For this
case, only the AE at the Data Sender should be configured to register
the content accessed. All other AEs should be instructed to do
nothing since their accounting data will be discarded anyway.
In other cases, the situation can be different. For the case where a
mixed content and access charging should be applied, possibly due to
the need to account the expensive wireless access between the
receiver and Router 1, not only the content accessed but also the
data volume are relevant for later charging. For this case, the AE
at the Data Sender should be configured to register the content
accessed. And, the AE at R1 should be configured to register data
volume. All other AEs should do nothing.
4.2 QoS Monitoring
When a network can provide QoS to its users it is important to be
able to monitor whether the QoS provided matches the QoS initially
negotiated in the according service level agreement. Such monitoring
can be performed by monitoring probes and related accounting entities
on the data path. One possibility is installing and configuring
these probes once-and-for-all. It would, however, be more convenient
to be able to invoke the monitoring service on demand. Furthermore,
one may want to configure the accounting entities depending on the
current monitoring needs.
Dressler, et al. draft-dressler-nsis-accounting-nslp-00.txt [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Accounting NSLP July 2004
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| Administrative Domain A |
| |
| Ingress Node A probe 1 probe 2 Egress Node B |
| +-----------+ +----+ +----+ +-----------+ |
| | |=====>| |=====>| |=====>| | |
| | | | | | | | | |
---->| AE |----->| AE |----->| AE |----->| AE |---->
| | | | | | | | | |
| +-----------+ +----+ +----+ +-----------+ |
| |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
+--+
|AE| = Accounting === = Signaling --- = Data Flow
+--+ Entity Messages
Figure 3: Signaling to configure accounting for QoS monitoring
For example, network domain A negotiates a SLA with a neighboring
domain, guaranteeing a particular QoS for all packets entering at
ingress node A and leaving at egress node B. When the QoS guarantees
are configured, e.g. with the QoS NSLP, one node on the data path,
e.g. the ingress node, initiates the configuration of accounting
entities on the data path. Accounting data is used for monitoring
whether the QoS negotiated in the SLA corresponds to the QoS
delivered. For example, the transmission delay of flows can be
measured at several places and the total delay across the domain can
then be determined. The collected information is of interest for
both domain A and the neighboring domain.
4.3 Configuration information common to both scenarios
The configuration of accounting entities described in Section 4.1 and
Section 4.2 would include, among other things, the distribution of
the following information:
o which accounting entries have to register usage data
o what type of data to collect (e.g. count packets, measure delay
etc.)
o data related to what flows to collect
o which usage data need to be transferred from accounting entities
to a collector (i.e., flow identifier)
o the identity of the collector to which usage data is to be
delivered
o a correlation ID which allows the collector to correlate the flow
data arriving from different accounting entities
Dressler, et al. draft-dressler-nsis-accounting-nslp-00.txt [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Accounting NSLP July 2004
o description of the trigger when to start and stop accounting
5. Requirements
This section describes the requirements for an efficient signaling of
configuration parameters to accounting entities. We assume an
existing protocol to transport the collection of accounting data
(a) between the monitoring probe and the accounting entity and
(b) between the accounting entity and a collector.
The IPFIX protocol [I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol] has all the required
capabilities to fulfill the functionality required by (a). We also
assume that the monitoring probes and the accounting entities may be
collocated.
5.1 General requirements
5.1.1 Extensibility
The NSLP accounting specification should be extensible to future
technologies. This includes the extensibility of the configuration
of the accounting entities.
Extensibility is also required concerning the data model. This
relates to the parameter exchange between the accounting entities and
the interface between the accounting entities and the monitoring
probes and the collector, respectively.
5.1.2 Scalability
Multiple accounting entities may be included in the overall
accounting task. Also, they can be geographically widespread. The
configuration process must be able to efficiently support hundreds of
accounting entities and to address them individually.
5.1.3 Interoperability
A number of accounting solutions may be defined in future in the
IETF. Additionally, accounting solutions are specified by other
organizations, e.g. the 3GPP. The accounting NSLP should bridge
between these solutions. The communication between the Internet
accounting and monitoring and other accounting entities may be
organized using proxy or agent based systems.
5.1.4 Security
Besides the discussion of the security considerations at the end of
this document, it should be clarified that the process of configuring
Dressler, et al. draft-dressler-nsis-accounting-nslp-00.txt [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Accounting NSLP July 2004
an Internet-wide accounting system is a very sensitive task.
Therefore, arrangements should be taken to secure this process. It
has to be noticed that this configuration step can pass domain
borders as well as technology borders.
5.2 Flexible accounting model
The accounting NSLP should support a flexible accounting model.
Depending on the accounting scenario, different information must be
exchanged between the accounting entities. For example, if the
accounting is used for charging purposes, pricing information might
be required at each accounting entity in order to verify account
balances etc. Therefore, the accounting model should be separated
from the configuration process and the associated protocols.
5.3 Distinguishing flows
A primary capability of the accounting function is the identification
of data packets belonging to different applications or users. The
configuration of the accounting entities should take this parameter
into account. During the service life-time, statistics describing
the resource consumptions of this service are gathered and exported
to a collector. The accounting configuration should be flexible to
allow the description of multiple services and associated flows
(scalability).
Flows belonging to one application - the accounting configuration
should allow the aggregation of accounting information for streams
belonging to a particular application, e.g. a multimedia
transmission with associated data transfers (web pages).
Flows belonging to one user - the accounting configuration should
allow the aggregation of accounting data for all streams belonging to
an individual user regardless of the used applications.
5.4 Flexible data collection
After the gathering of accounting data, it has to be transferred to a
collector. We propose to employ the IPFIX protocol
[I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol] for this task. The IPFIX information model
[I-D.ietf-ipfix-info] is very flexible for such application.
Depending on the accounting scenario, a single collector can be
responsible for collecting and processing all accounting information.
Nevertheless, there are scenarios where multiple collectors have to
be employed.
Dressler, et al. draft-dressler-nsis-accounting-nslp-00.txt [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Accounting NSLP July 2004
5.5 Location of accounting entities
The accounting entities are located on the data path, i.e., on the
path of the data that should be accounted. The configuration of
accounting entities can be initiated anywhere on this path. It is an
open problem how the initiator and receiver of the accounting
configuration signaling are determined.
Accounting entities can be located anywhere along the data path,
e.g., only in a subset of the path, or only at start and end point
etc.
5.6 Location of the collector
The collector MAY be located on the data path. In this case, the
collector SHOULD use the accounting NSLP to inform all involved
accounting entities about its location.
The collector MAY be shifted during the accounting process. The
handover process is not part of this document. The identification of
the new collector SHOULD be done using the same mechanisms as for the
first identification.
5.7 Configuration protocol
5.7.1 Configuration of accounting entities
The protocol MUST be able to configure accounting entities, e.g. to
control which information needs to be collected and which entities
are allocated which task.
Protocol messages need to be interpreted only by accounting entities.
5.7.2 Selection of accounting entities
The protocol should provide functionality to select accounting
entities that that become part of an accounting process by specifying
e.g. their type or total number.
5.7.3 Accounting Configuration State installation and removal
The protocol MUST be able to install accounting state and also to
remove it. Furthermore, accounting state SHOULD be soft state in
order to cope with rerouting and device failure.
5.7.4 Initiation and maintenance of accounting tasks
The protocol MUST be able to transport a trigger to start and stop of
Dressler, et al. draft-dressler-nsis-accounting-nslp-00.txt [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Accounting NSLP July 2004
collection of accounting data, a correlation identifier that allows
the collector to correlate accounting data received from different
accounting entities, and a trigger to send off accounting data to the
collector.
The triggering source of the initiation is out of scope of this
document.
The protocol MUST be able to react to rerouting of the packets that
are to be accounted. This may imply including new accounting
entities and removing some.
5.7.5 Collection of information on available accounting entities
The protocol SHOULD be able to collect information on accounting
entities and their capabilities without actually installing any
state.
5.8 Accounting across domains
Accounting configuration MUST be possible across administrative
domains. There are challenging security aspects in this goal.
6. Applicability of NSIS
According to the NSIS framework [I-D.ietf-nsis-fw], the NSIS protocol
suite can support various signaling applications that need to install
or manipulate state in NSIS-aware network nodes (NEs) along the path
of a data flow. Thereby, not every network node has to be NSIS
aware. The signaling protocol messages however do not need to run
all the way between the data flow endpoints. Rather, the NSIS
initiating NE and the NSIS receiving NE can be located anywhere along
the data path. The NSIS protocol suite has two layers. The lower
transport layer, NTLP, is responsible for transporting NSIS messages
and is used by all NSIS signaling application. The NSIS signaling
applications are located in the upper layer and are called NSLPs.
Examples of NSLPs that are currently being specified are QoS NSLP
[I-D.ietf-nsis-qos-nslp] for signaling QoS reservations and the NAT /
Firewall NSLP [I-D.ietf-nsis-nat-nslp] for configuring Network
Address Translaters and firewalls along the data path.
The problem of signaling to configure accounting entities seems to be
well suited to be solved with a novel NSIS signaling application, the
Accounting NSLP. A similar idea was first reported in
[I-D.courturier-nsis-sqm]. The Accounting NSLP needs to be able to
install, modify and remove accounting configuration related state.
As illustrated in previous sections, accounting entities - which are
to become Accounting NSLP Entities - are naturally located on the
Dressler, et al. draft-dressler-nsis-accounting-nslp-00.txt [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Accounting NSLP July 2004
data path where accounting has to be performed. Furthermore,
signaling for accounting configuration needs the flexibility provided
by NSIS to commence and end on arbitrary accounting entities. Any
accounting entity on the data path has to be able to initiate
accounting configuration signaling. The selection of signaling
initiator and receiver depends on the configuration and on the
specific application environment. An Accounting NSLP, similar to QoS
NSLP, would be agnostic of the actual configuration information it
carries. Hence it can be used for any accounting application, such
as QoS monitoring and charging. In fact, it currently seems that
some of the QoS NSLP message structure (RESERVE (i.e. CONFIGURE),
RESPONSE, QUERY and NOTIFY) could be reused.
Possible interworking between the Accounting NSLP and the QoS NSLP
needs to be investigated. In some cases it seems to make sense that
a reservation of resources via the QoS NSLP would trigger the
configuration and initiation of accounting for usage of these
resources. Furthermore, accounting can be terminated as soon as the
QoS reservation is torn down.
7. Security considerations
The process of configuring entities to start and stop accounting and
to transmit collected resource records to a third party introduces
security challenges.
First, the application domain needs to be considered. If a malicous
user is capable of stop accounting of requested services then fraud
is possible. It must not be possible to configure accounting
entities in such a way that other users are charged for the usage of
a service which they have not used.
Second, interworking between multiple domains causes authorization
problems. For example, network domain A might want to collect
resource records in network domain B to offer the user with a more
consistent bill covering both the price of the network resource
consumption and the application usage. A high degree of trust is
required to allow other domains to configure accounting entities and
to collect the resource usage of particular users. In any case it
needs to be prevented that arbitrary resource records associated with
users are collected by other domains. It has to be noted that the
process of charging involves other states than only the collection of
usage records.
Third, it must be avoided that a denial of service attack is mounted
on either Collectors or Accounting Entities. Accounting Entities can
be subject to DoS attacks if a large number of resource have to be
collected or 'unlimited' per-flow states are created. Collectors can
Dressler, et al. draft-dressler-nsis-accounting-nslp-00.txt [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Accounting NSLP July 2004
be subject to DoS attacks if they are flooded with accounting
records.
The introduced mechanisms allow a number of entities to configure
accounting entities. This might introduce some weaknesses compared
to a centralized approach where a single entity (or a few selected
entities) are authorized to perform this action. The authorization
configuration of a decentralized approach is more difficult to secure
since a single malicious entity is able to start/stop/modify the
process of accounting record collection within a single domain or
even beyond this domain.
8. References
8.1 Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", March 1997.
8.2 Informative References
[RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
June 1999.
[RFC2720] Brownlee, N., "Traffic Flow Measurement: Meter MIB",
October 1999.
[RFC2865] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A. and W. Simpson,
"Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC
2865, June 2000.
[RFC2866] Rigney, C., "RADIUS Accounting", RFC 2866, June 2000.
[RFC3588] Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G. and J.
Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, September 2003.
[I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol]
Claise, B., Fullmer, M., Calato, P. and R. Penno, "IPFIX
Protocol Specifications", draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-03
(work in progress), January 2004.
[I-D.ietf-ipfix-info]
Calato, P., Meyer, J. and J. Quittek, "Information Model
for IP Flow Information Export", draft-ietf-ipfix-info-03
(work in progress), February 2004.
[I-D.ietf-ipfix-reqs]
Quittek, J., Zseby, T., Claise, B. and S. Zander,
Dressler, et al. draft-dressler-nsis-accounting-nslp-00.txt [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Accounting NSLP July 2004
"Requirements for IP Flow Information Export",
draft-ietf-ipfix-reqs-16 (work in progress), June 2004.
[I-D.ietf-nsis-qos-nslp]
Van den Bosch, S., Karagiannis, G. and A. McDonald, "NSLP
for Quality-of-Service signaling",
draft-ietf-nsis-qos-nslp-03 (work in progress), May 2004.
[I-D.ietf-nsis-fw]
Hancock, R., Freytsis, I., Karagiannis, G., Loughney, J.
and S. Van den Bosch, "Next Steps in Signaling:
Framework", draft-ietf-nsis-fw-05 (work in progress),
October 2003.
[I-D.ietf-nsis-nat-nslp]
Stiemerling, M., Tschofenig, H., Martin, M. and C. Aoun,
"NAT/Firewall NSIS Signaling Layer Protocol (NSLP)",
draft-ietf-nsis-nslp-natfw-02 (work in progress), May
2004.
[I-D.courturier-nsis-sqm]
Courturier, A., "Signaling for QoS Measurement",
draft-courturier-nsis-measure-00 (work in progress), May
2003.
[I-D.ietf-aaa-diameter-cc]
Mattila, L., Koskinen, J., Stura, M., Loughney, J. and H.
Hakala, "Diameter Credit-control Application",
draft-ietf-aaa-diameter-cc-05 (work in progress), May
2004.
[I-D.draft-lior-radius-prepaid-extensions-03]
Lior, A., Yegani, P., Chowdhury, K., Madour, L. and Y. Li,
"PrePaid Extensions to Remote Authentication Dial-In User
Service (RADIUS)", draft-lior-radius-prepaid-extensions-03
(work in progress), February 2004.
[TS32.240]
3GPP, "Charging Architecture and Principles", 3GPP
Technical Specification TS32.240, December 2003.
Dressler, et al. draft-dressler-nsis-accounting-nslp-00.txt [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Accounting NSLP July 2004
Authors' Addresses
Falko Dressler
University of Tuebingen
Wilhelm-Schickard-Institute for Computer Science
Auf der Morgenstelle 10C
Tuebingen 71076
Germany
Phone: +49 7071 29-70522
EMail: dressler@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de
URI: http://net.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/
Georg Carle
University of Tuebingen
Wilhelm-Schickard-Institute for Computer Science
Auf der Morgenstelle 10C
Tuebingen 71076
Germany
Phone: +49 7071 29-70505
EMail: carle@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de
URI: http://net.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/
Changpeng Fan
Siemens AG
Siemensdamm 62
Berlin 13627
Germany
Phone: +49 30 386-36361
EMail: changpeng.fan@siemens.com
Cornelia Kappler
Siemens AG
Siemensdamm 62
Berlin 13627
Germany
Phone: +49 30 386-32894
EMail: cornelia.kappler@siemens.com
Dressler, et al. draft-dressler-nsis-accounting-nslp-00.txt [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Accounting NSLP July 2004
Hannes Tschofenig
Siemens AG
Otto-Hahn-Ring 6
Munich, Bayern 81739
Germany
EMail: Hannes.Tschofenig@siemens.com
Dressler, et al. draft-dressler-nsis-accounting-nslp-00.txt [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Accounting NSLP July 2004
Intellectual Property Statement
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.
Disclaimer of Validity
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 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.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). 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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Dressler, et al. draft-dressler-nsis-accounting-nslp-00.txt [Page 18]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.120, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/