1 / 8

Inter-Domain Policy Architecture

Model for policy-based network authorization system, focusing on bilateral negotiations in inter-domain scenarios. It emphasizes a simple, scalable, and tractable approach used in IPHighway’s OPS policy system. The concept rejects N-Way negotiations for efficiency. A Stock Brokerage Analogy is used to explain cascading bilateral transactions for end-to-end service. The model prioritizes enforceability and responsibility assumption by Grantor.

claracrocker
Download Presentation

Inter-Domain Policy Architecture

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Inter-Domain Policy Architecture Shai Herzog IETF-47 AAA Arch

  2. Goal • Describe a model for • Policy based • Network authorization system • Inter-Domain negotiations • Scalable and Tractable • Simple and Practical approach • Used in IPHighway’s OPS policy system

  3. Base Assumptions • Need E-2-E “service” • Involving any number of intermediate domains • Explicit rather than Implicit service requests • N-Way negotiations ruled out • N-Way negotiations (all domains along data path) • Is non-scalable exponentially! • Cannot be effectively enforced. • Stay within the bilateral agreement model

  4. Why not N-Way? A C B … May continue forever…

  5. Bilateral Negotiations Policy Server Policy Server COPS? Diameter? B A RSVP?

  6. Bilateral Interface • Request/Response transactions • Grantor and Grantee • With contractual relationship • Persistent connection • Grantee describes desired service • Grantor approves, modifies, rejects or revokes service • Grantor assumes responsibility for the service • Cascading bilateral transactions achieve E-2-E

  7. Stock Brokerage Analogy • Analogous Market tools: • Futures market • Margin trading • Options, short, call, put, etc. • …Selling stocks you don’t have (yet ;-) • Service is (almost) always possible • Long term adjustments are always possible • The issue is the price (diverting to other service providers). • Service must be revocable

  8. Conclusions • Model is simple and scalable • Easily enforced • Grantor assumes full responsibility • In N-Way negotiations no one assumes responsibility! (End user deals with multiple domains) • E-2-E guarantee is probable not absolute • Policy Translation between domain may be lossy

More Related