draft-ietf-ccamp-dpm-07.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-dpm-08.txt 
Network Working Group W. Sun, Ed. Network Working Group W. Sun, Ed.
Internet-Draft SJTU Internet-Draft SJTU
Intended status: Standards Track G. Zhang, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track G. Zhang, Ed.
Expires: February 22, 2013 CATR Expires: March 5, 2013 CATR
August 21, 2012 September 1, 2012
Label Switched Path (LSP) Data Path Delay Metrics in Generalized MPLS/ Label Switched Path (LSP) Data Path Delay Metrics in Generalized MPLS/
MPLS-TE Networks MPLS-TE Networks
draft-ietf-ccamp-dpm-07.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-dpm-08.txt
Abstract Abstract
When setting up a label switched path (LSP) in Generalized MPLS and When setting up a label switched path (LSP) in Generalized MPLS and
MPLS/TE networks, the completion of the signaling process does not MPLS/TE networks, the completion of the signaling process does not
necessarily mean that the cross connection along the LSP have been necessarily mean that the cross connection along the LSP have been
programmed accordingly and in a timely manner. Meanwhile, the programmed accordingly and in a timely manner. Meanwhile, the
completion of signaling process may be used by applications as completion of signaling process may be used by LSP users or
indication that data path has become usable. The existence of the applications that control their use as indication that data path has
inconsistency between the signaling messages and cross connection become usable. The existence of the inconsistency between the
programing, and the possible failure of cross connection programming, signaling messages and cross connection programing, and the possible
if not properly treated, will result in data loss or even application failure of cross connection programming, if not properly treated,
failure. Characterization of this performance can thus help will result in data loss or even application failure.
designers to improve the application model and to build more robust Characterization of this performance can thus help designers to
applications. This document defines a series of performance metrics improve the way in which LSPs are used and to make applications or
to evaluate the connectivity of data path in the signaling process. tools that depend on and use LSPs more robust. This document defines
a series of performance metrics to evaluate the connectivity of data
path in the signaling process.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 22, 2013. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 5, 2013.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
skipping to change at page 2, line 17 skipping to change at page 2, line 19
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Overview of Performance Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Overview of Performance Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Terms used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Terms used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. A singleton Definition for RRFD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. A singleton Definition for RRFD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.2. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3. Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.3. Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.4. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.4. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.5. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.5. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.6. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.6. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.7. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.7. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. A singleton Definition for RSRD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. A singleton Definition for RSRD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.2. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.2. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.3. Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.3. Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.4. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.4. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.5. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.5. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.6. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.6. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.7. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6.7. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. A singleton Definition for PRFD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7. A singleton Definition for PRFD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.2. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7.2. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.3. Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7.3. Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.4. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7.4. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.5. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7.5. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.6. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7.6. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.7. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7.7. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. A singleton Definition for PSFD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8. A singleton Definition for PSFD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.2. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8.2. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.3. Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8.3. Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.4. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8.4. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.5. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8.5. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.6. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8.6. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.7. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 8.7. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9. A singleton Definition for PSRD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 9. A singleton Definition for PSRD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 9.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9.2. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 9.2. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9.3. Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 9.3. Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9.4. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 9.4. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9.5. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 9.5. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9.6. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 9.6. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9.7. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 9.7. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10. A Definition for Samples of Data Path Delay . . . . . . . . . 23 10. A Definition for Samples of Data Path Delay . . . . . . . . . 24
10.1. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 10.1. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10.2. Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 10.2. Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10.3. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 10.3. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10.4. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 10.4. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10.5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 10.5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10.6. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 10.6. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10.7. Typical testing cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 10.7. Typical testing cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10.7.1. With No LSP in the Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 10.7.1. With No LSP in the Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10.7.2. With a Number of LSPs in the Network . . . . . . . . 24 10.7.2. With a Number of LSPs in the Network . . . . . . . . 25
11. Some Statistics Definitions for Metrics to Report . . . . . . 26 11. Some Statistics Definitions for Metrics to Report . . . . . . 27
11.1. The Minimum of Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 11.1. The Minimum of Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11.2. The Median of Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 11.2. The Median of Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11.3. The percentile of Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 11.3. The percentile of Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11.4. The Failure Probability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 11.4. The Failure Probability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11.4.1. Failure Count . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 11.4.1. Failure Count . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11.4.2. Failure Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 11.4.2. Failure Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
14. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 14. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Label Switched Paths (LSPs) are established, controlled, and
allocated for use by management tools or directly by the components
that use them. In this document we call such management tools and
the components that use LSPs "applications". Such applications may
be Network Management Stations (NMSs), hardware or software
components that forward data onto virtual links, programs or tools
that use dedicated links, or any other user of an LSP.
Ideally, the completion of the signaling process means that the Ideally, the completion of the signaling process means that the
signaled label switched path (LSP) is ready to carry traffic. signaled LSP is ready to carry traffic. However, in actual
However, in actual implementations, vendors may choose to program the implementations, vendors may choose to program the cross connection
cross connection in a pipelined manner, so that the overall LSP in a pipelined manner, so that the overall LSP provisioning delay can
provisioning delay can be reduced. In such situations, the data path be reduced. In such situations, the data path may not be ready for
may not be ready for use instantly after the signaling process use instantly after the signaling process completes. Implementation
completes. Implementation deficiency may also cause the deficiency may also cause the inconsistency in between the signaling
inconsistency in between the signaling process and data path process and data path provisioning. For example, if the data plane
provisioning. For example, if the data plane fails to program the fails to program the cross connection accordingly but does not manage
cross connection accordingly but does not manage to report this to to report this to the control plane, the signaling process may
the control plane, the signaling process may complete successfully complete successfully while the corresponding data path will never
while the corresponding data path will never become functional at become functional at all.
all.
On the other hand, the completion of the signaling process may be On the other hand, the completion of the signaling process may be
used in many cases as indication of data path connectivity. For used in many cases as indication of data path connectivity. For
example, when invoking through User Network Interface (UNI), a client example, when invoking through User Network Interface (UNI)
device or an application may use the reception of the correct RESV [RFC4208], a client device or an application may use the reception of
message as indication that data path is fully functional and start to the correct RESV message as indication that data path is fully
transmit traffic. This will result in data loss or even application functional and start to transmit traffic. This will result in data
failure. loss or even application failure.
Although RSVP(-TE) specifications have suggested that the cross Although RSVP(-TE) specifications have suggested that the cross
connections are programmed before signaling messages are propagated connections are programmed before signaling messages are propagated
upstream, it is still worthwhile to verify the conformance of an upstream, it is still worthwhile to verify the conformance of an
implementation and measure the delay, when necessary. implementation and measure the delay, when necessary.
This document defines a series of performance metrics to evaluate the This document defines a series of performance metrics to evaluate the
connectivity of data path during the signaling process. The metrics connectivity of data path during the signaling process. The metrics
defined in this document complements the control plane metrics defined in this document complement the control plane metrics defined
defined in [RFC5814]. These metrics can be used to verify the in [RFC5814]. These metrics can be used to verify the conformance of
conformance of implementations against related specifications, as implementations against related specifications, as elaborated in
elaborated in [RFC6383]. They also can be used to build more robust [RFC6383]. They also can be used to build more robust applications.
applications.
2. Conventions Used in This Document 2. Conventions Used in This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. Overview of Performance Metrics 3. Overview of Performance Metrics
In this memo, we define five performance metrics to characterize the In this memo, we define five performance metrics to characterize the
skipping to change at page 23, line 10 skipping to change at page 24, line 10
o If no error free signal is received within a reasonable period of o If no error free signal is received within a reasonable period of
time by the ingress node, the metric value is deemed to be time by the ingress node, the metric value is deemed to be
undefined. undefined.
10. A Definition for Samples of Data Path Delay 10. A Definition for Samples of Data Path Delay
In Section 5, Section 6, Section 7, Section 8 and Section 9, we In Section 5, Section 6, Section 7, Section 8 and Section 9, we
define the singleton metrics of data path delay. Now we define how define the singleton metrics of data path delay. Now we define how
to get one particular sample of such delay. Sampling is to select a to get one particular sample of such delay. Sampling is to select a
particular potion of singleton values of the given parameters. Like particular portion of singleton values of the given parameters. Like
in [RFC2330], we use Poisson sampling as an example. in [RFC2330], we use Poisson sampling as an example.
10.1. Metric Name 10.1. Metric Name
Type <X> Data path delay sample, where X is either RRFD, RSRD, PRFD, Type <X> Data path delay sample, where X is either RRFD, RSRD, PRFD,
PSFD and PSRD. PSFD and PSRD.
10.2. Metric Parameters 10.2. Metric Parameters
o ID0, the ingress LSR ID o ID0, the ingress LSR ID
skipping to change at page 31, line 32 skipping to change at page 32, line 32
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
15.2. Informative References 15.2. Informative References
[RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis, [RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,
"Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330,
May 1998. May 1998.
[RFC4208] Swallow, G., Drake, J., Ishimatsu, H., and Y. Rekhter,
"Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) User-
Network Interface (UNI): Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Support for the Overlay
Model", RFC 4208, October 2005.
[RFC5814] Sun, W. and G. Zhang, "Label Switched Path (LSP) Dynamic [RFC5814] Sun, W. and G. Zhang, "Label Switched Path (LSP) Dynamic
Provisioning Performance Metrics in Generalized MPLS Provisioning Performance Metrics in Generalized MPLS
Networks", RFC 5814, March 2010. Networks", RFC 5814, March 2010.
[RFC6383] Shiomoto, K. and A. Farrel, "Advice on When It Is Safe to [RFC6383] Shiomoto, K. and A. Farrel, "Advice on When It Is Safe to
Start Sending Data on Label Switched Paths Established Start Sending Data on Label Switched Paths Established
Using RSVP-TE", RFC 6383, September 2011. Using RSVP-TE", RFC 6383, September 2011.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
 End of changes. 27 change blocks. 
105 lines changed or deleted 118 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/