draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-00.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-01.txt 
CCAMP Working Group Zafar Ali CCAMP Working Group Zafar Ali
Internet Draft George Swallow Internet Draft George Swallow
Intended status: Standard Track Clarence Filsfils Intended status: Standard Track Clarence Filsfils
Expires: August 11, 2013 Matt Hartley Expires: August 24, 2013 Matt Hartley
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
Kenji Kumaki Kenji Kumaki
KDDI Corporation KDDI Corporation
Ruediger Kunze Ruediger Kunze
Deutsche Telekom AG Deutsche Telekom AG
February 12, 2013 February 25, 2013
Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
extension for recording TE Metric of a Label Switched Path extension for recording TE Metric of a Label Switched Path
draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-00.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-01.txt
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 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts
as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in
progress." progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 11, 2013. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 24, 2013.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document
document authors. All rights reserved. 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
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these
publication of this document. Please review these documents documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without in the Simplified BSD License.
warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10,
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-01.txt
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s)
controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an
be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such
works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards
except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF
into languages other than English. Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
translate it into languages other than English.
Abstract Abstract
There are many scenarios in which Traffic Engineering (TE) metrics There are many scenarios in which Traffic Engineering (TE) metrics
such as cost, latency and latency variation associated with a such as cost, latency and latency variation associated with a
Forwarding Adjacency (FA) or Routing Adjacency (RA) Label Switched Forwarding Adjacency (FA) or Routing Adjacency (RA) Label Switched
Path (LSP) are not available to the ingress and egress nodes. This Path (LSP) are not available to the ingress and egress nodes. This
draft provides extensions for the Resource ReserVation Protocol- draft provides extensions for the Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for the support of the discovery of Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for the support of the discovery of
cost, latency and latency variation of an LSP. cost, latency and latency variation of an LSP.
Conventions used in this document 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 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in
this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119
[RFC2119]. [RFC2119].
Table of Contents Table of Contents
Copyright Notice...............................................1 Copyright Notice..................................................1
1. Introduction................................................3 1. Introduction...................................................3
2. RSVP-TE Requirement.........................................3 2. RSVP-TE Requirement............................................3
2.1. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Collection Indication....4 2.1. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Collection Indication.......4
2.2. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Collection...............4 2.2. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Collection..................4
2.3. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Update...................4 2.3. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Update......................4
3. RSVP-TE signaling extensions................................4 3. RSVP-TE signaling extensions...................................4
3.1. Cost Collection Flag.........................................4 3.1. Cost Collection Flag............................................4
3.2. Latency Collection Flag......................................5 3.2. Latency Collection Flag.........................................5
3.3. Latency Variation Collection Flag............................5 3.3. Latency Variation Collection Flag...............................5
3.4. Cost subobject...............................................5 3.4. Cost subobject..................................................5
3.5. Latency subobject............................................6 3.5. Latency subobject...............................................6
3.6. Latency Variation subobject..................................7 3.6. Latency Variation subobject.....................................7
3.7. Signaling Procedures.........................................7 3.7. Signaling Procedures............................................7
4. Security Considerations.....................................9 4. Security Considerations........................................9
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-00.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-01.txt
5. IANA Considerations.........................................9 5. IANA Considerations............................................9
5.1. RSVP Attribute Bit Flags.....................................9 5.1. RSVP Attribute Bit Flags........................................9
5.2. New RSVP error sub-code.....................................10 5.2. New RSVP error sub-code........................................10
6. Acknowledgments............................................10 6. Acknowledgments...............................................10
7. References.................................................11 7. References....................................................11
7.1. Normative References........................................11 7.1. Normative References...........................................11
7.2. Informative References......................................11 7.2. Informative References.........................................11
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
There are many scenarios in packet and optical networks where There are many scenarios in packet and optical networks where
the route information of an LSP may not be provided to the the route information of an LSP may not be provided to the
ingress node for confidentiality reasons and/ or the ingress ingress node for confidentiality reasons and/ or the ingress
node may not run the same routing instance as the intermediate node may not run the same routing instance as the intermediate
nodes traversed by the path. In such scenarios, the ingress node nodes traversed by the path. In such scenarios, the ingress node
cannot determine the cost, latency and latency variation cannot determine the cost, latency and latency variation
properties of the LSP's route. Similarly, in Generalized Multi- properties of the LSP's route. Similarly, in Generalized Multi-
skipping to change at page 4, line 4 skipping to change at page 4, line 4
attributes of an FA or RA LSP. This draft provides extensions to attributes of an FA or RA LSP. This draft provides extensions to
the Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) the Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
for the support of the automatic discovery of these attributes. for the support of the automatic discovery of these attributes.
2. RSVP-TE Requirement 2. RSVP-TE Requirement
This section outlines RSVP-TE requirements for the support of This section outlines RSVP-TE requirements for the support of
the automatic discovery of cost, latency and latency variation the automatic discovery of cost, latency and latency variation
attributes of an LSP. These requirements are very similar to the attributes of an LSP. These requirements are very similar to the
requirement of discovering the Shared Risk Link Groups (SRLGs) requirement of discovering the Shared Risk Link Groups (SRLGs)
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-00.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-01.txt
associated with the route taken by an LSP [DRAFT-SRLG- associated with the route taken by an LSP [DRAFT-SRLG-
RECORDING]. RECORDING].
2.1. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Collection Indication 2.1. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Collection Indication
The ingress and egress nodes of the LSP must be capable of The ingress node of the LSP must be capable of indicating
indicating whether the cost, latency and latency variation whether the cost, latency and latency variation attributes of
attributes of the LSP should be collected during the signaling the LSP should be collected during the signaling procedure of
procedure of setting up the LSP. No cost, latency or latency setting up the LSP. No cost, latency or latency variation
variation information is collected without an explicit request information is collected without an explicit request being made
being made by the ingress node. by the ingress node.
2.2. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Collection 2.2. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Collection
If requested, cost, latency and latency variation is If requested, cost, latency and latency variation is
collected during the setup of an LSP. The endpoints of the LSP collected during the setup of an LSP. The endpoints of the LSP
may use the collected information and use it for routing, may use the collected information for routing, flooding and TE
flooding and TE link configuration purposes. link configuration and other purposes.
2.3. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Update 2.3. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Update
When the cost, latency and latency variation property of a TE When the cost, latency and latency variation property of a TE
link along the route of a LSP for which that property was link along the route of a LSP for which that property was
collected changes, e.g., if the administrator changes cost of a collected changes, e.g., if the administrator changes cost of a
TE link, the node where the change occurred needs to be capable TE link, the node where the change occurred needs to be capable
of updating the cost, latency and latency variation information of updating the cost, latency and latency variation information
of the path and signaling this to the end-points. Similarly, if of the path and signaling this to the end-points. Similarly, if
a path segment of the LSP is rerouted, the endpoints of the re- a path segment of the LSP is rerouted, the endpoints of the re-
routed segment need to be capable of updating the cost, latency routed segment need to be capable of updating the cost, latency
and latency variation information of the path. Any node which and latency variation information of the path. Any node, which
adds cost, latency or latency variation information to an LSP adds cost, latency or latency variation information to an LSP
during initial setup must signal changes to these values to both during initial setup, needs to signal changes to these values to
endpoints. both endpoints.
3. RSVP-TE signaling extensions 3. RSVP-TE signaling extensions
3.1. Cost Collection Flag 3.1. Cost Collection Flag
In order to indicate that cost collection is desired, a new In order to indicate that cost collection is desired, a new
flag in the Attribute Flags TLV which can be carried in an flag in the Attribute Flags TLV, which can be carried in an
LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Objects is required: LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Objects, is required:
Cost Collection flag (to be assigned by IANA, recommended bit - Cost Collection flag (to be assigned by IANA, recommended bit
position 11) position 11)
The Cost Collection flag is meaningful in a Path message. If The Cost Collection flag is meaningful in a Path message. If
the Cost Collection flag is set to 1, the transit nodes SHOULD the Cost Collection flag is set to 1, the transit nodes SHOULD
report the cost information in the Path Record Route Object report the cost information in the Path Record Route Object
(RRO) and the Resv RRO. (RRO) and the Resv RRO.
The procedure for processing the Attribute Flags TLV follows The procedure for processing the Attribute Flags TLV follows
[RFC5420]. [RFC5420].
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-00.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-01.txt
3.2. Latency Collection Flag 3.2. Latency Collection Flag
In order to indicate that latency collection is desired, a In order to indicate that latency collection is desired, a
new flag in the Attribute Flags TLV which can be carried in an new flag in the Attribute Flags TLV, which can be carried in an
LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object is required: LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object, is required:
Latency Collection flag (to be assigned by IANA, recommended bit - Latency Collection flag (to be assigned by IANA, recommended
position 12) bit position 12)
The Latency Collection flag is meaningful on a Path message. The Latency Collection flag is meaningful in a Path message.
If the Latency Collection flag is set to 1, the transit nodes If the Latency Collection flag is set to 1, the transit nodes
SHOULD report the latency information in the Path RRO and the SHOULD report the latency information in the Path RRO
Resv RRO. (ROUTE_RECORD Object) and the Resv RRO.
The procedure for the processing the Attribute Flags TLV follows The procedure for the processing the Attribute Flags TLV follows
[RFC5420]. [RFC5420].
3.3. Latency Variation Collection Flag 3.3. Latency Variation Collection Flag
In order to indicate that latency variation collection is In order to indicate that latency variation collection is
desired, a new flag in the Attribute Flags TLV which can be desired, a new flag in the Attribute Flags TLV, which can be
carried in an LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object carried in an LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object,
is required: is required:
Latency Variation Collection flag (to be assigned by IANA, Latency Variation Collection flag (to be assigned by IANA,
recommended bit position 13) recommended bit position 13)
The Latency Variation Collection flag is meaningful on a Path The Latency Variation Collection flag is meaningful in a Path
message. If the Latency Variation Collection flag is set to 1, message. If the Latency Variation Collection flag is set to 1,
the transit nodes SHOULD report the latency variation the transit nodes SHOULD report the latency variation
information in the Path RRO and the Resv RRO. information in the Path RRO and the Resv RRO.
The procedure for the processing the Attribute Flags TLV follows The procedure for the processing the Attribute Flags TLV follows
[RFC5420]. [RFC5420].
3.4. Cost subobject 3.4. Cost Subobject
A new cost subobject is defined for the RRO to record the A new cost subobject is defined for the RRO to record the
cost information of the LSP. Its format is similar to the RRO cost information of the LSP. Its format is similar to the RRO
subobjects defined in [RFC3209]. subobjects (ROUTE_RECORD sub-object) defined in [RFC3209].
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Reserved (must be zero) | | Type | Length | Reserved (must be zero) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| COST Value | | COST Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: The type of the subobject, to be assigned by IANA Type: The type of the subobject, to be assigned by IANA
(recommended value 35). (recommended value 35).
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-00.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-01.txt
Length: The Length value is set to 8. Length: The Length value is set to 8.
Reserved: This field is reserved for future use. It MUST be Reserved: This field is reserved for future use. It MUST be
set to 0 when sent and MUST be ignored when received. set to 0 when sent and MUST be ignored when received.
Cost Value: Cost of the link along the route of the LSP. Cost Value: Cost of the link along the route of the LSP.
Based on the policy at the recording node, the cost value can Based on the policy at the recording node, the cost value can
be set to the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) metric or TE be set to the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) metric or TE
metric of the link in question. This approach has been taken metric of the link in question. This approach has been taken
to avoid defining a flag for each cost type in the Attribute- to avoid defining a flag for each cost type in the Attribute-
Flags TLV. It is assumed that, based on policy, all nodes Flags TLV. It is assumed that, based on policy, all nodes
reports the same cost-type and that the ingress and egress report the same cost-type and that the ingress and egress
nodes know the cost type reported in the RRO. nodes know the cost type reported in the RRO.
The rules for processing the LSP_ATTRIBUTES and The rules for processing the LSP_ATTRIBUTES and
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Objects and RRO are not changed. LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Objects and RRO are not changed.
3.5. Latency subobject 3.5. Latency Subobject
A new Latency subobject is defined for RRO to record the latency A new Latency subobject is defined for RRO to record the latency
information of the LSP. Its format is similar the RRO subobjects information of the LSP. Its format is similar the RRO subobjects
defined in [RFC3209]. defined in [RFC3209].
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Reserved (must be zero) | | Type | Length | Reserved (must be zero) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 6, line 50 skipping to change at page 6, line 50
Length: The Length value is set to 8. Length: The Length value is set to 8.
A-bit: This field represents the Anomalous (A) bit, as A-bit: This field represents the Anomalous (A) bit, as
defined in [DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC]. defined in [DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC].
Reserved: These fields are reserved for future use. They MUST Reserved: These fields are reserved for future use. They MUST
be set to 0 when sent and MUST be ignored when received. be set to 0 when sent and MUST be ignored when received.
Delay Value: This 24-bit field carries the average link delay Delay Value: This 24-bit field carries the average link delay
over a configurable interval in micro-seconds, encoded as an over a configurable interval in microseconds, encoded as an
integer value. When set to 0, it has not been measured. When integer value. When set to 0, it has not been measured. When
set to the maximum value 16,777,215 (16.777215 sec), then the set to the maximum value 16,777,215 (16.777215 sec), the
delay is at least that value and may be larger. delay is at least that value and may be larger.
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-00.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-01.txt
The rules for processing the LSP_ATTRIBUTES and The rules for processing the LSP_ATTRIBUTES and
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Objects and RRO are not changed. LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Objects and RRO are not changed.
3.6. Latency Variation subobject 3.6. Latency Variation Subobject
A new Latency Variation subobject is defined for RRO to A new Latency Variation subobject is defined for RRO to
record the Latency Variation information of the LSP. Its format record the Latency Variation information of the LSP. Its format
is similar to the RRO subobjects defined in [RFC3209]. is similar to the RRO subobjects defined in [RFC3209].
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Reserved (must be zero) | | Type | Length | Reserved (must be zero) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 7, line 51 skipping to change at page 7, line 51
The rules for processing the LSP_ATTRIBUTES and The rules for processing the LSP_ATTRIBUTES and
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Objects and RRO are not changed. LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Objects and RRO are not changed.
3.7. Signaling Procedures 3.7. Signaling Procedures
Typically, the ingress node learns the route of an LSP by Typically, the ingress node learns the route of an LSP by
adding a RRO in the Path message. If an ingress node also adding a RRO in the Path message. If an ingress node also
desires cost, latency and/or latency variation recording, it desires cost, latency and/or latency variation recording, it
sets the appropriate flag(s) in the Attribute Flags TLV of the sets the appropriate flag(s) in the Attribute Flags TLV of the
LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object. None, all or LSP_ATTRIBUTES (if recording is desired but not mandatory) or
any of the Cost Collection, Latency Collection or Latency LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES (if recording in mandatory) Object.
Variation Collection flags may be set in the Attribute Flags TLV None, all or any of the Cost Collection, Latency Collection or
of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object. Latency Variation Collection flags may be set in the Attribute
Flags TLV of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES
Object.
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-01.txt
When a node receives a Path message which carries an When a node receives a Path message which carries an
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object and the Cost, Latency and/or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object and the Cost, Latency and/or
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-00.txt
Latency Variation Collection Flag(s) is (are) set, if local Latency Variation Collection Flag(s) is (are) set, if local
policy disallows providing the requested information to the policy disallows providing the requested information to the
endpoints, the node MUST return a Path Error message with error endpoints, the node MUST return a Path Error message with error
code "Policy Control Failure (2)" and one of the following error code "Policy Control Failure (2)" and one of the following error
subcodes: subcodes:
. "Cost Recoding Rejected" (value to be assigned by IANA, . "Cost Recoding Rejected" (value to be assigned by IANA,
suggest value 105) if Cost Collection Flag is set. suggest value 105) if Cost Collection Flag is set.
. "Latency Recording Rejected" (value to be assigned by IANA, . "Latency Recording Rejected" (value to be assigned by IANA,
suggest value 106) if Latency Collection Flag is set. suggest value 106) if Latency Collection Flag is set.
. "Latency Variation Recording Rejected" (value to be assigned . "Latency Variation Recording Rejected" (value to be assigned
by IANA, suggest value 107) if Latency Variation Collection by IANA, suggest value 107) if Latency Variation Collection
Flag is set. Flag is set.
When a node receives a Path message which carries an When a node receives a Path message which carries an
LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object and the Cost, Latency and/or Latency LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object and the Cost, Latency and/or Latency
Variation Collection Flag(s) is (are) set, if local policy Variation Collection Flag(s) is (are) set, if local policy
disallows providing the requested information to the endpoints, disallows providing the requested information to the endpoints,
the node MAY return a Path Error as described for the the Path message SHOULD NOT rejected due to Metric recording
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object. restriction and the Path message is forwarded without the
appropriate sub-object(s) in the Path RRO.
If local policy permits the provision of the requested If local policy permits the recording of the requested
information, the processing node SHOULD add the requested information, the processing node SHOULD add the requested
subobject(s) with the cost, latency or/ and latency variation subobject(s) with the cost, latency or/ and latency variation
metric value(s) associated with the local hop to the Path RRO. metric value(s) associated with the local hop to the Path RRO.
It then forwards the Path message to the next node in the It then forwards the Path message to the next node in the
downstream direction. downstream direction.
Following the steps described above, the intermediate nodes Following the steps described above, the intermediate nodes
of the LSP provide the requested metric value(s) associated with of the LSP provide the requested metric value(s) associated with
the local hop in the Path RRO. When the Path message is received the local hop in the Path RRO. When the egress node receives the
by the egress node, the egress node can calculate the end-to-end Path message, it can calculate the end-to-end cost, latency
cost, latency and/or latency variation properties of the LSP. and/or latency variation properties of the LSP.
Before the Resv message is sent to the upstream node, the Before the Resv message is sent to the upstream node, the
egress node adds the requested subobject(s) with the cost, egress node adds the requested subobject(s) with the cost,
latency or/ and latency variation metric value(s) associated latency or/ and latency variation metric value(s) associated
with the local hop to the Resv RRO in a similar manner to that with the local hop to the Resv RRO in a similar manner to that
specified above for the addition of Path RRO sub-objects by specified above for the addition of Path RRO sub-objects by
midpoint nodes. transit nodes.
Similarly, the intermediate nodes of the LSP provide the Similarly, the intermediate nodes of the LSP provide the
requested metric value(s) associated with the local hop in the requested metric value(s) associated with the local hop in the
Resv RRO. When the Resv message is received by the ingress node, Resv RRO. When the ingress node receives the Resv message, it can
it can calculate the end-to-end cost, latency or/ and latency calculate the end-to-end cost, latency or/ and latency variation
variation properties of the LSP. properties of the LSP.
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-01.txt
Typically, cost and latency are additive metrics, but latency Typically, cost and latency are additive metrics, but latency
variation is not an additive metric. The means by which the variation is not an additive metric. The means by which the
ingress and egress nodes compute the end-to-end cost, latency ingress and egress nodes compute the end-to-end cost, latency
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-00.txt
and latency variation metric from information recorded in the and latency variation metric from information recorded in the
RRO is beyond the scope of this document. RRO is beyond the scope of this document.
Based on the local policy, the ingress and egress nodes can Based on the local policy, the ingress and egress nodes can
advertise the calculated end-to-end cost, latency and/or latency advertise the calculated end-to-end cost, latency and/or latency
variation properties of the FA/ RA LSP in TE link advertisement variation properties of the FA/ RA LSP in TE link advertisement
to the routing instance based on the procedure described in to the routing instance based on the procedure described in
[DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC], [DRAFT-ISIS-TE-METRIC]. [DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC], [DRAFT-ISIS-TE-METRIC].
Based on the local policy, a transit node (e.g. the edge node of Based on the local policy, a transit node (e.g. the edge node of
skipping to change at page 9, line 53 skipping to change at page 10, line 4
- Bit number: TBD (recommended bit position 11) - Bit number: TBD (recommended bit position 11)
- Defining RFC: this I-D - Defining RFC: this I-D
- Name of bit: Cost Collection Flag - Name of bit: Cost Collection Flag
- Bit number: TBD (recommended bit position 12) - Bit number: TBD (recommended bit position 12)
- Defining RFC: this I-D - Defining RFC: this I-D
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-01.txt
- Name of bit: Latency Collection Flag - Name of bit: Latency Collection Flag
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-00.txt
- Bit number: TBD (recommended bit position 13) - Bit number: TBD (recommended bit position 13)
- Defining RFC: this I-D - Defining RFC: this I-D
- Name of bit: Latency Variation Flag - Name of bit: Latency Variation Flag
5.2. ROUTE_RECORD subobject 5.2. ROUTE_RECORD subobject
This document introduces the following three new RRO This document introduces the following three new RRO
skipping to change at page 11, line 5 skipping to change at page 11, line 5
Latency Variation Recoding Rejected To be assigned by IANA. Latency Variation Recoding Rejected To be assigned by IANA.
Suggested Value: 107. Suggested Value: 107.
6. Acknowledgments 6. Acknowledgments
Authors would like to thank Ori Gerstel, Gabriele Maria Authors would like to thank Ori Gerstel, Gabriele Maria
Galimberti, Luyuan Fang and Walid Wakim for their review Galimberti, Luyuan Fang and Walid Wakim for their review
comments. comments.
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-00.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-01.txt
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan,
V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for
skipping to change at page 11, line 37 skipping to change at page 11, line 37
extensions, work in progress. extensions, work in progress.
[DRAFT-ISIS-TE-METRIC] S. Previdi, S. Giacalone, D. Ward, J. [DRAFT-ISIS-TE-METRIC] S. Previdi, S. Giacalone, D. Ward, J.
Drake, A. Atlas, C. Filsfils, "IS-IS Traffic Drake, A. Atlas, C. Filsfils, "IS-IS Traffic
Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions", draft-previdi- Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions", draft-previdi-
isis-te-metric-extensions, work in progress. isis-te-metric-extensions, work in progress.
[DRAFT-SRLG-RECORDING] F. Zhang, D. Li, O. Gonzalez de Dios, C. [DRAFT-SRLG-RECORDING] F. Zhang, D. Li, O. Gonzalez de Dios, C.
Margaria,, "RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG Margaria,, "RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG
Information", draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg- Information", draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-
collect, work in progress. collect.txt, work in progress.
7.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[RFC4208] Swallow, G., Drake, J., Ishimatsu, H., and Y. Rekhter, [RFC4208] Swallow, G., Drake, J., Ishimatsu, H., and Y. Rekhter,
"Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
User-Network Interface (UNI): Resource ReserVation User-Network Interface (UNI): Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Support for the Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Support for the
Overlay Model", RFC 4208, October 2005. Overlay Model", RFC 4208, October 2005.
[RFC2209] Braden, R. and L. Zhang, "Resource ReSerVation [RFC2209] Braden, R. and L. Zhang, "Resource ReSerVation
Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Message Processing Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Message Processing
Rules", RFC 2209, September 1997. Rules", RFC 2209, September 1997.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS [RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010. Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-00.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-01.txt
Zafar Ali Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: zali@cisco.com Email: zali@cisco.com
George Swallow George Swallow
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
swallow@cisco.com swallow@cisco.com
Clarence Filsfils Clarence Filsfils
 End of changes. 45 change blocks. 
105 lines changed or deleted 108 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/