draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-03.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: January 13, 2014 Matt Hartley Expires: August 13, 2014 Matt Hartley
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
Kenji Kumaki Kenji Kumaki
KDDI Corporation KDDI Corporation
Ruediger Kunze Ruediger Kunze
Deutsche Telekom AG Deutsche Telekom AG
July 14, 2013
February 14, 2014
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-02.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-03.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 months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in
progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 13, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 13, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 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
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
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 Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
described in the Simplified BSD License. warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02.txt This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s)
controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not
be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative
works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process,
except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it
into languages other than English.
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-03.txt
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 1. Introduction................................................3
1. Introduction...................................................3 2. RSVP-TE Requirement.........................................4
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................................5
3. RSVP-TE signaling extensions...................................4 3.1. Cost, Latency, and Latency Variation Collection Flags.....5
3.1. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Collection Flags.........4 3.4. Cost subobject............................................5
3.2. Cost Subobject...............................................5 3.5. Latency subobject.........................................6
3.3. Latency Subobject............................................6 3.6. Latency Variation subobject...............................7
3.4. Latency Variation Subobject..................................7 3.7. Signaling Procedures......................................8
3.5. Signaling Procedures.........................................8 4. Security Considerations....................................12
4. Security Considerations........................................9 5. IANA Considerations........................................12
5. IANA Considerations............................................9 5.1. RSVP Attribute Bit Flags.................................12
5.1. RSVP Attribute Bit Flags.....................................9 Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-03.txt
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02.txt
5.2. New RSVP error sub-code.....................................10 5.2. New RSVP error sub-code..................................13
6. Acknowledgments...............................................11 6. Acknowledgments............................................14
7. References....................................................11 7. References.................................................14
7.1. Normative References........................................11 7.1. Normative References.....................................14
7.2. Informative References......................................12 7.2. Informative References...................................14
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
There are many scenarios in packet and optical networks where
the route information of an LSP may not be provided to the
ingress node for confidentiality reasons and/or the ingress node
may not run the same routing instance as the intermediate nodes
traversed by the path. In such scenarios, the ingress node
cannot determine the cost, latency and latency variation
properties of the LSP's route. Similarly, in Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) networks signaling
bidirectional LSP, the egress node cannot determine the cost,
latency and latency variation properties of the LSP route. A
multi-domain or multi-layer network is an example of such
networks. Similarly, a GMPLS User-Network Interface (UNI)
[RFC4208] is also an example of such networks.
In certain networks, such as financial information networks, In certain networks, such as financial information networks,
network performance information (e.g. latency, latency network performance information (e.g. latency, latency
variation) is becoming as critical to data path selection as variation) is becoming as critical to data path selection as
other metrics [DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC], [DRAFT-ISIS-TE-METRIC]. If other metrics [DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC], [DRAFT-ISIS-TE-METRIC]. If
cost, latency or latency variation associated with an FA or an cost, latency or latency variation associated with a Forwarding
RA LSP is not available to the ingress or egress node, it cannot Adjacency (FA) or a Routing Adjacency (RA) LSP is not available
be advertised as an attribute of the FA or RA. One possible way to the ingress or egress node, it cannot be advertised as an
to address this issue is to configure cost, latency and latency attribute of the FA or RA. There are scenarios in packet and
variation values manually. However, in the event of an LSP being optical networks where the route information of an LSP may not
rerouted (e.g. due to re-optimization), such configuration be provided to the ingress node for confidentiality reasons
information may become invalid. Consequently, in case where that and/or the ingress node may not run the same routing instance as
an LSP is advertised as a TE-Link, the ingress and/or egress the intermediate nodes traversed by the path. In such scenarios,
nodes cannot provide the correct latency, latency variation and the ingress node cannot determine the cost, latency and latency
cost attribute associated with the TE-Link automatically. variation properties of the LSP's route.
One possible way to address this issue is to configure cost,
latency and latency variation values manually. However, in the
event of an LSP being rerouted (e.g. due to re-optimization),
such configuration information may become invalid. Consequently,
in cases where that an LSP is advertised as a TE-Link, the
ingress and/or egress nodes cannot provide the correct latency,
latency variation and cost attribute associated with the TE-Link
automatically.
In summary, there is a requirement for the ingress and egress In summary, there is a requirement for the ingress and egress
nodes to learn the cost, latency and latency variation nodes to learn the cost, latency and latency variation
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 1.1. Use Cases
1.1.1. GMPLS
In Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) networks
signaling bidirectional LSPs, the egress node cannot determine
the cost, latency and latency variation properties of the LSP
path. A multi-domain or multi-layer network is an example of
such networks. A GMPLS User-Network Interface (UNI) [RFC4208] is
also an example of such networks.
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-03.txt
1.1.2. Inter-area tunnels with loose-hops
When a LSP is established over multiple IGP-areas using loose
hops in the ERO, the ingress node only has knowledge of the
first IGP-area traversed by the LSP. In this case, it cannot
determine the cost, latency and latency variation properties of
the LSP path.
2. RSVP-TE Requirements
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)
associated with the route taken by an LSP [DRAFT-SRLG- associated with the route taken by an LSP [DRAFT-SRLG-
RECORDING]. RECORDING].
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02.txt
2.1. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Collection Indication 2.1. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Collection Indication
The ingress node of the LSP must be capable of indicating The ingress node of the LSP must be capable of indicating
whether the cost, latency and latency variation attributes of whether the cost, latency and latency variation attributes of
the LSP should be collected during the signaling procedure of the LSP should be collected during the signaling procedure of
setting up the LSP. No cost, latency or latency variation setting up the LSP. No cost, latency or latency variation
information is collected without an explicit request being made information is collected without an explicit request 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 for routing, flooding and TE may use the collected information for routing, flooding and TE
link configuration and other 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 or 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 the cost
TE link, the node where the change occurred needs to be capable of a TE link traversed by the LSP), the node where the change
of updating the cost, latency and latency variation information occurred needs to be capable of updating the cost, latency and
of the path and signaling this to the end-points. Similarly, if latency variation information of the path and signaling this to
a path segment of the LSP is rerouted, the endpoints of the re- the end-points. Similarly, if a path segment of the LSP is
routed segment need to be capable of updating the cost, latency rerouted, the endpoints of the re-routed segment need to be
and latency variation information of the path. Any node, which capable of updating the cost, latency and latency variation
adds cost, latency or latency variation information to an LSP information of the path. Any node which adds cost, latency or
during initial setup, needs to signal changes to these values to latency variation information to an LSP during initial setup,
both endpoints. needs to signal changes to these values to both endpoints.
3. RSVP-TE signaling extensions 2.4. Cost Definition
3.1. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Collection Flags Although the terms latency and latency variation are well
understood, "cost" may be ambiguous; in particular, in the
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-03.txt
Three Attribute flags are defined in the Attribute Flags TLV, context of a LSP that traverses nodes and links operated by
which can be set and carried in either the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or different entities, there may be no common definition of cost.
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Objects. However, there are situations in which the entire LSP may be
within a single AS (e.g. inter-area LSPs) in which cost
discovery is useful.
- Cost Collection flag (to be assigned by IANA) The precise meaning and interpretation of numerical costs is a
matter for the network operator. For the purposes of this
document, two constraints are assumed:
- Latency Collection flag (to be assigned by IANA) . A higher cost represents an inferior path
- Latency Variation Collection flag (to be assigned by IANA) . Simple addition of costs for different sections of a path
must make sense.
These flags are meaningful in a Path message. If the Cost 3. RSVP-TE signaling extensions
Collection flag is set to 1, the transit nodes SHOULD report the
cost information in the Record Route Objects (RRO) of both the
Path and Resv messages.
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02.txt 3.1. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Collection Flags
If the Cost Collection flag is set to 1, the transit nodes In order to indicate nodes that cost, latency and/ or latency
SHOULD report latency variation information in the Record Route variation collection is desired, the following three Attribute
Objects (RRO) of both the Path and Resv messages. flags are defined in the Attribute Flags TLV:
If the Latency Collection flag is set to 1, the transit nodes - Cost Collection flag (to be assigned by IANA)
SHOULD report latency variation information in the Record Route
Objects (RRO) of both the Path and Resv messages.
If the Latency Variation Collection flag is set to 1, the - Latency Collection flag (to be assigned by IANA)
transit nodes SHOULD report latency variation information in the
Record Route Objects (RRO) of both the Path and Resv messages.
The procedure for the processing the Attribute Flags TLV follows - Latency Variation Collection flag (to be assigned by IANA)
[RFC5420].
These flags are set and carried in either the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Objects in a Path message.
3.2. Cost Subobject 3.2. Cost Subobject
The cost subobject is defined for the RRO to record the cost The Cost subobject is a new RRO (ROUTE_RECORD OBJECT) sub-object
information of the LSP. Its format is similar to the RRO used to record the cost information of the LSP. Its format is
subobjects (ROUTE_RECORD sub-object) defined in [RFC3209]. similar to the other 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) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Downstream Cost | | Downstream Cost |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Upstream Cost | | Upstream Cost |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: TBA1 - Cost subobject (to be assigned by IANA). Type: TBA1 - Cost subobject (to be assigned by IANA).
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-03.txt
Length: The Length value is set to 8 or 12 depending on the Length: The Length value is set to 8 or 12 depending on the
presence of Upstream Cost information. presence of Upstream Cost information. It MUST NOT be set to
any other value.
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 on transmission and MUST be ignored when received.
Downstream Cost: Cost of the local link along the route of Downstream Cost: Cost of the local link along the route of
the LSP in the direction of the tail-end node, encoded as a the LSP in the direction of the tail-end node, encoded as a
32-bit integer. Based on the policy at the recording node, 32-bit integer. This approach has been taken to avoid
the cost value can be set to the Interior Gateway Protocol defining a flag for each cost type in the Attribute-Flags
(IGP) metric or TE metric of the link in question. This TLV.
approach has been taken to avoid defining a flag for each
cost type in the Attribute-Flags TLV. It is assumed that,
based on policy, all nodes report the same cost-type and that
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02.txt
the ingress and egress nodes know the cost type reported in
the RRO.
Upstream Cost: Cost of the local link along the route of the Upstream Cost: Cost of the local link along the route of the
LSP in the direction of the head-end node, encoded as a 32- LSP in the direction of the head-end node, encoded as a 32-
bit integer. Based on the policy at the recording node, the bit integer.
cost value can be set to the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP)
metric or TE metric of the link in question. This approach
has been taken to avoid defining a flag for each cost type in
the Attribute-Flags TLV. It is assumed that, based on policy,
all nodes report the same cost-type and that the ingress and
egress nodes know the cost type reported in the RRO.
3.3. Latency Subobject 3.3. Latency Subobject
The Latency subobject is defined for RRO to record the latency The Latency subobject is a new RRO sub-object to record the
information of the LSP. Its format is similar the RRO subobjects latency information of the LSP. Its format is similar the other
defined in [RFC3209]. 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) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A| Reserved | Downstream Delay | |A| Reserved | Downstream Delay |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A| Reserved | Upstream Delay | |A| Reserved | Upstream Delay |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: TBA2 - Latency subobject (to be assigned by IANA). Type: TBA2 - Latency subobject (to be assigned by IANA).
Length: 8 or 12 depending on the presence of Upstream Cost Length: 8 or 12 depending on the presence of Upstream Delay
information. information.
A-bit: These fields represent the Anomalous (A) bit A-bit: These fields represent the Anomalous (A) bit
associated with the Downstream and Upstream Delay associated with the Downstream and Upstream Delay
respectively, as defined in [DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC]. respectively, as 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.
Downstream Delay: Delay of the local link along the route of Downstream Delay: Delay of the local link along the route of
the LSP in the direction of the tail-end node, encoded as 24- the LSP in the direction of the tail-end node, encoded as 24-
bit integer. When set to 0, it has not been measured. When bit integer, as defined in [DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC]. When set
set to the maximum value 16,777,215 (16.777215 sec), the Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-03.txt
delay is at least that value and may be larger.
to the maximum value 16,777,215 (16.777215 sec), the delay is
at least that value and may be larger.
Upstream Delay: Delay of the local link along the route of Upstream Delay: Delay of the local link along the route of
the LSP in the direction of the head-end node, encoded as 24- the LSP in the direction of the head-end node, encoded as 24-
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02.txt bit integer, as defined in [DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC]. When set
to the maximum value 16,777,215 (16.777215 sec), the delay is
bit integer. When set to 0, it has not been measured. When at least that value and may be larger.
set to the maximum value 16,777,215 (16.777215 sec), the
delay is at least that value and may be larger.
3.4. Latency Variation Subobject 3.4. Latency Variation Subobject
The Latency Variation subobject is defined for RRO to record the The Latency Variation subobject is a new RRO sub-object to
Latency Variation information of the LSP. Its format is similar record the Latency Variation information of the LSP. Its format
to the RRO subobjects defined in [RFC3209]. is similar to the other 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) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A| Reserved | Downstream Delay Variation | |A| Reserved | Downstream Delay Variation |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A| Reserved | Upstream Delay Variation | |A| Reserved | Upstream Delay Variation |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: TBA3 - Latency Variation subobject (to be assigned by Type: TBA3 - Latency Variation subobject (to be assigned by
IANA). IANA).
Length: 8 or 12 depending on the presence of Upstream Latency Length: 8 or 12 depending on the presence of Upstream Latency
Variation information. Variation information.
A-bit: These fields represent the Anomalous (A) bit A-bit: These fields represent the Anomalous (A) bit
associated with the Downstream and Upstream Delay associated with the Downstream and Upstream Delay Variation
respectively, as defined in [DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC]. respectively, as defined in [DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC].
Reserved: These fields are reserved for future use. It MUST Reserved: These fields are reserved for future use. It SHOULD
be set to 0 when sent and MUST be ignored when received. be set to 0 when sent and MUST be ignored when received.
Downstream Delay Variation: Delay Variation of the local link Downstream Delay Variation: Delay Variation of the local link
along the route of the LSP in the direction of the tail-end along the route of the LSP in the direction of the tail-end
node, encoded as 24-bit integer. When set to 0, it has not node, encoded as 24-bit integer, as defined in [DRAFT-OSPF-
been measured. When set to the maximum value 16,777,215 TE-METRIC]. When set to the maximum value 16,777,215
(16.777215 sec), the delay is at least that value and may be (16.777215 sec), the delay is at least that value and may be
larger. larger.
Upstream Delay Variation: Delay Variation of the local link Upstream Delay Variation: Delay Variation of the local link
along the route of the LSP in the direction of the head-end along the route of the LSP in the direction of the head-end
node, encoded as 24-bit integer. When set to 0, it has not node, encoded as 24-bit integer. When set to 0, it has not
been measured. When set to the maximum value 16,777,215 been measured. When set to the maximum value 16,777,215
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-03.txt
(16.777215 sec), the delay is at least that value and may be (16.777215 sec), the delay is at least that value and may be
larger. larger.
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02.txt 4. Signaling Procedures
3.5. Signaling Procedures The rules for processing the LSP_ATTRIBUTES and
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Objects and RRO defined in [RFC5420] are
not changed.
4.1. Collection request
Typically, the ingress node learns the route of an LSP by adding Typically, the ingress node learns the route of an LSP by adding
a RRO in the Path message. If an ingress node also desires cost, a RRO in the Path message. If an ingress node also desires cost,
latency and/or latency variation recording, it sets the latency and/or latency variation recording, it MUST set the
appropriate flag(s) in the Attribute Flags TLV of the appropriate flag(s) in the Attribute Flags TLV of the
LSP_ATTRIBUTES (if recording is desired but not mandatory) or LSP_ATTRIBUTES (if recording is desired but not mandatory) or
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES (if recording in mandatory) Object. LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES (if recording in mandatory) Object.
None, all or any of the Cost Collection, Latency Collection or None, all or any of the Cost Collection, Latency Collection or
Latency Variation Collection flags may be set in the Attribute Latency Variation Collection flags MAY be set in the Attribute
Flags TLV of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Flags TLV of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES
Object. The rules for processing the LSP_ATTRIBUTES and Object. These flags affect both Path and Resv RRO processing, as
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Objects and RRO are not changed. The described below.
corresponding sub-objects MUST be included in the RRO, with the
Downstream (only) information filled in.
When a node receives a Path message which carries an The Cost Collection, Latency Collection or Latency Variation
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object and the Cost, Latency and/or Collection flags SHOULD NOT be set in an Attribute Flags TLV in
Latency Variation Collection Flag(s) is (are) set, if local a Resv message. If any of these flags is set in a received
policy disallows providing the requested information to the Attribute Flags TLV in a Resv message, it MUST be ignored.
endpoints, the node MUST return a Path Error message with error
code "Policy Control Failure (2)" and one of the following error
subcodes:
. "Cost Recoding Rejected" (value to be assigned by IANA, The Cost Collection, Latency Collection or Latency Variation
suggested value 105) if Cost Collection Flag is set. Collection flags SHOULD NOT be set in an Attribute Flags TLV in
a RRO. If any of these flags is set in a received Attribute
Flags TLV in a RRO, it MUST be ignored.
. "Latency Recording Rejected" (value to be assigned by IANA, 4.2. Path and Resv message processing
suggested value 106) if Latency Collection Flag is set.
. "Latency Variation Recording Rejected" (value to be assigned 4.2.1. Cost
by IANA, suggested value 107) if Latency Variation Collection
Flag is set.
When a node receives a Path message which carries an If a node receives a Path message containing a
LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object and the Cost, Latency and/or Latency LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object with the Cost Collection Flag set
Variation Collection Flag(s) is (are) set, if local policy in the Attribute Flags TLV:
disallows providing the requested information to the endpoints,
the Path message SHOULD NOT rejected due to Metric recording
restriction and the Path message is forwarded without the
appropriate sub-object(s) in the Path RRO.
If local policy permits the recording of the requested . If local policy disallows providing the requested
information, the processing node SHOULD add the requested information to the endpoints, the node MUST return a Path
subobject(s) with the cost, latency and/or latency variation Error message with error code "Policy Control Failure" (2)
metric value(s) associated with the local hop to the Path RRO. and subcode "Cost Recording Rejected" (value to be assigned
If the LSP being setup is bidirectional, both Downstream and by IANA, suggested value 105).
Upstream information SHOULD be included. If the LSP is
unidirectional, only Downstream information SHOULD be included.
Following the steps described above, the intermediate nodes of . It SHOULD add a Cost subobject to the Path and Resv RROs
the LSP provide the requested metric value(s) associated with for the LSP. It SHOULD supply only downstream information
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02.txt for a unidirectional LSP, and SHOULD provide both upstream
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-03.txt
the local hop in the Path RRO. When the egress node receives the and downstream information if a bidirectional LSP is being
Path message, it can calculate the end-to-end cost, latency signaled.
and/or latency variation properties of the LSP.
Before the Resv message is sent to the upstream node, the egress . If Cost information is not known, a Cost subobject SHOULD
node adds the requested subobject(s) with the downstream cost, NOT be added to either the Path or Resv RRO.
latency and/or latency variation metric value(s) associated 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
transit nodes.
Similarly, the intermediate nodes of the LSP provide the If a node receives a Path message containing a LSP_ATTRIBUTES
requested metric value(s) associated with the local hop in the Object with the Cost Collection Flag set in the Attribute Flags
Resv RRO. When the ingress node receives the Resv message, it can TLV:
calculate the end-to-end cost, latency and/or latency variation
properties of the LSP. . If local policy disallows providing the requested
information to the endpoints, the Path message SHOULD NOT
be rejected. A Cost subobject is not added to the Path or
Resv RRO.
. If local policy permits, it SHOULD add a Cost subobject to
the Path and Resv RROs for the LSP. It SHOULD supply only
downstream information for a unidirectional LSP, and SHOULD
provide both upstream and downstream information if a
bidirectional LSP is being signaled.
. If Cost information is not known, a Cost subobject SHOULD
NOT be added to either the Path or Resv RRO.
When adding a Cost subobject to a Path or Resv RRO:
. The Downstream Cost is set to the cost of the local link
used by the LSP in the direction of the egress node. It
SHOULD be set to zero by the egress node.
. The Upstream Cost, if set, is set to the cost of the local
link used by the LSP in the direction of the ingress node.
It SHOULD be set to zero by the ingress node.
. The cost of a local link is the Interior Gateway Protocol
(IGP) metric or TE metric of the link in question,
depending on the policy of the processing node.
4.2.2. Latency
If a node receives a Path message containing a
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object with the Latency Collection Flag
set in the Attribute Flags TLV:
. If local policy disallows providing the requested
information to the endpoints, the node MUST return a Path
Error message with error code "Policy Control Failure" (2)
and subcode "Latency Recording Rejected" (value to be
assigned by IANA, suggested value 106).
. It SHOULD add a Latency subobject to the Path and Resv
RROs for the LSP. It SHOULD supply only downstream
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-03.txt
information for a unidirectional LSP, and SHOULD provide
both upstream and downstream information if a bidirectional
LSP is being signaled.
. If Latency information is not known, a Latency subobject
SHOULD NOT be added to either the Path or Resv RRO.
If a node receives a Path message containing a LSP_ATTRIBUTES
Object with the Latency Collection Flag set in the Attribute
Flags TLV:
. If local policy disallows providing the requested
information to the endpoints, the Path message SHOULD NOT
be rejected. A Latency subobject is not added to the Path
or Resv RRO.
. If local policy permits, it SHOULD add a Latency subobject
to the Path and Resv RROs for the LSP. It SHOULD supply
only downstream information for a unidirectional LSP, and
SHOULD provide both upstream and downstream information if
a bidirectional LSP is being signaled.
. If Latency information is not known, a Latency subobject
SHOULD NOT be added to either the Path or Resv RRO.
When adding a Latency subobject to a Path or Resv RRO:
. The Downstream Delay is set to the delay of the local link
used by the LSP in the direction of the egress node. It
SHOULD be set to zero by the egress node.
. The Upstream Delay, if set, is set to the delay of the
local link used by the LSP in the direction of the ingress
node. It SHOULD be set to zero by the ingress node.
. The A-bit for the downstream and upstream latency SHOULD
be set as described in [DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC].
4.2.3. Latency Variation
If a node receives a Path message containing a
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object with the Latency Variation
Collection Flag set in the Attribute Flags TLV:
. If local policy disallows providing the requested
information to the endpoints, the node MUST return a Path
Error message with error code "Policy Control Failure" (2)
and subcode "Latency Variation Recording Rejected" (value
to be assigned by IANA, suggested value 107).
. It SHOULD add a Latency Variation subobject to the Path
and Resv RROs for the LSP. It SHOULD supply only downstream
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-03.txt
information for a unidirectional LSP, and SHOULD provide
both upstream and downstream information if a bidirectional
LSP is being signaled.
. If Latency Variation information is not known, a Latency
subobject SHOULD NOT be added to either the Path or Resv
RRO.
If a node receives a Path message containing a LSP_ATTRIBUTES
Object with the Latency Variation Collection Flag set in the
Attribute Flags TLV:
. If local policy disallows providing the requested
information to the endpoints, the Path message SHOULD NOT
be rejected. A Latency Variation subobject is not added to
the Path or Resv RRO.
. If local policy permits, it SHOULD add a Latency Variation
subobject to the Path and Resv RROs for the LSP. It SHOULD
supply only downstream information for a unidirectional
LSP, and SHOULD provide both upstream and downstream
information if a bidirectional LSP is being signaled.
. If Latency Variation information is not known, a Latency
subobject SHOULD NOT be added to either the Path or Resv
RRO.
When adding a Latency Variation subobject to a Path or Resv RRO:
. The Downstream Latency Variation is set to the latency of
the local link used by the LSP in the direction of the
egress node. It SHOULD be set to zero by the egress node.
. The Upstream Latency Variation, if set, is set to the
latency of the local link used by the LSP in the direction
of the ingress node. It SHOULD be set to zero by the egress
node.
. The A-bit for the downstream and upstream latency SHOULD
be set as described in [DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC].
4.3. Metric Update
When the cost, latency and/or latency variation information of a
link is changed, the corresponding metric values for the LSPs
using that link should also be updated. If node has added Cost,
Latency and/or Latency Variation subobjects to the Path or Resv
RRO, the procedures defined in Section 4.4.3 of RFC 3209
[RFC3209] MUST be used to communicate any changes to relevant
information to the other nodes on the LSP's path. The node need
not send an update for changes to information which has not been
added to the RRO.
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-03.txt
5. Endpoint processing
The ingress and egress nodes of a LSP may calculate the end-to-
end cost, latency and/or latency variation properties of the LSP
from the supplied values in the Resv or Path RRO respectively.
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
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 a local decision and 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 or RA LSP in TE link variation properties of the FA or RA LSP in TE link
advertisement to the routing instance based on the procedure advertisement to the routing instance based on the procedure
described in [DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC], [DRAFT-ISIS-TE-METRIC]. described in [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
a domain) may edit a Path or Resv RRO to remove route a domain) may edit a Path or Resv RRO to remove route
information (e.g. node or interface identifier information) information (e.g. node or interface identifier information)
before forwarding it. A node that does this SHOULD summarize the before forwarding it. A node that does this SHOULD summarize the
cost, latency and latency variation data removed as a single cost, latency and latency variation data and SHOULD follow
value for each for the loose hop that is summarized by the procedure defined in [DRAFT-RRO-EDIT]. How a node that performs
transit node. How a transit node calculates the cost, latency o the RRO edit operation calculates the cost, latency o and/or
and/or latency variation metric for the segment summarized by latency variation metric is beyond the scope of this document.
the transit node is beyond the scope of this document.
4. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any additional security issues This document does not introduce any additional security issues
above those identified in [RFC5920], [RFC5420], [RFC2205], above those identified in [RFC5920], [RFC5420], [RFC2205],
[RFC3209], and [RFC3473]. [RFC3209], and [RFC3473].
5. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
5.1. RSVP Attribute Bit Flags 7.1. RSVP Attribute Bit Flags
The IANA has created a registry and manages the space of The IANA has created a registry and manages the space of
attributes bit flags of Attribute Flags TLV as described in attributes bit flags of Attribute Flags TLV as described in
section 11.3 of [RFC5420]. It is requested that the IANA makes section 11.3 of [RFC5420]. It is requested that the IANA makes
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02.txt
assignments from the Attribute Bit Flags defined in this assignments from the Attribute Bit Flags defined in this
document. document.
This document introduces the following three new Attribute This document introduces the following three new Attribute
Bit Flag: Bit Flag:
- 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
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-03.txt
- Bit number: TBD (recommended bit position 12) - Bit number: TBD (recommended bit position 12)
- Defining RFC: this I-D - Defining RFC: this I-D
- Name of bit: Latency Collection Flag - Name of bit: Latency Collection Flag
- Bit number: TBD (recommended bit position 13) - Bit number: TBD (recommended bit position 13)
- Defining RFC: this I-D - Defining RFC: this I-D
skipping to change at page 10, line 45 skipping to change at page 13, line 33
Type Name Reference Type Name Reference
--------- ---------------------- --------- --------- ---------------------- ---------
TBD (35) Cost subobject This I-D TBD (35) Cost subobject This I-D
TBD (36) Latency subobject This I-D TBD (36) Latency subobject This I-D
TBD (37) Latency Variation subobject This I-D TBD (37) Latency Variation subobject This I-D
5.2. New RSVP error sub-code 7.2. New RSVP error sub-code
For Error Code = 2 "Policy Control Failure" (see [RFC2205]) the For Error Code = 2 "Policy Control Failure" (see [RFC2205]) the
following sub-code is defined. following sub-code is defined.
Sub-code Value Sub-code Value
-------- ----- -------- -----
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02.txt
Cost Recoding Rejected To be assigned by IANA. Cost Recoding Rejected To be assigned by IANA.
Suggested Value: 105. Suggested Value: 105.
Latency Recoding Rejected To be assigned by IANA. Latency Recoding Rejected To be assigned by IANA.
Suggested Value: 106. Suggested Value: 106.
Latency Variation Recoding Rejected To be assigned by Latency Variation Recoding Rejected To be assigned by IANA.
IANA.
Suggested Value: 107. Suggested Value: 107.
6. Acknowledgments Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-03.txt
8. 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.
7. References 9. References
7.1. Normative References 9.1. 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
LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC5420] Farrel, A., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and [RFC5420] Farrel, A., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and
A. Ayyangarps, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP A. Ayyangarps, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP
skipping to change at page 11, line 49 skipping to change at page 14, line 40
[DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC] S. Giacalone, D. Ward, J. Drake, A. [DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC] S. Giacalone, D. Ward, J. Drake, A.
Atlas, S. Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Atlas, S. Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE)
Metric Extensions", draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric- Metric Extensions", draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-
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-ietf-isis- Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions", draft-ietf-isis-
te-metric-extensions, work in progress. te-metric-extensions, work in progress.
[DRAFT-SRLG-RECORDING] F. Zhang, D. Li, O. Gonzalez de Dios, C. 9.2. Informative References
Margaria,, "RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG
Information", draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-
collect.txt, work in progress.
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02.txt
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.
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-03.txt
[DRAFT-SRLG-RECORDING] F. Zhang, D. Li, O. Gonzalez de Dios, C.
Margaria,, "RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG
Information", draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-
collect.txt, work in progress.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
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
 End of changes. 77 change blocks. 
231 lines changed or deleted 396 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/