[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: (draft-ali-ccamp-te-metric-recording)
01 02 03 04
draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording
CCAMP Working Group Zafar Ali
Internet Draft George Swallow
Intended status: Standard Track Clarence Filsfils
Expires: January 13, 2014 Matt Hartley
Cisco Systems
Kenji Kumaki
KDDI Corporation
Ruediger Kunze
Deutsche Telekom AG
July 14, 2013
Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
extension for recording TE Metric of a Label Switched Path
draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 13, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils, et al Expires January 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02.txt
Abstract
There are many scenarios in which Traffic Engineering (TE) metrics
such as cost, latency and latency variation associated with a
Forwarding Adjacency (FA) or Routing Adjacency (RA) Label Switched
Path (LSP) are not available to the ingress and egress nodes. This
draft provides extensions for the Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for the support of the discovery of
cost, latency and latency variation of an LSP.
Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in
this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119
[RFC2119].
Table of Contents
Copyright Notice..................................................1
1. Introduction...................................................3
2. RSVP-TE Requirement............................................3
2.1. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Collection Indication....4
2.2. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Collection...............4
2.3. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Update...................4
3. RSVP-TE signaling extensions...................................4
3.1. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Collection Flags.........4
3.2. Cost Subobject...............................................5
3.3. Latency Subobject............................................6
3.4. Latency Variation Subobject..................................7
3.5. Signaling Procedures.........................................8
4. Security Considerations........................................9
5. IANA Considerations............................................9
5.1. RSVP Attribute Bit Flags.....................................9
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires January 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02.txt
5.2. New RSVP error sub-code.....................................10
6. Acknowledgments...............................................11
7. References....................................................11
7.1. Normative References........................................11
7.2. Informative References......................................12
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,
network performance information (e.g. latency, latency
variation) is becoming as critical to data path selection as
other metrics [DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC], [DRAFT-ISIS-TE-METRIC]. If
cost, latency or latency variation associated with an FA or an
RA LSP is not available to the ingress or egress node, it cannot
be advertised as an attribute of the FA or RA. 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 case 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
nodes to learn the cost, latency and latency variation
attributes of an FA or RA LSP. This draft provides extensions to
the Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
for the support of the automatic discovery of these attributes.
2. RSVP-TE Requirement
This section outlines RSVP-TE requirements for the support of
the automatic discovery of cost, latency and latency variation
attributes of an LSP. These requirements are very similar to the
requirement of discovering the Shared Risk Link Groups (SRLGs)
associated with the route taken by an LSP [DRAFT-SRLG-
RECORDING].
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires January 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02.txt
2.1. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Collection Indication
The ingress node of the LSP must be capable of indicating
whether the cost, latency and latency variation attributes of
the LSP should be collected during the signaling procedure of
setting up the LSP. No cost, latency or latency variation
information is collected without an explicit request being made
by the ingress node.
2.2. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Collection
If requested, cost, latency and latency variation is
collected during the setup of an LSP. The endpoints of the LSP
may use the collected information for routing, flooding and TE
link configuration and other purposes.
2.3. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Update
When the cost, latency and latency variation property of a TE
link along the route of a LSP for which that property was
collected changes, e.g., if the administrator changes cost of a
TE link, the node where the change occurred needs to be capable
of updating the cost, latency and latency variation information
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-
routed segment need to be capable of updating the cost, latency
and latency variation information of the path. Any node, which
adds cost, latency or latency variation information to an LSP
during initial setup, needs to signal changes to these values to
both endpoints.
3. RSVP-TE signaling extensions
3.1. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Collection Flags
Three Attribute flags are defined in the Attribute Flags TLV,
which can be set and carried in either the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Objects.
- Cost Collection flag (to be assigned by IANA)
- Latency Collection flag (to be assigned by IANA)
- Latency Variation Collection flag (to be assigned by IANA)
These flags are meaningful in a Path message. If the Cost
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.
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires January 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02.txt
If the Cost Collection flag is set to 1, the transit nodes
SHOULD report latency variation information in the Record Route
Objects (RRO) of both the Path and Resv messages.
If the Latency Collection flag is set to 1, the transit nodes
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
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
[RFC5420].
3.2. Cost Subobject
The cost subobject is defined for the RRO to record the cost
information of the LSP. Its format is similar to the RRO
subobjects (ROUTE_RECORD sub-object) defined in [RFC3209].
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Reserved (must be zero) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Downstream Cost |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Upstream Cost |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: TBA1 - Cost subobject (to be assigned by IANA).
Length: The Length value is set to 8 or 12 depending on the
presence of Upstream Cost information.
Reserved: This field is reserved for future use. It MUST be
set to 0 when sent and MUST be ignored when received.
Downstream Cost: Cost of the local link along the route of
the LSP in the direction of the tail-end node, encoded as a
32-bit integer. Based on the policy at the recording node,
the 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
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires January 2014 [Page 5]
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
LSP in the direction of the head-end node, encoded as a 32-
bit integer. Based on the policy at the recording node, the
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
The Latency subobject is defined for RRO to record the latency
information of the LSP. Its format is similar the RRO subobjects
defined in [RFC3209].
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Reserved (must be zero) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A| Reserved | Downstream Delay |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A| Reserved | Upstream Delay |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: TBA2 - Latency subobject (to be assigned by IANA).
Length: 8 or 12 depending on the presence of Upstream Cost
information.
A-bit: These fields represent the Anomalous (A) bit
associated with the Downstream and Upstream Delay
respectively, as defined in [DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC].
Reserved: These fields are reserved for future use. They MUST
be set to 0 when sent and MUST be ignored when received.
Downstream Delay: Delay of the local link 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 been measured. When
set 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
the LSP in the direction of the head-end node, encoded as 24-
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires January 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02.txt
bit integer. When set to 0, it has not been measured. When
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
The Latency Variation subobject is defined for RRO to record the
Latency Variation information of the LSP. Its format is similar
to the RRO subobjects defined in [RFC3209].
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Reserved (must be zero) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A| Reserved | Downstream Delay Variation |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A| Reserved | Upstream Delay Variation |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: TBA3 - Latency Variation subobject (to be assigned by
IANA).
Length: 8 or 12 depending on the presence of Upstream Latency
Variation information.
A-bit: These fields represent the Anomalous (A) bit
associated with the Downstream and Upstream Delay
respectively, as defined in [DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC].
Reserved: These fields are reserved for future use. It MUST
be set to 0 when sent and MUST be ignored when received.
Downstream Delay Variation: Delay Variation of the local link
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
been measured. When set to the maximum value 16,777,215
(16.777215 sec), the delay is at least that value and may be
larger.
Upstream Delay Variation: Delay Variation of the local link
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
been measured. When set to the maximum value 16,777,215
(16.777215 sec), the delay is at least that value and may be
larger.
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires January 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02.txt
3.5. Signaling Procedures
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,
latency and/or latency variation recording, it sets the
appropriate flag(s) in the Attribute Flags TLV of the
LSP_ATTRIBUTES (if recording is desired but not mandatory) or
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES (if recording in mandatory) Object.
None, all or any of the Cost Collection, Latency Collection or
Latency Variation Collection flags may be set in the Attribute
Flags TLV of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES
Object. The rules for processing the LSP_ATTRIBUTES and
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Objects and RRO are not changed. The
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
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object and the Cost, Latency and/or
Latency Variation Collection Flag(s) is (are) set, 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 one of the following error
subcodes:
. "Cost Recoding Rejected" (value to be assigned by IANA,
suggested value 105) if Cost Collection Flag is set.
. "Latency Recording Rejected" (value to be assigned by IANA,
suggested value 106) if Latency Collection Flag is set.
. "Latency Variation Recording Rejected" (value to be assigned
by IANA, suggested value 107) if Latency Variation Collection
Flag is set.
When a node receives a Path message which carries an
LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object and the Cost, Latency and/or Latency
Variation Collection Flag(s) is (are) set, if local policy
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
information, the processing node SHOULD add the requested
subobject(s) with the cost, latency and/or latency variation
metric value(s) associated with the local hop to the Path RRO.
If the LSP being setup is bidirectional, both Downstream and
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
the LSP provide the requested metric value(s) associated with
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires January 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02.txt
the local hop in the Path RRO. When the egress node receives the
Path message, it can calculate the end-to-end cost, latency
and/or latency variation properties of the LSP.
Before the Resv message is sent to the upstream node, the egress
node adds the requested subobject(s) with the downstream cost,
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
requested metric value(s) associated with the local hop in the
Resv RRO. When the ingress node receives the Resv message, it can
calculate the end-to-end cost, latency and/or latency variation
properties of the LSP.
Typically, cost and latency are additive metrics, but latency
variation is not an additive metric. The means by which the
ingress and egress nodes compute the end-to-end cost, latency
and latency variation metric from information recorded in the
RRO is beyond the scope of this document.
Based on the local policy, the ingress and egress nodes can
advertise the calculated end-to-end cost, latency and/or latency
variation properties of the FA or RA LSP in TE link
advertisement to the routing instance based on the procedure
described in [DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC], [DRAFT-ISIS-TE-METRIC].
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
information (e.g. node or interface identifier information)
before forwarding it. A node that does this SHOULD summarize the
cost, latency and latency variation data removed as a single
value for each for the loose hop that is summarized by the
transit node. How a transit node calculates the cost, latency o
and/or latency variation metric for the segment summarized by
the transit node is beyond the scope of this document.
4. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any additional security issues
above those identified in [RFC5920], [RFC5420], [RFC2205],
[RFC3209], and [RFC3473].
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. RSVP Attribute Bit Flags
The IANA has created a registry and manages the space of
attributes bit flags of Attribute Flags TLV as described in
section 11.3 of [RFC5420]. It is requested that the IANA makes
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires January 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02.txt
assignments from the Attribute Bit Flags defined in this
document.
This document introduces the following three new Attribute
Bit Flag:
- Bit number: TBD (recommended bit position 11)
- Defining RFC: this I-D
- Name of bit: Cost Collection Flag
- Bit number: TBD (recommended bit position 12)
- Defining RFC: this I-D
- Name of bit: Latency Collection Flag
- Bit number: TBD (recommended bit position 13)
- Defining RFC: this I-D
- Name of bit: Latency Variation Flag
5.2. ROUTE_RECORD subobject
This document introduces the following three new RRO
subobject:
Type Name Reference
--------- ---------------------- ---------
TBD (35) Cost subobject This I-D
TBD (36) Latency subobject This I-D
TBD (37) Latency Variation subobject This I-D
5.2. New RSVP error sub-code
For Error Code = 2 "Policy Control Failure" (see [RFC2205]) the
following sub-code is defined.
Sub-code Value
-------- -----
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires January 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02.txt
Cost Recoding Rejected To be assigned by IANA.
Suggested Value: 105.
Latency Recoding Rejected To be assigned by IANA.
Suggested Value: 106.
Latency Variation Recoding Rejected To be assigned by
IANA.
Suggested Value: 107.
6. Acknowledgments
Authors would like to thank Ori Gerstel, Gabriele Maria
Galimberti, Luyuan Fang and Walid Wakim for their review
comments.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan,
V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for
LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC5420] Farrel, A., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and
A. Ayyangarps, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP
Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, February
2009.
[DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC] S. Giacalone, D. Ward, J. Drake, A.
Atlas, S. Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE)
Metric Extensions", draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-
extensions, work in progress.
[DRAFT-ISIS-TE-METRIC] S. Previdi, S. Giacalone, D. Ward, J.
Drake, A. Atlas, C. Filsfils, "IS-IS Traffic
Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions", draft-ietf-isis-
te-metric-extensions, work in progress.
[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.
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires January 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02.txt
7.2. Informative References
[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.
[RFC2209] Braden, R. and L. Zhang, "Resource ReSerVation
Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Message Processing
Rules", RFC 2209, September 1997.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
Authors' Addresses
Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: zali@cisco.com
George Swallow
Cisco Systems, Inc.
swallow@cisco.com
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc.
cfilsfil@cisco.com
Matt Hartley
Cisco Systems
Email: mhartley@cisco.com
Kenji Kumaki
KDDI Corporation
Email: ke-kumaki@kddi.com
Rudiger Kunze
Deutsche Telekom AG
Ruediger.Kunze@telekom.de
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires January 2014 [Page 12]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/