[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: February 20, 2015                             Matt Hartley
                                                           Cisco Systems
     
                                                            Kenji Kumaki
                                                        KDDI Corporation
     
                                                          Ruediger Kunze
                                                     Deutsche Telekom AG
     
                                                         August 20, 2014
     
     
          Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
           extension for recording TE Metric of a Label Switched Path
                  draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-04.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 February 20, 2015.
     
     Copyright Notice
     
     
     Copyright (c) 2014 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.
     
     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.
     
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils, et al     Expires February 2015     [Page 1]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-04.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
     
     
        1. Introduction................................................3
        2. RSVP-TE Requirement.........................................4
        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................................5
        3.1. Cost, Latency, and Latency Variation Collection Flags.....5
        3.4. Cost subobject............................................5
        3.5. Latency subobject.........................................6
        3.6. Latency Variation subobject...............................7
        3.7. Signaling Procedures......................................8
        4. Security Considerations....................................12
        5. IANA Considerations........................................12
        5.1. RSVP Attribute Bit Flags.................................12
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires February 2015     [Page 2]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-04.txt
     
        5.2. New RSVP error sub-code..................................13
        6. Acknowledgments............................................14
        7. References.................................................14
        7.1. Normative References.....................................14
        7.2. Informative References...................................14
     
     1. Introduction
     
        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 a Forwarding
        Adjacency (FA) or a Routing Adjacency (RA) LSP is not available
        to the ingress or egress node, it cannot be advertised as an
        attribute of the FA or RA. There are 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.
     
        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
        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.
     
     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.
     
     
     
     
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires February 2015     [Page 3]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-04.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
        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].
     
     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 or 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 the cost
        of a TE link traversed by the LSP), 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.
     
     2.4. Cost Definition
     
        Although the terms latency and latency variation are well
        understood, "cost" may be ambiguous; in particular, in the
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires February 2015     [Page 4]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-04.txt
     
        context of a LSP that traverses nodes and links operated by
        different entities, there may be no common definition of cost.
        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.
     
        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:
     
          .  A higher cost represents an inferior path
     
          .  Simple addition of costs for different sections of a path
             must make sense.
     
     3. RSVP-TE signaling extensions
     
     3.1. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Collection Flags
     
        In order to indicate nodes that cost, latency and/ or latency
        variation collection is desired, the following three Attribute
        flags are defined in the Attribute Flags TLV:
     
        - 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 set and carried in either the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or
        LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Objects in a Path message.
     
     3.2. Cost Subobject
     
        The Cost subobject is a new RRO (ROUTE_RECORD OBJECT) sub-object
        used to record the cost information of the LSP. Its format is
        similar to the other 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)    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                       Downstream Cost                         |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                        Upstream Cost                          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     
     
           Type: TBA1 - Cost subobject (to be assigned by IANA).
     
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires February 2015     [Page 5]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-04.txt
     
           Length: The Length value is set to 8 or 12 depending on the
           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
           set to 0 on transmission 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. This approach has been taken to avoid
           defining a flag for each cost type in the Attribute-Flags
           TLV.
     
           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.
     
     3.3. Latency Subobject
     
        The Latency subobject is a new RRO sub-object to record the
        latency information of the LSP. Its format is similar the other
        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 Delay
           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, as defined in [DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC]. When set
     
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires February 2015     [Page 6]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-04.txt
     
           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-
           bit integer, as defined in [DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC]. 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 a new RRO sub-object to
        record the Latency Variation information of the LSP. Its format
        is similar to the other 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 Variation
           respectively, as defined in [DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC].
     
           Reserved: These fields are reserved for future use. It SHOULD
           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, as defined in [DRAFT-OSPF-
           TE-METRIC]. 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
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires February 2015     [Page 7]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-04.txt
     
           (16.777215 sec), the delay is at least that value and may be
           larger.
     
     
     
     4. 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
        a RRO in the Path message. If an ingress node also desires cost,
        latency and/or latency variation recording, it MUST set 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. These flags affect both Path and Resv RRO processing, as
        described below.
     
        The Cost Collection, Latency Collection or Latency Variation
        Collection flags SHOULD NOT be set in an Attribute Flags TLV in
        a Resv message. If any of these flags is set in a received
        Attribute Flags TLV in a Resv message, it MUST be ignored.
     
        The Cost Collection, Latency Collection or Latency Variation
        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.
     
     4.2. Path and Resv message processing
     
     4.2.1. Cost
     
        If a node receives a Path message containing a
        LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object with the Cost 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 "Cost Recording Rejected" (value to be assigned
             by IANA, suggested value 105).
     
          .  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
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires February 2015     [Page 8]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-04.txt
     
             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.
     
        If a node receives a Path message containing a LSP_ATTRIBUTES
        Object with the Cost 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 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
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires February 2015     [Page 9]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-04.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
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires February 2015     [Page 10]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-04.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.
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires February 2015     [Page 11]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-04.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
        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 a local decision and 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 and SHOULD follow
        procedure defined in [DRAFT-RRO-EDIT]. How a node that performs
        the RRO edit operation calculates the cost, latency o and/or
        latency variation metric is beyond the scope of this document.
     
     6. Security Considerations
     
        This document does not introduce any additional security issues
        above those identified in [RFC5920], [RFC5420], [RFC2205],
        [RFC3209], and [RFC3473].
     
     7. IANA Considerations
     
     7.1. 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
        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
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires February 2015     [Page 12]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-04.txt
     
     
     
              - 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
     
     7.2. New RSVP error sub-code
     
        For Error Code = 2 "Policy Control Failure" (see [RFC2205]) the
        following sub-code is defined.
     
           Sub-code                              Value
           --------                              -----
     
           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.
     
     
     
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires February 2015     [Page 13]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-04.txt
     
     8. Acknowledgments
     
        Authors would like to thank Ori Gerstel, Gabriele Maria
        Galimberti, Luyuan Fang and Walid Wakim for their review
        comments.
     
     9. References
     
     9.1. 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.
     
     9.2. 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.
     
     
     
     
     
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires February 2015     [Page 14]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-04.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
     
     
        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 February 2015     [Page 15]
     

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.127, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/