[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-cheng-manet-dlep-latency-extension) 00 01 02 03 04 Draft is active
In: Approved-announcement_to_be_sent
Network Working Group                                           B. Cheng
Internet-Draft                                    MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Intended status: Standards Track                          L. Berger, Ed.
Expires: April 20, 2019                          LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
                                                        October 17, 2018


                      DLEP Latency Range Extension
               draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension-04

Abstract

   This document defines an extension to the DLEP protocol to provide
   the range of latency that may be experienced on a link.

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 https://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 April 20, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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
   (https://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.





Cheng & Berger           Expires April 20, 2019                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        DLEP Latency Range Extension          October 2018


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Extension Usage and Identification  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Latency Range Data Item . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     5.1.  Extension Type Value  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     5.2.  Data Item Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5

1.  Introduction

   The Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) is defined in [RFC8175].
   It provides the exchange of link related control information between
   DLEP peers.  DLEP peers are comprised of a modem and a router.  DLEP
   defines a base set of mechanisms as well as support for possible
   extensions.  This document defines one such extension.

   The base DLEP specification includes the Latency metric which
   provides a single latency value on a link, which is implementation
   dependent.  This document adds the ability to relay the minimum and
   maximum latency range seen on a link.  The extension defined in this
   document is referred to as "Latency Range".

   This document defines a new DLEP Extension Type Value in Section 2
   which is used to indicate the use of the extension, and one new DLEP
   Data Item in Section 3.

1.1.  Key Words

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

2.  Extension Usage and Identification

   The use of the Latency Range Extension SHOULD be configurable.  To
   indicate that the Latency Range Extension is to be used, an
   implementation MUST include the Latency Range Extension Type Value in
   the Extensions Supported Data Item.  The Extensions Supported Data
   Item is sent and processed according to [RFC8175].




Cheng & Berger           Expires April 20, 2019                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        DLEP Latency Range Extension          October 2018


   Note: the usage of the extension defined in this document does not
   impact processing associated with the Latency Data Item defined in
   [RFC8175].

   The Latency Range Extension Type Value is TBA1, see Section 5.

3.  Latency Range Data Item

   The Latency Range Data Item serves much the same purpose as the
   Latency Data Item defined in [RFC8175] with the addition of being
   able to communicate the latency range that may be experienced by
   traffic on a link.  The Latency Range Data Item MAY be carried in any
   message where the Latency Data Item [RFC8175] is allowed and is
   carried as an additional data item.  When present, the Latency Range
   Data Item MUST be processed according to the same rules as the
   Latency Data Item defined in [RFC8175].

   The format of the Latency Range Data Item is:

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | Data Item Type                | Length                        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                        Maximum Latency                        :
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      :                        Maximum Latency                        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                        Minimum Latency                        :
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      :                        Minimum Latency                        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Data Item Type:  TBA2

   Length:  16

   Maximum Latency:

      A 64-bit unsigned integer, representing the longest transmission
      delay, in microseconds, that a packet encounters as it is
      transmitted over the link.

   Minimum Latency:

      A 64-bit unsigned integer, representing the shortest transmission
      delay, in microseconds, that a packet encounters as it is
      transmitted over the link.



Cheng & Berger           Expires April 20, 2019                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        DLEP Latency Range Extension          October 2018


4.  Security Considerations

   The extension introduces a new Data Item for the DLEP protocol.  The
   extension does not inherently introduce any additional threats above
   those documented in [RFC8175].  The approach taken to Security in
   that document applies equally when running the extension defined in
   this document.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests the assignment of 2 values by IANA.  All
   assignments are to registries defined by [RFC8175].

5.1.  Extension Type Value

   This document requests one new assignment to the DLEP Extensions
   Registry named "Extension Type Values" in the range with the
   "Specification Required" policy.  The requested value is as follows:

                         +------+---------------+
                         | Code | Description   |
                         +------+---------------+
                         | TBA1 | Latency Range |
                         +------+---------------+

                  Table 1: Requested Extension Type Value

5.2.  Data Item Value

   This document requests one new assignment to the DLEP Data Item
   Registry named "Data Item Type Values" in the range with the
   "Specification Required" policy.  The requested values are as
   follows:

                       +-----------+---------------+
                       | Type Code | Description   |
                       +-----------+---------------+
                       | TBA2      | Latency Range |
                       +-----------+---------------+

                    Table 2: Requested Data Item Values

6.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.



Cheng & Berger           Expires April 20, 2019                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        DLEP Latency Range Extension          October 2018


   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8175]  Ratliff, S., Jury, S., Satterwhite, D., Taylor, R., and B.
              Berry, "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)", RFC 8175,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8175, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8175>.

Appendix A.  Acknowledgments

   Helpful comments were received from members of the MANET working
   grouping, including Ronald in 't Velt, Henning Rogge, and Victoria
   Pritchard.

Authors' Addresses

   Bow-Nan Cheng
   MIT Lincoln Laboratory
   Massachusetts Institute of Technology
   244 Wood Street
   Lexington, MA  02421-6426

   Email: bcheng@ll.mit.edu


   Lou Berger (editor)
   LabN Consulting, L.L.C.

   Email: lberger@labn.net





















Cheng & Berger           Expires April 20, 2019                 [Page 5]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/