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

Versions: (draft-mirsky-mpls-residence-time) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15

MPLS Working Group                                             G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft                                                 ZTE Corp.
Intended status: Standards Track                              S. Ruffini
Expires: September 8, 2017                                       E. Gray
                                                                Ericsson
                                                                J. Drake
                                                        Juniper Networks
                                                               S. Bryant
                                                                  Huawei
                                                           A. Vainshtein
                                                             ECI Telecom
                                                           March 7, 2017


               Residence Time Measurement in MPLS network
                   draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-15

Abstract

   This document specifies a new Generic Associated Channel for
   Residence Time Measurement and describes how it can be used by time
   synchronization protocols within a MPLS domain.

   Residence time is the variable part of the propagation delay of
   timing and synchronization messages; knowing what this delay is for
   each message allows for a more accurate determination of the delay to
   be taken into account in applying the value included in a Precision
   Time Protocol event message.

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 September 8, 2017.






Mirsky, et al.          Expires September 8, 2017               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft         Residence Time Measurement             March 2017


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
       1.1.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
       1.1.2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Residence Time Measurement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  One-step Clock and Two-step Clock Modes . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.1.1.  RTM with Two-step Upstream PTP Clock  . . . . . . . .   6
       2.1.2.  Two-step RTM with One-step Upstream PTP Clock . . . .   7
   3.  G-ACh for Residence Time Measurement  . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.1.  PTP Packet Sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.  Control Plane Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.1.  RTM Capability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.2.  RTM Capability Sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.3.  RTM Capability Advertisement in Routing Protocols . . . .  11
       4.3.1.  RTM Capability Advertisement in OSPFv2  . . . . . . .  11
       4.3.2.  RTM Capability Advertisement in OSPFv3  . . . . . . .  13
       4.3.3.  RTM Capability Advertisement in IS-IS . . . . . . . .  13
       4.3.4.  RTM Capability Advertisement in BGP-LS  . . . . . . .  13
     4.4.  RSVP-TE Control Plane Operation to Support RTM  . . . . .  14
       4.4.1.  RTM_SET TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   5.  Data Plane Theory of Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   6.  Applicable PTP Scenarios  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     7.1.  New RTM G-ACh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     7.2.  New RTM TLV Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     7.3.  New RTM Sub-TLV Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     7.4.  RTM Capability sub-TLV in OSPFv2  . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     7.5.  IS-IS RTM Capability sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     7.6.  RTM Capability TLV in BGP-LS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     7.7.  RTM_SET Sub-object RSVP Type and sub-TLVs . . . . . . . .  23
     7.8.  RTM_SET Attribute Flag  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24



Mirsky, et al.          Expires September 8, 2017               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft         Residence Time Measurement             March 2017


     7.9.  New Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   9.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28

1.  Introduction

   Time synchronization protocols, e.g., Network Time Protocol version 4
   (NTPv4) [RFC5905] and Precision Time Protocol (PTP) Version 2
   [IEEE.1588.2008], define timing messages that can be used to
   synchronize clocks across a network domain.  Measurement of the
   cumulative time that one of these timing messages spends transiting
   the nodes on the path from ingress node to egress node is termed
   Residence Time and it is used to improve the accuracy of clock
   synchronization.  Residence Time is the sum of the difference between
   the time of receipt at an ingress interface and the time of
   transmission from an egress interface for each node along the network
   path from an ingress node to an egress node.  This document defines a
   new Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) value and an associated
   residence time measurement (RTM) message that can be used in a Multi-
   Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) network to measure residence time
   over a Label Switched Path (LSP).

   This document describes RTM over an LSP signaled using RSVP-TE
   [RFC3209].  Using RSVP-TE, the LSP's path can be either explicitly
   specified or determined during signaling.  Although it is possible to
   use RTM over an LSP instantiated using Label Distribution Protocol
   [RFC5036], that is outside the scope of this document.

   Comparison with alternative proposed solutions such as
   [I-D.ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls] is outside the scope of this document.

1.1.  Conventions used in this document

1.1.1.  Terminology

   MPLS: Multi-Protocol Label Switching

   ACH: Associated Channel

   TTL: Time-to-Live

   G-ACh: Generic Associated Channel

   GAL: Generic Associated Channel Label



Mirsky, et al.          Expires September 8, 2017               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft         Residence Time Measurement             March 2017


   NTP: Network Time Protocol

   ppm: parts per million

   PTP: Precision Time Protocol

   BC: Boundary Clock

   LSP: Label Switched Path

   OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance

   RRO: Record Route Object

   RTM: Residence Time Measurement

   IGP: Internal Gateway Protocol

   BGP-LS: Border Gateway Protocol - Link State

1.1.2.  Requirements Language

   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
   [RFC2119].

2.  Residence Time Measurement

   Packet Loss and Delay Measurement for MPLS Networks [RFC6374] can be
   used to measure one-way or two-way end-to-end propagation delay over
   LSP or PW.  But these measurements are insufficient for use in some
   applications, for example, time synchronization across a network as
   defined in the PTP.  In PTPv2 [IEEE.1588.2008], the residence time is
   accumulated in the correctionField of the PTP event message, as
   defined in [IEEE.1588.2008] and referred to as using a one-step
   clock, or in the associated follow-up message (or Delay_Resp message
   associated with the Delay_Req message), referred to as using a two-
   step clock (see the detailed discussion in Section 2.1).

   IEEE 1588 uses this residence time to correct for the transit times
   of nodes on an LSP, effectively making the transit nodes transparent.

   This document proposes a mechanism that can be used as one type of
   on-path support for a clock synchronization protocol or to perform
   one-way measurement of residence time.  The proposed mechanism
   accumulates residence time from all nodes that support this extension
   along the path of a particular LSP in the Scratch Pad field of an RTM



Mirsky, et al.          Expires September 8, 2017               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft         Residence Time Measurement             March 2017


   message (Figure 1).  This value can then be used by the egress node
   to update, for example, the correctionField of the PTP event packet
   carried within the RTM message prior to performing its PTP
   processing.

2.1.  One-step Clock and Two-step Clock Modes

   One-step mode refers to the mode of operation where an egress
   interface updates the correctionField value of an original event
   message.  Two-step mode refers to the mode of operation where this
   update is made in a subsequent follow-up message.

   Processing of the follow-up message, if present, requires the
   downstream end-point to wait for the arrival of the follow-up message
   in order to combine correctionField values from both the original
   (event) message and the subsequent (follow-up) message.  In a similar
   fashion, each two-step node needs to wait for the related follow-up
   message, if there is one, in order to update that follow-up message
   (as opposed to creating a new one).  Hence the first node that uses
   two-step mode MUST do two things:

   1.  Mark the original event message to indicate that a follow-up
       message will be forthcoming.  This is necessary in order to

          Let any subsequent two-step node know that there is already a
          follow-up message, and

          Let the end-point know to wait for a follow-up message;

   2.  Create a follow-up message in which to put the RTM determined as
       an initial correctionField value.

   IEEE 1588v2 [IEEE.1588.2008] defines this behavior for PTP messages.

   Thus, for example, with reference to the PTP protocol, the PTPType
   field identifies whether the message is a Sync message, Follow_up
   message, Delay_Req message, or Delay_Resp message.  The 10 octet long
   Port ID field contains the identity of the source port
   [IEEE.1588.2008], that is, the specific PTP port of the boundary
   clock connected to the MPLS network.  The Sequence ID is the sequence
   ID of the PTP message carried in the Value field of the message.

   PTP messages also include a bit that indicates whether or not a
   follow-up message will be coming.  This bit MAY be set by a two-step
   mode PTP device.  The value MUST NOT be unset until the original and
   follow-up messages are combined by an end-point (such as a Boundary
   Clock).




Mirsky, et al.          Expires September 8, 2017               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft         Residence Time Measurement             March 2017


   For compatibility with PTP, RTM (when used for PTP packets) must
   behave in a similar fashion.  It should be noted that the handling of
   Sync event messages and of Delay_Req/Delay_Resp event messages that
   cross a two-step RTM node is different.  The following outlines the
   handling of PTP Sync event message by the two-step RTM node.  The
   details of handling Delay_Resp/Delay_Req PTP event messages by the
   two-step RTM node are discussed in Section 2.1.1.  As a summary, a
   two-step RTM capable egress interface will need to examine the S-bit
   in the Flags field of the PTP sub-TLV (for RTM messages that indicate
   they are for PTP) and - if it is clear (set to zero), it MUST set the
   S bit and create a follow-up PTP Type RTM message.  If the S bit is
   already set, then the RTM capable node MUST wait for the RTM message
   with the PTP type of follow-up and matching originator and sequence
   number to make the corresponding residence time update to the Scratch
   Pad field.  The wait period MUST be reasonably bounded.

   Thus, an RTM packet, containing residence time information relating
   to an earlier packet, also contains information identifying that
   earlier packet.

   In practice, an RTM node operating in two-step mode behaves like a
   two-steps transparent clock.

   A one-step capable RTM node MAY elect to operate in either one-step
   mode (by making an update to the Scratch Pad field of the RTM message
   containing the PTP event message), or in two-step mode (by making an
   update to the Scratch Pad of a follow-up message when presence of a
   follow-up is indicated), but MUST NOT do both.

   Two main subcases identified for an RTM node operating as a two-step
   clock are described in the following sub-sections.

2.1.1.  RTM with Two-step Upstream PTP Clock

   If any of the previous RTM capable nodes or the previous PTP clock
   (e.g., the Boundary Clock (BC) connected to the first node), is a
   two-step clock, the residence time is added to the RTM packet that
   has been created to include the second PTP packet (i.e., follow-up
   message in the downstream direction), if the local RTM-capable node
   is also operating as a two-step clock.  This RTM packet carries the
   related accumulated residence time and the appropriate values of the
   Sequence ID and Port ID (the same identifiers carried in the original
   packet) and the Two-step Flag set to 1.

   Note that the fact that an upstream RTM-capable node operating in the
   two-step mode has created a follow-up message does not require any
   subsequent RTM capable node to also operate in the two-step mode, as




Mirsky, et al.          Expires September 8, 2017               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft         Residence Time Measurement             March 2017


   long as that RTM-capable node forwards the follow-up message on the
   same LSP on which it forwards the corresponding previous message.

   A one-step capable RTM node MAY elect to update the RTM follow-up
   message as if it were operating in two-step mode, however, it MUST
   NOT update both messages.

   A PTP Sync packet is carried in the RTM packet in order to indicate
   to the RTM node that residence time measurement must be performed on
   that specific packet.

   To handle the residence time of the Delay_Req message on the upstream
   direction, an RTM packet must be created to carry the residence time
   on the associated downstream Delay_Resp message.

   The last RTM node of the MPLS network, in addition to updating the
   correctionField of the associated PTP packet, must also react
   properly to the two-step flag of the PTP packets.

2.1.2.  Two-step RTM with One-step Upstream PTP Clock

   When the PTP network connected to the MPLS operates in one-step clock
   mode and an RTM node operates in two-step mode, the follow-up RTM
   packet must be created by the RTM node itself.  The RTM packet
   carrying the PTP event packet needs now to indicate that a follow-up
   message will be coming.

   The egress RTM-capable node of the LSP will be removing RTM
   encapsulation and, in case of two-step clock mode being indicated,
   will generate PTP messages to include the follow-up correction as
   appropriate (according to the [IEEE.1588.2008]).  In this case, the
   common header of the PTP packet carrying the synchronization message
   would have to be modified by setting the twoStepFlag field indicating
   that there is now a follow up message associated to the current
   message.

3.  G-ACh for Residence Time Measurement

   RFC 5586 [RFC5586] and RFC 6423 [RFC6423] define the G-ACh to extend
   the applicability of the Pseudowire Associated Channel (ACH)
   [RFC5085] to LSPs.  G-ACh provides a mechanism to transport OAM and
   other control messages over an LSP.  Processing of these messages by
   selected transit nodes is controlled by the use of the Time-to-Live
   (TTL) value in the MPLS header of these messages.

   The message format for Residence Time Measurement (RTM) is presented
   in Figure 1




Mirsky, et al.          Expires September 8, 2017               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft         Residence Time Measurement             March 2017


     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 0 0 1|Version|   Reserved    |           RTM G-ACh           |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    |                        Scratch Pad                            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |            Type               |             Length            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                       Sub-TLV (optional)                      |
    ~                                                               ~
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     Figure 1: RTM G-ACh message format for Residence Time Measurement

   o  First four octets are defined as G-ACh Header in [RFC5586]

   o  The Version field is set to 0, as defined in RFC 4385 [RFC4385].

   o  The Reserved field MUST be set to 0 on transmit and ignored on
      receipt.

   o  The RTM G-ACh field, value (TBA1) to be allocated by IANA,
      identifies the packet as such.

   o  The Scratch Pad field is 8 octets in length.  It is used to
      accumulate the residence time spent in each RTM capable node
      transited by the packet on its path from ingress node to egress
      node.  The first RTM-capable node MUST initialize the Scratch Pad
      field with its residence time measurement.  Its format is IEEE
      double precision and its units are nanoseconds.  Note that
      depending on whether the timing procedure is one-step or two-step
      operation (Section 2.1), the residence time is either for the
      timing packet carried in the Value field of this RTM message or
      for an associated timing packet carried in the Value field of
      another RTM message.

   o  The Type field identifies the type and encapsulation of a timing
      packet carried in the Value field, e.g., NTP [RFC5905] or PTP
      [IEEE.1588.2008].  This document asks IANA to create a sub-
      registry in Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) Parameters Registry
      called "MPLS RTM TLV Registry" Section 7.2.

   o  The Length field contains the length, in octets, of the of the
      timing packet carried in the Value field.




Mirsky, et al.          Expires September 8, 2017               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft         Residence Time Measurement             March 2017


   o  The optional Value field MAY carry a packet of the time
      synchronization protocol identified by Type field.  It is
      important to note that the packet may be authenticated or
      encrypted and carried over LSP edge to edge unchanged while the
      residence time is accumulated in the Scratch Pad field.

   o  The TLV MUST be included in the RTM message, even if the length of
      the Value field is zero.

3.1.  PTP Packet Sub-TLV

   Figure 2 presents the format of a PTP sub-TLV that MUST be included
   in the Value field of an RTM message preceding the carried timing
   packet when the timing packet is PTP.

     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            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                         Flags                         |PTPType|
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                            Port ID                            |
    |                                                               |
    |                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                               |           Sequence ID         |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                       Figure 2: PTP Sub-TLV format

   where Flags field has format

     0                   1                   2
     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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |S|                      Reserved                       |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

            Figure 3: Flags field format of PTP Packet Sub-TLV

   o  The Type field identifies PTP packet sub-TLV and is set to 1
      according to Section 7.3.

   o  The Length field of the PTP sub-TLV contains the number of octets
      of the Value field and MUST be 20.

   o  The Flags field currently defines one bit, the S-bit, that defines
      whether the current message has been processed by a two-step node,



Mirsky, et al.          Expires September 8, 2017               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft         Residence Time Measurement             March 2017


      where the flag is cleared if the message has been handled
      exclusively by one-step nodes and there is no follow-up message,
      and is set if there has been at least one two-step node and a
      follow-up message is forthcoming.

   o  The PTPType field indicates the type of PTP packet carried in the
      TLV.  PTPType is the messageType field of the PTPv2 packet whose
      values are defined in Table 19 of [IEEE.1588.2008].

   o  The 10 octet long Port ID field contains the identity of the
      source port.

   o  The Sequence ID is the sequence ID of the PTP message carried in
      the Value field of the message.

   Tuple of PTPType, Port ID, and Sequence ID uniquely identifies PTP
   control packet encapsulated in RTM message and are used in two-step
   RTM mode Section 2.1.1.

4.  Control Plane Theory of Operation

   The operation of RTM depends upon TTL expiry to deliver an RTM packet
   from one RTM capable interface to the next along the path from
   ingress node to egress node.  This means that a node with RTM capable
   interfaces MUST be able to compute a TTL which will cause the expiry
   of an RTM packet at the next node with RTM capable interfaces.

4.1.  RTM Capability

   Note that the RTM capability of a node is with respect to the pair of
   interfaces that will be used to forward an RTM packet.  In general,
   the ingress interface of this pair must be able to capture the
   arrival time of the packet and encode it in some way such that this
   information will be available to the egress interface of a node.

   The supported mode (one-step or two-step) of any pair of interfaces
   is determined by the capability of the egress interface.  For both
   modes, the egress interface implementation MUST be able to determine
   the precise departure time of the same packet and determine from
   this, and the arrival time information from the corresponding ingress
   interface, the difference representing the residence time for the
   packet.

   An interface with the ability to do this and update the associated
   Scratch Pad in real-time (i.e., while the packet is being forwarded)
   is said to be one-step capable.





Mirsky, et al.          Expires September 8, 2017              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft         Residence Time Measurement             March 2017


   Hence while both ingress and egress interfaces are required to
   support RTM for the pair to be RTM-capable, it is the egress
   interface that determines whether or not the node is one-step or two-
   step capable with respect to the interface-pair.

   The RTM capability used in the sub-TLV shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5
   is thus a non-routing related capability associated with the
   interface being advertised based on its egress capability.  The
   ability of any pair of interfaces on a node that includes this egress
   interface to support any mode of RTM depends on the ability of the
   ingress interface of a node to record packet arrival time and convey
   it to the egress interface on the node.

   When a node uses an IGP to support the RTM capability advertisement,
   the IGP sub-TLV MUST reflect the RTM capability (one-step or two-
   step) associated with the advertised interface.  Changes of RTM
   capability are unlikely to be frequent and would result, for example,
   from operator's decision to include or exclude a particular port from
   RTM processing or switch between RTM modes.

4.2.  RTM Capability Sub-TLV

   [RFC4202] explains that the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor
   describes the switching capability of an interface.  For bi-
   directional links, the switching capabilities of an interface are
   defined to be the same in either direction.  I.e., for data entering
   the node through that interface and for data leaving the node through
   that interface.  That principle SHOULD be applied when a node
   advertises RTM Capability.

   A node that supports RTM MUST be able to act in two-step mode and MAY
   also support one-step RTM mode.  Detailed discussion of one-step and
   two-step RTM modes is contained in Section 2.1.

4.3.  RTM Capability Advertisement in Routing Protocols

4.3.1.  RTM Capability Advertisement in OSPFv2

   The format for the RTM Capability sub-TLV in OSPF is presented in
   Figure 4











Mirsky, et al.          Expires September 8, 2017              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft         Residence Time Measurement             March 2017


     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            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    | RTM |  Value       ...
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- ...

                Figure 4: RTM Capability sub-TLV in OSPFv2

   o  Type value (TBA2) will be assigned by IANA from appropriate
      registry for OSPFv2 Section 7.4.

   o  Length value equals number of octets of the Value field.

   o  Value contains variable number of bit-map fields so that overall
      number of bits in the fields equals Length * 8.

   o  Bits are defined/sent starting with Bit 0.  Additional bit-map
      field definitions that may be defined in the future SHOULD be
      assigned in ascending bit order so as to minimize the number of
      bits that will need to be transmitted.

   o  Undefined bits MUST be transmitted as 0 and MUST be ignored on
      receipt.

   o  Bits that are NOT transmitted MUST be treated as if they are set
      to 0 on receipt.

   o  RTM (capability) - is a three-bit long bit-map field with values
      defined as follows:

      *  0b001 - one-step RTM supported;

      *  0b010 - two-step RTM supported;

      *  0b100 - reserved.

   The capability to support RTM on a particular link (interface) is
   advertised in the OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSA described in
   Section 3 [RFC7684] via the RTM Capability sub-TLV.

   Its Type value will be assigned by IANA from the OSPF Extended Link
   TLV Sub-TLVs registry Section 7.4, that will be created per [RFC7684]
   request.






Mirsky, et al.          Expires September 8, 2017              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft         Residence Time Measurement             March 2017


4.3.2.  RTM Capability Advertisement in OSPFv3

   The capability to support RTM on a particular link (interface) can be
   advertised in OSPFv3 using LSA extensions as described in
   [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend].  The sub-TLV SHOULD use the same
   format as in Section 4.3.1.  The type allocation and full details of
   exact use of OSPFv3 LSA extensions is for further study.

4.3.3.  RTM Capability Advertisement in IS-IS

   The capability to support RTM on a particular link (interface) is
   advertised in a new sub-TLV which may be included in TLVs advertising
   Intermediate System (IS) Reachability on a specific link (TLVs 22,
   23, 222, and 223).

   The format for the RTM Capabilities sub-TLV is presented in Figure 5

     0                   1                   2
     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 ...
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...
    |      Type     |     Length    | RTM |   Value      ...
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...

                     Figure 5: RTM Capability sub-TLV

   o  Type value (TBA3) will be assigned by IANA from the Sub-TLVs for
      TLVs 22, 23, 141, 222, and 223 registry for IS-IS Section 7.5.

   o  Definitions, rules of handling, and values for fields Length and
      Value are as defined in Section 4.3.1

   o  RTM (capability) - is a three-bit long bit-map field with values
      defined in Section 4.3.1.

4.3.4.  RTM Capability Advertisement in BGP-LS

   The format for the RTM Capabilities TLV is as presented in Figure 4.

   Type value TBA9 will be assigned by IANA from the BGP-LS Node
   Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs
   sub-registry Section 7.6.

   Definitions, rules of handling, and values for fields Length, Value,
   and RTM are as defined in Section 4.3.1.

   The RTM Capability will be advertised in BGP-LS as a Link Attribute
   TLV associated with the Link NLRI as described in section 3.3.2 of
   [RFC7752].



Mirsky, et al.          Expires September 8, 2017              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft         Residence Time Measurement             March 2017


4.4.  RSVP-TE Control Plane Operation to Support RTM

   Throughout this document we refer to a node as RTM capable node when
   at least one of its interfaces is RTM capable.  Figure 6 provides an
   example of roles a node may have with respect to RTM capability:

    -----     -----     -----     -----     -----     -----     -----
    | A |-----| B |-----| C |-----| D |-----| E |-----| F |-----| G |
    -----     -----     -----     -----     -----     -----     -----

                        Figure 6: RTM capable roles

   o  A is a BC with its egress port in Master state.  Node A transmits
      IP encapsulated timing packets whose destination IP address is G.

   o  B is the ingress LER for the MPLS LSP and is the first RTM capable
      node.  It creates RTM packets and in each it places a timing
      packet, possibly encrypted, in the Value field and initializes the
      Scratch Pad field with its residence time measurement

   o  C is a transit node that is not RTM capable.  It forwards RTM
      packets without modification.

   o  D is RTM capable transit node.  It updates the Scratch Pad field
      of the RTM packet without updating the timing packet.

   o  E is a transit node that is not RTM capable.  It forwards RTM
      packets without modification.

   o  F is the egress LER and the last RTM capable node.  It removes the
      RTM ACH encapsulation and processes the timing packet carried in
      the Value field using the value in the Scratch Pad field.  In
      particular, the value in the Scratch Pad field of the RTM ACH is
      used in updating the Correction field of the PTP message(s).  The
      LER should also include its own residence time before creating the
      outgoing PTP packets.  The details of this process depend on
      whether or not the node F is itself operating as one-step or two-
      step clock.

   o  G is a Boundary Clock with its ingress port in Slave state.  Node
      G receives PTP messages.

   An ingress node that is configured to perform RTM along a path
   through an MPLS network to an egress node MUST verify that the
   selected egress node has an interface that supports RTM via the
   egress node's advertisement of the RTM Capability sub-TLV, as covered
   in Section 4.3.  In the Path message that the ingress node uses to
   instantiate the LSP to that egress node, it places an LSP_ATTRIBUTES



Mirsky, et al.          Expires September 8, 2017              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft         Residence Time Measurement             March 2017


   Object [RFC5420] with RTM_SET Attribute Flag set, as described in
   Section 7.8, which indicates to the egress node that RTM is requested
   for this LSP.  The RTM_SET Attribute Flag SHOULD NOT be set in the
   LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object [RFC5420], unless it is known that all
   nodes recognize the RTM attribute (but need not necessarily implement
   it), because a node that does not recognize the RTM_SET Attribute
   Flag would reject the Path message.

   If an egress node receives a Path message with the RTM_SET Attribute
   Flag in LSP_ATTRIBUTES object, the egress node MUST include an
   initialized RRO [RFC3209] and LSP_ATTRIBUTES object where the RTM_SET
   Attribute Flag is set and the RTM_SET TLV Section 4.4.1 is
   initialized.  When the Resv message is received by the ingress node,
   the RTM_SET TLV will contain an ordered list, from egress node to
   ingress node, of the RTM capable nodes along the LSP's path.

   After the ingress node receives the Resv, it MAY begin sending RTM
   packets on the LSP's path.  Each RTM packet has its Scratch Pad field
   initialized and its TTL set to expire on the closest downstream RTM
   capable node.

   It should be noted that RTM can also be used for LSPs instantiated
   using [RFC3209] in an environment in which all interfaces in an IGP
   support RTM.  In this case the RTM_SET TLV and LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object
   MAY be omitted.

4.4.1.  RTM_SET TLV

   RTM capable interfaces can be recorded via RTM_SET TLV.  The RTM_SET
   sub-object format is of generic Type, Length, Value (TLV), presented
   in Figure 7 .

     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    |I|         Reserved            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    ~                             Value                             ~
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                       Figure 7: RTM_SET TLV format

   The type value (TBA4) will be assigned by IANA from its RSVP-TE
   Attributes TLV Space sub-registry Section 7.7.

   The Length contains the total length of the sub-object in bytes,
   including the Type and Length fields.



Mirsky, et al.          Expires September 8, 2017              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft         Residence Time Measurement             March 2017


   The I bit flag indicates whether the downstream RTM capable node
   along the LSP is present in the RRO.

   The Reserved field must be zeroed on initiation and ignored on
   receipt.

   The content of an RTM_SET TLV is a series of variable-length sub-
   TLVs.  Only a single RTM_SET can be present in a given LSP_ATTRIBUTES
   object.  The sub-TLVs are defined in Section 4.4.1.1 below.

   The following processing procedures apply to every RTM capable node
   along the LSP.  In this paragraph, an RTM capable node is referred to
   as a node for sake of brevity.  Each node MUST examine the Resv
   message for whether the RTM_SET Attribute Flag in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES
   object is set.  If the RTM_SET flag is set, the node MUST inspect the
   LSP_ATTRIBUTES object for presence of an RTM_SET TLV.  If more than
   one is found, then the LSP setup MUST fail with generation of the
   ResvErr message with Error Code Duplicate TLV (Section 7.9) and Error
   Value that contains Type value in its 8 least significant bits.  If
   no RTM_SET TLV is found, then the LSP setup MUST fail with generation
   of the ResvErr message with Error Code RTM_SET TLV Absent
   Section 7.9.  If one RTM_SET TLV has been found, the node will use
   the ID of the first node in the RTM_SET in conjunction with the RRO
   to compute the hop count to its downstream node with reachable RTM
   capable interface.  If the node cannot find a matching ID in the RRO,
   then it MUST try to use the ID of the next node in the RTM_SET until
   it finds the match or reaches the end of the RTM_SET TLV.  If a match
   has been found, the calculated value is used by the node as the TTL
   value in the outgoing label to reach the next RTM capable node on the
   LSP.  Otherwise, the TTL value MUST be set to 255.  The node MUST add
   an RTM_SET sub-TLV with the same address it used in the RRO sub-
   object at the beginning of the RTM_SET TLV in the associated outgoing
   Resv message before forwarding it upstream.  If the calculated TTL
   value has been set to 255, as described above, then the I flag in the
   node's RTM_SET TLV MUST be set to 1 before the Resv message is
   forwarded upstream.  Otherwise, the I flag MUST be cleared (0).

   The ingress node MAY inspect the I bit flag received in each RTM_SET
   TLV contained in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object of a received Resv
   message.  The presence of the RTM_SET TLV with the I bit field set to
   1 indicates that some RTM nodes along the LSP could not be included
   in the calculation of the residence time.  An ingress node MAY choose
   to resignal the LSP to include all RTM nodes or simply notify the
   user via a management interface.

   There are scenarios when some information is removed from an RRO due
   to policy processing (e.g., as may happen between providers) or the
   RRO is limited due to size constraints.  Such changes affect the core



Mirsky, et al.          Expires September 8, 2017              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft         Residence Time Measurement             March 2017


   assumption of this method and the processing of RTM packets.  RTM
   SHOULD NOT be used if it is not guaranteed that the RRO contains
   complete information.

4.4.1.1.  RTM_SET Sub-TLVs

   The RTM Set sub-object contains an ordered list, from egress node to
   ingress node, of the RTM capable nodes along the LSP's path.

   The contents of a RTM_SET sub-object are a series of variable-length
   sub-TLVs.  Each sub-TLV has its own Length field.  The Length
   contains the total length of the sub-TLV in bytes, including the Type
   and Length fields.  The Length MUST always be a multiple of 4, and at
   least 8 (smallest IPv4 sub-object).

   Sub-TLVs are organized as a last-in-first-out stack.  The first-out
   sub-TLV relative to the beginning of RTM_SET TLV is considered the
   top.  The last-out sub-TLV is considered the bottom.  When a new sub-
   TLV is added, it is always added to the top.

   The RTM_SET TLV is intended to include the subset of the RRO sub-TLVs
   that represents those egress interfaces on the LSP that are RTM-
   capable.  After a node chooses an egress interface to use in the RRO
   sub-TLV, that same egress interface, if RTM-capable, SHOULD be placed
   into the RTM_SET TLV using one of the IPv4 sub-TLV, IPv6 sub-TLV, or
   Unnumbered Interface sub-TLV.  The address family chosen SHOULD match
   that of the RESV message and that used in the RRO; the unnumbered
   interface sub-TLV is used when the egress interface has no assigned
   IP address.  A node MUST NOT place more sub-TLVs in the RTM_SET TLV
   than the number of RTM-capable egress interfaces the LSP traverses
   that are under that node's control.  Only a single RTM_SET sub-TLV
   with the given Value field MUST be present in the RTM_SET TLV.  If
   more than one sub-TLV with the same value (e.g., a duplicated
   address) is found the LSP setup MUST fail with the generation of a
   ResvErr message with the Error Code "Duplicate sub-TLV" Section 7.9
   and Error Value contains 16-bit value composed of (Type of TLV, Type
   of sub-TLV).

   Three kinds of sub-TLVs for RTM_SET are currently defined.

4.4.1.1.1.  IPv4 Sub-TLV










Mirsky, et al.          Expires September 8, 2017              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft         Residence Time Measurement             March 2017


    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            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                       IPv4 address                          |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                       Figure 8: IPv4 sub-TLV format

   Type

      0x01 IPv4 address

   Length

      The Length contains the total length of the sub-TLV in bytes,
      including the Type and Length fields.  The Length is always 8.

   IPv4 address

      A 32-bit unicast host address.

   Reserved

      Zeroed on initiation and ignored on receipt.

4.4.1.1.2.  IPv6 Sub-TLV

    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            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                             |
    |                         IPv6 address                        |
    |                                                             |
    |                                                             |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                       Figure 9: IPv6 sub-TLV format

   Type

      0x02 IPv6 address

   Length




Mirsky, et al.          Expires September 8, 2017              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft         Residence Time Measurement             March 2017


      The Length contains the total length of the sub-TLV in bytes,
      including the Type and Length fields.  The Length is always 20.

   IPv6 address

      A 128-bit unicast host address.

   Reserved

      Zeroed on initiation and ignored on receipt.

4.4.1.1.3.  Unnumbered Interface Sub-TLV

    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            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                          Node ID                            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                       Interface ID                          |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                      Figure 10: IPv4 sub-TLV format

   Type

      0x03 Unnumbered interface

   Length

      The Length contains the total length of the sub-TLV in bytes,
      including the Type and Length fields.  The Length is always 12.

   Node ID

      The Node ID interpreted as Router ID as discussed in Section 2
      [RFC3477].

   Interface ID

      The identifier assigned to the link by the node specified by the
      Node ID.

   Reserved

      Zeroed on initiation and ignored on receipt.




Mirsky, et al.          Expires September 8, 2017              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft         Residence Time Measurement             March 2017


5.  Data Plane Theory of Operation

   After instantiating an LSP for a path using RSVP-TE [RFC3209] as
   described in Section 4.4, the ingress node MAY begin sending RTM
   packets to the first downstream RTM capable node on that path.  Each
   RTM packet has its Scratch Pad field initialized and its TTL set to
   expire on the next downstream RTM-capable node.  Each RTM-capable
   node on the explicit path receives an RTM packet and records the time
   at which it receives that packet at its ingress interface as well as
   the time at which it transmits that packet from its egress interface.
   These actions should be done as close to the physical layer as
   possible at the same point of packet processing striving to avoid
   introducing the appearance of jitter in propagation delay whereas it
   should be accounted as residence time.  The RTM-capable node
   determines the difference between those two times; for one-step
   operation, this difference is determined just prior to or while
   sending the packet, and the RTM-capable egress interface adds it to
   the value in the Scratch Pad field of the message in progress.  Note,
   for the purpose of calculating a residence time, a common free
   running clock synchronizing all the involved interfaces may be
   sufficient, as, for example, 4.6 ppm accuracy leads to 4.6 nanosecond
   error for residence time on the order of 1 millisecond.  This may be
   acceptable for applications where the target accuracy is in the order
   of hundreds of ns.  As an example, several applications being
   considered in the area of wireless applications are satisfied with an
   accuracy of 1.5 microseconds [ITU-T.G.8271].

   For two-step operation, the difference between packet arrival time
   (at an ingress interface) and subsequent departure time (from an
   egress interface) is determined at some later time prior to sending a
   subsequent follow-up message, so that this value can be used to
   update the correctionField in the follow-up message.

   See Section 2.1 for further details on the difference between one-
   step and two-step operation.

   The last RTM-capable node on the LSP MAY then use the value in the
   Scratch Pad field to perform time correction, if there is no follow-
   up message.  For example, the egress node may be a PTP Boundary Clock
   synchronized to a Master Clock and will use the value in the Scratch
   Pad field to update PTP's correctionField.

6.  Applicable PTP Scenarios

   This approach can be directly integrated in a PTP network based on
   the IEEE 1588 delay request-response mechanism.  The RTM capable
   nodes act as end-to-end transparent clocks, and typically boundary
   clocks, at the edges of the MPLS network, use the value in the



Mirsky, et al.          Expires September 8, 2017              [Page 20]


Internet-Draft         Residence Time Measurement             March 2017


   Scratch Pad field to update the correctionField of the corresponding
   PTP event packet prior to performing the usual PTP processing.

7.  IANA Considerations

7.1.  New RTM G-ACh

   IANA is requested to reserve a new G-ACh as follows:

          +-------+----------------------------+---------------+
          | Value |        Description         | Reference     |
          +-------+----------------------------+---------------+
          | TBA1  | Residence Time Measurement | This document |
          +-------+----------------------------+---------------+

                  Table 1: New Residence Time Measurement

7.2.  New RTM TLV Registry

   IANA is requested to create a sub-registry in the Generic Associated
   Channel (G-ACh) Parameters Registry called "MPLS RTM TLV Registry".
   All code points in the range 0 through 127 in this registry shall be
   allocated according to the "IETF Review" procedure as specified in
   [RFC5226].  Code points in the range 128 through 191 in this registry
   shall be allocated according to the "First Come First Served"
   procedure as specified in [RFC5226].  This document defines the
   following new values RTM TLV types:

       +-----------+-------------------------------+---------------+
       | Value     |          Description          | Reference     |
       +-----------+-------------------------------+---------------+
       | 0         |            Reserved           | This document |
       | 1         |           No payload          | This document |
       | 2         | PTPv2, Ethernet encapsulation | This document |
       | 3         |   PTPv2, IPv4 Encapsulation   | This document |
       | 4         |   PTPv2, IPv6 Encapsulation   | This document |
       | 5         |              NTP              | This document |
       | 6-127     |           Unassigned          |               |
       | 128 - 191 |           Unassigned          |               |
       | 192 - 254 |          Private Use          | This document |
       | 255       |            Reserved           | This document |
       +-----------+-------------------------------+---------------+

                           Table 2: RTM TLV Type







Mirsky, et al.          Expires September 8, 2017              [Page 21]


Internet-Draft         Residence Time Measurement             March 2017


7.3.  New RTM Sub-TLV Registry

   IANA is requested to create a sub-registry in the MPLS RTM TLV
   Registry, requested in Section 7.2, called "MPLS RTM Sub-TLV
   Registry".  All code points in the range 0 through 127 in this
   registry shall be allocated according to the "IETF Review" procedure
   as specified in [RFC5226].  Code points in the range 128 through 191
   in this registry shall be allocated according to the "First Come
   First Served" procedure as specified in [RFC5226].  This document
   defines the following new values RTM sub-TLV types:

                +-----------+-------------+---------------+
                | Value     | Description | Reference     |
                +-----------+-------------+---------------+
                | 0         |   Reserved  | This document |
                | 1         |     PTP     | This document |
                | 2-127     |  Unassigned |               |
                | 128 - 191 |  Unassigned |               |
                | 192 - 254 | Private Use | This document |
                | 255       |   Reserved  | This document |
                +-----------+-------------+---------------+

                         Table 3: RTM Sub-TLV Type

7.4.  RTM Capability sub-TLV in OSPFv2

   IANA is requested to assign a new type for RTM Capability sub-TLV
   from the OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV Sub-TLVs registry as follows:

                +-------+----------------+---------------+
                | Value |  Description   | Reference     |
                +-------+----------------+---------------+
                | TBA2  | RTM Capability | This document |
                +-------+----------------+---------------+

                      Table 4: RTM Capability sub-TLV

7.5.  IS-IS RTM Capability sub-TLV

   IANA is requested to assign a new Type for the RTM Capability sub-TLV
   from the Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 23, 141, 222, and 223 registry as
   follows:









Mirsky, et al.          Expires September 8, 2017              [Page 22]


Internet-Draft         Residence Time Measurement             March 2017


   +------+----------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+---------------+
   | Type |  Description   | 22 | 23 | 141 | 222 | 223 | Reference     |
   +------+----------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+---------------+
   | TBA3 | RTM Capability | y  | y  | n   | y   | y   | This document |
   +------+----------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+---------------+

        Table 5: IS-IS RTM Capability sub-TLV Registry Description

7.6.  RTM Capability TLV in BGP-LS

   IANA is requested to assign a new code point for the RTM Capability
   TLV from the BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix
   Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs sub-registry in its Border Gateway
   Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters registry as follows:

   +---------------+----------------+------------------+---------------+
   | TLV Code      |  Description   |  IS-IS TLV/Sub-  | Reference     |
   | Point         |                |       TLV        |               |
   +---------------+----------------+------------------+---------------+
   | TBA9          | RTM Capability |     22/TBA3      | This document |
   +---------------+----------------+------------------+---------------+

                   Table 6: RTM Capability TLV in BGP-LS

7.7.  RTM_SET Sub-object RSVP Type and sub-TLVs

   IANA is requested to assign a new Type for the RTM_SET sub-object
   from the RSVP-TE Attributes TLV Space sub-registry as follows:

   +-----+------------+-----------+---------------+---------+----------+
   | Typ |    Name    |  Allowed  | Allowed  on   | Allowed | Referenc |
   | e   |            | on  LSP_A | LSP_REQUIRED_ |  on LSP | e        |
   |     |            | TTRIBUTES |   ATTRIBUTES  | Hop Att |          |
   |     |            |           |               | ributes |          |
   +-----+------------+-----------+---------------+---------+----------+
   | TBA |  RTM_SET   |    Yes    |       No      |    No   | This     |
   | 4   | sub-object |           |               |         | document |
   +-----+------------+-----------+---------------+---------+----------+

                     Table 7: RTM_SET Sub-object Type

   IANA requested to create a new sub-registry for sub-TLV types of the
   RTM_SET sub-object.  All code points in the range 0 through 127 in
   this registry shall be allocated according to the "IETF Review"
   procedure as specified in [RFC5226].  Code points in the range 128
   through 191 in this registry shall be allocated according to the
   "First Come First Served" procedure as specified in [RFC5226].  This




Mirsky, et al.          Expires September 8, 2017              [Page 23]


Internet-Draft         Residence Time Measurement             March 2017


   document defines the following new values of RTM_SET object sub-
   object types:

           +-----------+----------------------+---------------+
           | Value     |     Description      | Reference     |
           +-----------+----------------------+---------------+
           | 0         |       Reserved       | This document |
           | 1         |     IPv4 address     | This document |
           | 2         |     IPv6 address     | This document |
           | 3         | Unnumbered interface | This document |
           | 4-127     |      Unassigned      |               |
           | 128 - 191 |      Unassigned      |               |
           | 192 - 254 |     Private Use      | This document |
           | 255       |       Reserved       | This document |
           +-----------+----------------------+---------------+

                 Table 8: RTM_SET object sub-object types

7.8.  RTM_SET Attribute Flag

   IANA is requested to assign new flag from the RSVP-TE Attribute Flags
   registry

   +-----+--------+-----------+------------+-----+-----+---------------+
   | Bit |  Name  | Attribute | Attribute  | RRO | ERO | Reference     |
   | No  |        |   Flags   | Flags Resv |     |     |               |
   |     |        |    Path   |            |     |     |               |
   +-----+--------+-----------+------------+-----+-----+---------------+
   | TBA | RTM_SE |    Yes    |    Yes     |  No |  No | This document |
   | 5   |   T    |           |            |     |     |               |
   +-----+--------+-----------+------------+-----+-----+---------------+

                      Table 9: RTM_SET Attribute Flag

7.9.  New Error Codes

   IANA is requested to assign new Error Codes from RSVP Error Codes and
   Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes registry

            +------------+--------------------+---------------+
            | Error Code |      Meaning       | Reference     |
            +------------+--------------------+---------------+
            | TBA6       |   Duplicate TLV    | This document |
            | TBA7       | Duplicate sub-TLV  | This document |
            | TBA8       | RTM_SET TLV Absent | This document |
            +------------+--------------------+---------------+

                         Table 10: New Error Codes



Mirsky, et al.          Expires September 8, 2017              [Page 24]


Internet-Draft         Residence Time Measurement             March 2017


8.  Security Considerations

   Routers that support Residence Time Measurement are subject to the
   same security considerations as defined in [RFC4385] and [RFC5085] .

   In addition - particularly as applied to use related to PTP - there
   is a presumed trust model that depends on the existence of a trusted
   relationship of at least all PTP-aware nodes on the path traversed by
   PTP messages.  This is necessary as these nodes are expected to
   correctly modify specific content of the data in PTP messages and
   proper operation of the protocol depends on this ability.  In
   practice, this means that those portions of messages cannot be
   covered by either confidentiality or integrity protection.  Though
   there are methods that make it possible in theory to provide either
   or both such protections and still allow for intermediate nodes to
   make detectable but authenticated modifications, such methods do not
   seem practical at present, particularly for timing protocols that are
   sensitive to latency and/or jitter.

   The ability to potentially authenticate and/or encrypt RTM and PTP
   data for scenarios both with and without participation of
   intermediate RTM/PTP-capable nodes is left for further study.

   While it is possible for a supposed compromised node to intercept and
   modify the G-ACh content, this is an issue that exists for nodes in
   general - for any and all data that may be carried over an LSP - and
   is therefore the basis for an additional presumed trust model
   associated with existing LSPs and nodes.

   Security requirements of time protocols are provided in RFC 7384
   [RFC7384].

9.  Acknowledgments

   Authors want to thank Loa Andersson, Lou Berger, Acee Lindem, Les
   Ginsberg, and Uma Chunduri for their thorough reviews, thoughtful
   comments and, most of all, patience.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [IEEE.1588.2008]
              "Standard for a Precision Clock Synchronization Protocol
              for Networked Measurement and Control Systems",
              IEEE Standard 1588, July 2008.





Mirsky, et al.          Expires September 8, 2017              [Page 25]


Internet-Draft         Residence Time Measurement             March 2017


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

   [RFC3209]  Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
              and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
              Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.

   [RFC3477]  Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links
              in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
              (RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, DOI 10.17487/RFC3477, January 2003,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3477>.

   [RFC4385]  Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
              "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
              Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, DOI 10.17487/RFC4385,
              February 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4385>.

   [RFC5085]  Nadeau, T., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Pseudowire Virtual
              Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control
              Channel for Pseudowires", RFC 5085, DOI 10.17487/RFC5085,
              December 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5085>.

   [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, DOI 10.17487/RFC5420,
              February 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5420>.

   [RFC5586]  Bocci, M., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed., and S. Bryant, Ed.,
              "MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5586, June 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5586>.

   [RFC5905]  Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch,
              "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
              Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>.

   [RFC6423]  Li, H., Martini, L., He, J., and F. Huang, "Using the
              Generic Associated Channel Label for Pseudowire in the
              MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)", RFC 6423,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6423, November 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6423>.





Mirsky, et al.          Expires September 8, 2017              [Page 26]


Internet-Draft         Residence Time Measurement             March 2017


   [RFC7684]  Psenak, P., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W.,
              Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute
              Advertisement", RFC 7684, DOI 10.17487/RFC7684, November
              2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7684>.

   [RFC7752]  Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
              S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
              Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend]
              Lindem, A., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., and F. Baker, "OSPFv3
              LSA Extendibility", draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend-13
              (work in progress), October 2016.

   [I-D.ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls]
              Davari, S., Oren, A., Bhatia, M., Roberts, P., and L.
              Montini, "Transporting Timing messages over MPLS
              Networks", draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-07 (work in
              progress), October 2015.

   [ITU-T.G.8271]
              "Packet over Transport aspects - Synchronization, quality
              and availability targets", ITU-T Recomendation
              G.8271/Y.1366, July 2016.

   [RFC4202]  Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing Extensions
              in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
              (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, DOI 10.17487/RFC4202, October 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4202>.

   [RFC5036]  Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed.,
              "LDP Specification", RFC 5036, DOI 10.17487/RFC5036,
              October 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5036>.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.

   [RFC6374]  Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
              Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6374, September 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6374>.




Mirsky, et al.          Expires September 8, 2017              [Page 27]


Internet-Draft         Residence Time Measurement             March 2017


   [RFC7384]  Mizrahi, T., "Security Requirements of Time Protocols in
              Packet Switched Networks", RFC 7384, DOI 10.17487/RFC7384,
              October 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7384>.

Authors' Addresses

   Greg Mirsky
   ZTE Corp.

   Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com


   Stefano Ruffini
   Ericsson

   Email: stefano.ruffini@ericsson.com


   Eric Gray
   Ericsson

   Email: eric.gray@ericsson.com


   John Drake
   Juniper Networks

   Email: jdrake@juniper.net


   Stewart Bryant
   Huawei

   Email: stewart.bryant@gmail.com


   Alexander Vainshtein
   ECI Telecom

   Email: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com; Vainshtein.alex@gmail.com











Mirsky, et al.          Expires September 8, 2017              [Page 28]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.122, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/