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

Versions: (draft-ospf-te-metric-extensions) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 RFC 7471

Network Working Group                                      S. Giacalone
Internet Draft                                          Thomson Reuters
Intended status: Proposed Standard
Expires: August 2013                                            D. Ward
                                                          Cisco Systems

                                                               J. Drake
                                                       Juniper Networks

                                                                A. Atlas
                                                        Juniper Networks

                                                              S. Previdi
                                                           Cisco Systems

                                                      February 25, 2013


              OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions
                draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-03.txt




   Abstract

   In certain networks, such as, but not limited to, financial
   information networks (e.g. stock market data providers), network
   performance criteria (e.g. latency) are becoming as critical to data
   path selection as other metrics.

   This document describes extensions to OSPF TE [RFC3630] such that
   network performance information can be distributed and collected in a
   scalable fashion. The information distributed using OSPF TE Metric
   Extensions can then be used to make path selection decisions based on
   network performance.

   Note that this document only covers the mechanisms with which network
   performance information is distributed. The mechanisms for measuring
   network performance or acting on that information, once distributed,
   are outside the scope of this document.



Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.



Giacalone, et al       Expires August 25, 2013                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        OSPF TE Metric Extensions           February 2013


   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 25, 2013.



Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 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
   2. Conventions used in this document..............................4
   3. TE Metric Extensions to OSPF TE................................5
   4. Sub TLV Details................................................6
      4.1. Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV.........................6
         4.1.1. Type.................................................7
         4.1.2. Length...............................................7


Giacalone, et al       Expires August 25, 2013                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        OSPF TE Metric Extensions           February 2013


         4.1.3. A bit................................................7
         4.1.4. Reserved.............................................7
         4.1.5. Delay Value..........................................7
      4.2. Unidirectional Delay Variation Sub-TLV....................7
         4.2.1. Type.................................................8
         4.2.2. Length...............................................8
         4.2.3. Reserved.............................................8
         4.2.4. Delay Variation......................................8
      4.3. Unidirectional Link Loss Sub-TLV..........................8
         4.3.1. Type.................................................8
         4.3.2. Length...............................................9
         4.3.3. A bit................................................9
         4.3.4. Reserved.............................................9
         4.3.5. Link Loss............................................9
      4.4. Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth Sub-TLV.................9
         4.4.1. Type................................................10
         4.4.2. Length..............................................10
         4.4.3. Residual Bandwidth..................................10
      4.5. Unidirectional Available Bandwidth Sub-TLV...............10
         4.4.4. Type................................................11
         4.4.5. Length..............................................11
         4.4.6. Available Bandwidth.................................11
   5. Announcement Thresholds and Filters...........................11
   6. Announcement Suppression......................................12
   7. Network Stability and Announcement Periodicity................12
   8. Compatibility.................................................12
   9. Security Considerations.......................................12
   10. IANA Considerations..........................................12
   11. References...................................................13
      11.1. Normative References....................................13
      11.2. Informative References..................................13
   12. Acknowledgments..............................................13
   13. Author's Addresses...........................................14



1. Introduction

   In certain networks, such as, but not limited to, financial
   information networks (e.g. stock market data providers), network
   performance information (e.g. latency) is becoming as critical to
   data path selection as other metrics.

   In these networks, extremely large amounts of money rest on the
   ability to access market data in "real time" and to predictably make
   trades faster than the competition. Because of this, using metrics
   such as hop count or cost as routing metrics is becoming only


Giacalone, et al       Expires August 25, 2013                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        OSPF TE Metric Extensions           February 2013


   tangentially important. Rather, it would be beneficial to be able to
   make path selection decisions based on performance data (such as
   latency) in a cost-effective and scalable way.

   This document describes extensions to OSPF TE (hereafter called "OSPF
   TE Metric Extensions"), that can be used to distribute network
   performance information (such as link delay, delay variation, packet
   loss, residual bandwidth, and available bandwidth).

   The data distributed by OSPF TE Metric Extensions is meant to be used
   as part of the operation of the routing protocol (e.g. by replacing
   cost with latency or considering bandwidth as well as cost), by
   enhancing CSPF, or for other uses such as supplementing the data used
   by an Alto server [Alto]. With respect to CSPF, the data distributed
   by OSPF TE Metric Extensions can be used to setup, fail over, and
   fail back data paths using protocols such as RSVP-TE [RFC3209].

   Note that the mechanisms described in this document only disseminate
   performance information.  The methods for initially gathering that
   performance information, such as [RFC6375], or acting on it once it
   is distributed are outside the scope of this document.  Example
   mechanisms to measure latency, delay variation, and loss in an MPLS
   network are given in [RFC6374].  While this document does not
   specify how the performance information should be obtained, the
   measurement of delay SHOULD NOT vary significantly based upon the
   offered traffic load.  Thus, queuing delays SHOULD NOT be included
   in the delay measurement.  For links, such as Forwarding
   Adjacencies, care must be taken that measurement of the associated
   delay avoids significant queuing delay; that could be accomplished
   in a variety of ways, including either by measuring with a traffic
   class that experiences minimal queuing or by summing the measured
   link delays of the components of the link's path.


2. 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].

   In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation
   only when in ALL CAPS. Lower case uses of these words are not to be
   interpreted as carrying RFC-2119 significance.




Giacalone, et al       Expires August 25, 2013                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        OSPF TE Metric Extensions           February 2013


3. TE Metric Extensions to OSPF TE

   This document proposes new OSPF TE sub-TLVs that can be announced in
   OSPF TE LSAs to distribute network performance information. The
   extensions in this document build on the ones provided in OSPF TE
   [RFC3630] and GMPLS [RFC4203].

   OSPF TE LSAs [RFC3630] are opaque LSAs [RFC5250] with area flooding
   scope. Each TLV has one or more nested sub-TLVs which permit the TE
   LSA to be readily extended. There are two main types of OSPF TE LSA;
   the Router Address or Link TE LSA. Like the extensions in GMPLS
   (RFC4203), this document proposes several additional sub-TLVs for
   the Link TE LSA:

   Type  Length   Value

   TBD1  4        Unidirectional Link Delay

   TBD2  4        Unidirectional Delay Variation

   TBD3  4        Unidirectional Packet Loss

   TBD4  4        Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth

   TBD5  4        Unidirectional Available Bandwidth

   As can be seen in the list above, the sub-TLVs described in this
   document carry different types of network performance information.
   Many (but not all) of the sub-TLVs include a bit called the Anomalous
   (or "A") bit. When the A bit is clear (or when the sub-TLV does not
   include an A bit), the sub-TLV describes steady state link
   performance. This information could conceivably be used to construct
   a steady state performance topology for initial tunnel path
   computation, or to verify alternative failover paths.

   When network performance violates configurable link-local thresholds
   a sub-TLV with the A bit set is advertised. These sub-TLVs could be
   used by the receiving node to determine whether to fail traffic to a
   backup path, or whether to calculate an entirely new path. From an
   MPLS perspective, the intent of the A bit is to permit LSP ingress
   nodes to:

   A) Determine whether the link referenced in the sub-TLV affects any
      of the LSPs for which it is ingress. If there are, then:

   B) The node determines whether those LSPs still meet end-to-end
      performance objectives. If not, then:


Giacalone, et al       Expires August 25, 2013                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        OSPF TE Metric Extensions           February 2013


   C) The node could then conceivably move affected traffic to a pre-
      established protection LSP or establish a new LSP and place the
      traffic in it.

   If link performance then improves beyond a configurable minimum
   value (reuse threshold), that sub-TLV can be re-advertised with the
   Anomalous bit cleared. In this case, a receiving node can
   conceivably do whatever re-optimization (or failback) it wishes to
   do (including nothing).

   Note that when a sub-TLV does not include the A bit, that sub-TLV
   cannot be used for failover purposes. The A bit was intentionally
   omitted from some sub-TLVs to help mitigate oscillations. See section
   7. 1. for more information.

   Consistent with existing OSPF TE specifications (RFC3630), the
   bandwidth advertisements defined in this draft MUST be encoded as
   IEEE floating point values. The delay and delay variation
   advertisements defined in this draft MUST be encoded as integer
   values. Delay values MUST be quantified in units of microseconds,
   packet loss MUST be quantified as a percentage of packets sent, and
   bandwidth MUST be sent as bytes per second. All values (except
   residual bandwidth) MUST be calculated as rolling averages where the
   averaging period MUST be a configurable period of time. See section
   5. for more information.



4. Sub TLV Details

4.1. Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV

   This sub-TLV advertises the average link delay between two directly
   connected OSPF neighbors. The delay advertised by this sub-TLV MUST
   be the delay from the local neighbor to the remote one (i.e. the
   forward path latency). The format of this sub-TLV is shown in the
   following diagram:

     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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |              TBD1             |               4               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |A|  RESERVED   |                     Delay                     |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+




Giacalone, et al       Expires August 25, 2013                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft        OSPF TE Metric Extensions           February 2013


4.1.1. Type

   This sub-TLV has a type of TBD1.

4.1.2. Length

   The length is 4.

4.1.3. A bit

   This field represents the Anomalous (A) bit. The A bit is set when
   the measured value of this parameter exceeds its configured maximum
   threshold. The A bit is cleared when the measured value falls below
   its configured reuse threshold. If the A bit is clear, the sub-TLV
   represents steady state link performance.

4.1.4. Reserved

   This field is reserved for future use. It MUST be set to 0 when sent
   and MUST be ignored when received.

4.1.5. Delay Value

   This 24-bit field carries the average link delay over a configurable
   interval in micro-seconds, encoded as an integer value. When set to
   0, it has not been measured. When set to the maximum value 16,777,215
   (16.777215 sec), then the delay is at least that value and may be
   larger.



4.2. Unidirectional Delay Variation Sub-TLV

   This sub-TLV advertises the average link delay variation between two
   directly connected OSPF neighbors. The delay variation advertised by
   this sub-TLV MUST be the delay from the local neighbor to the remote
   one (i.e. the forward path latency). The format of this sub-TLV is
   shown in the following diagram:

      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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |              TBD2             |               4               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    RESERVED   |              Delay Variation                  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



Giacalone, et al       Expires August 25, 2013                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft        OSPF TE Metric Extensions           February 2013


4.2.1. Type

   This sub-TLV has a type of TBD2.

4.2.2. Length

   The length is 4.

4.2.3. Reserved

   This field is reserved for future use. It MUST be set to 0 when sent
   and MUST be ignored when received.



4.2.4. Delay Variation

   This 24-bit field carries the average link delay variation over a
   configurable interval in micro-seconds, encoded as an integer value.
   When set to 0, it has not been measured. When set to the maximum
   value 16,777,215 (16.777215 sec), then the delay is at least that
   value and may be larger.



4.3. Unidirectional Link Loss Sub-TLV

   This sub-TLV advertises the loss (as a packet percentage) between two
   directly connected OSPF neighbors. The link loss advertised by this
   sub-TLV MUST be the packet loss from the local neighbor to the remote
   one (i.e. the forward path loss). The format of this sub-TLV is shown
   in the following diagram:

   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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |              TBD3             |               4               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |A|  RESERVED   |                 Link Loss                     |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


4.3.1. Type

   This sub-TLV has a type of TBD3




Giacalone, et al       Expires August 25, 2013                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft        OSPF TE Metric Extensions           February 2013


4.3.2. Length

   The length is 4

4.3.3. A bit

   This field represents the Anomalous (A) bit. The A bit is set when
   the measured value of this parameter exceeds its configured maximum
   threshold. The A bit is cleared when the measured value falls below
   its configured reuse threshold. If the A bit is clear, the sub-TLV
   represents steady state link performance.

4.3.4. Reserved

   This field is reserved for future use. It MUST be set to 0 when sent
   and MUST be ignored when received.

4.3.5. Link Loss

   This 24-bit field carries link packet loss as a percentage of the
   total traffic sent over a configurable interval.  The basic unit is
   0.000003%, where (2^24 - 2) is 50.331642%. This value is the highest
   packet loss percentage that can be expressed (the assumption being
   that precision is more important on high speed links than the ability
   to advertise loss rates greater than this, and that high speed links
   with over 50% loss are unusable). Therefore, measured values that are
   larger than the field maximum SHOULD be encoded as the maximum value.
   When set to a value of all 1s (2^24 - 1), the link packet loss has
   not been measured.



4.4. Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth Sub-TLV

   This TLV advertises the residual bandwidth (defined in section 4.4.3.
   between two directly connected OSPF neighbors. The residual bandwidth
   advertised by this sub-TLV MUST be the residual bandwidth from the
   system originating the LSA to its neighbor.

   The format of this sub-TLV is shown in the following diagram:

       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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |              TBD4             |               4               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


Giacalone, et al       Expires August 25, 2013                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft        OSPF TE Metric Extensions           February 2013


     |                       Residual Bandwidth                      |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


4.4.1. Type

    This sub-TLV has a type of TBD4.

4.4.2. Length

   The length is 4.

4.4.3. Residual Bandwidth

   This field carries the residual bandwidth on a link, forwarding
   adjacency [RFC4206], or bundled link in IEEE floating point format
   with units of bytes per second.  For a link or forwarding adjacency,
   residual bandwidth is defined to be Maximum Bandwidth [RFC3630] minus
   the bandwidth currently allocated to RSVP-TE LSPs.  For a bundled
   link, residual bandwidth is defined to be the sum of the component
   link residual bandwidths.

   Note that although it may seem possible to calculate Residual
   Bandwidth using the existing sub-TLVs in RFC 3630, this is not a
   consistently reliable approach and hence the Residual Bandwidth sub-
   TLV has been added here. For example, because the Maximum Reservable
   Bandwidth [RFC3630] can be larger than the capacity of the link,
   using it as part of an algorithm to determine the value of the
   Maximum Bandwidth [RFC3630] minus the bandwidth currently allocated
   to RSVP-TE LSPs cannot be considered reliably accurate.

4.5. Unidirectional Available Bandwidth Sub-TLV

   This TLV advertises the available bandwidth (defined in section
   4.4.6. ) between two directly connected OSPF neighbors. The available
   bandwidth advertised by this sub-TLV MUST be the available bandwidth
   from the system originating the LSA to its neighbor. The format of
   this sub-TLV is shown in the following diagram:

       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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |              TBD5             |               4               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                      Available Bandwidth                      |



Giacalone, et al       Expires August 25, 2013                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft        OSPF TE Metric Extensions           February 2013


     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


4.4.4. Type

   This sub-TLV has a type of TBD5.

4.4.5. Length

   The length is 4.

4.4.6. Available Bandwidth

   This field carries the available bandwidth on a link, forwarding
   adjacency, or bundled link in IEEE floating point format with units
   of bytes per second.  For a link or forwarding adjacency, available
   bandwidth is defined to be residual bandwidth (see section 4.4. )
   minus the measured bandwidth used for the actual forwarding of non-
   RSVP-TE LSP packets.  For a bundled link, available bandwidth is
   defined to be the sum of the component link available bandwidths.



5. Announcement Thresholds and Filters

   The values advertised in all sub-TLVs MUST be controlled using an
   exponential filter (i.e. a rolling average) with a configurable
   measurement interval and filter coefficient.

   Implementations are expected to provide separately configurable
   advertisement thresholds. All thresholds MUST be configurable on a
   per sub-TLV basis.

   The announcement of all sub-TLVs that do not include the A bit SHOULD
   be controlled by variation thresholds that govern when they are sent.

   Sub-TLV that include the A bit are governed by several thresholds.
   Firstly, a threshold SHOULD be implemented to govern the announcement
   of sub-TLVs that advertise a change in performance, but not an SLA
   violation (i.e. when the A bit is not set). Secondly, implementations
   MUST provide configurable thresholds that govern the announcement of
   sub-TLVs with the A bit set (for the indication of a performance
   violation).  Thirdly, implementations SHOULD provide reuse
   thresholds. This threshold governs sub-TLV re-announcement with the A
   bit cleared to permit fail back.




Giacalone, et al       Expires August 25, 2013                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft        OSPF TE Metric Extensions           February 2013




6. Announcement Suppression

   When link performance average values change, but fall under the
   threshold that would cause the announcement of a sub-TLV with the A
   bit set, implementations MAY suppress or throttle sub-TLV
   announcements. All suppression features and thresholds SHOULD be
   configurable.



7. Network Stability and Announcement Periodicity

   To mitigate concerns about stability, all values (except residual
   bandwidth) MUST be calculated as rolling averages where the averaging
   period MUST be a configurable period of time, rather than
   instantaneous measurements.

   Announcements MUST also be able to be throttled using configurable
   inter-update throttle timers. The minimum announcement periodicity is
   1 announcement per second.



8. Compatibility

   As per (RFC3630), unrecognized TLVs should be silently ignored



9. Security Considerations

   This document does not introduce security issues beyond those
   discussed in [RFC3630] and [RFC5329].



10. IANA Considerations

   IANA maintains the registry for the sub-TLVs. OSPF TE Metric
   Extensions will require one new type code per sub-TLV defined in this
   document.






Giacalone, et al       Expires August 25, 2013                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft        OSPF TE Metric Extensions           February 2013


11. References



11.1. Normative References

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., Yeung, D., "Traffic
             Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
             September 2003.

   [RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
             Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374, September 2011.

11.2. Informative References

   [RFC2328] Moy, J, "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998

   [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., Callon, R., "Multiprotocol
             Label Switching Architecture", January 2001

   [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.

   [RFC5250] Berger, L., Bryskin I., Zinin, A., Coltun, R., "The OSPF
             Opaque LSA Option", RFC 5250, July 2008.

   [RFC6375]  Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "A Packet Loss and Delay
              Measurement Profile for MPLS-Based Transport Networks",
              RFC 6375, September 2011.

   [Alto]    R. Alimi R. Penno Y. Yang, "ALTO Protocol"



12. Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to recognize Ayman Soliman for his
   contributions.


   This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.



Giacalone, et al       Expires August 25, 2013                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft        OSPF TE Metric Extensions           February 2013




13. Author's Addresses

   Spencer Giacalone
   Thomson Reuters
   195 Broadway
   New York, NY 10007, USA

   Email: Spencer.giacalone@thomsonreuters.com


   Dave Ward
   Cisco Systems
   170 West Tasman Dr.
   San Jose, CA  95134, USA

   Email: dward@cisco.com


   John Drake
   Juniper Networks
   1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
   Sunnyvale, CA  94089, USA

   Email: jdrake@juniper.net


   Alia Atlas
   Juniper Networks
   1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
   Sunnyvale, CA  94089, USA

   Email: akatlas@juniper.net


   Stefano Previdi
   Cisco Systems
   Via Del Serafico 200
   00142 Rome
   Italy

   Email: sprevidi@cisco.com





Giacalone, et al       Expires August 25, 2013                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft        OSPF TE Metric Extensions           February 2013



















































Giacalone, et al       Expires August 25, 2013                [Page 15]


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