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

Versions: (draft-davari-tictoc-1588overmpls) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

TICTOC Working Group                                           S. Davari
Internet-Draft                                                   A. Oren
Intended status: Standards Track                          Broadcom Corp.
Expires: November 25, 2011                                     M. Bhatia
                                                              P. Roberts
                                                          Alcatel-Lucent
                                                              L. Montini
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                            May 24, 2011


          Transporting PTP messages (1588) over MPLS Networks
                   draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-01

Abstract

   This document defines the method for transporting PTP messages (PDUs)
   over an MPLS network to enable a proper handling of these packets
   (e.g. implementation of Transparent Clocks (TC)) in LSRs.

   The basic idea is to transport PTP messages inside dedicated MPLS
   LSPs.  These LSPs only carry PTP messages and possibly Control and
   Management packets, but they do not carry customer traffic.

   Two methods for transporting 1588 over MPLS are defined.  The first
   method is to transport PTP messages directly over the dedicated MPLS
   LSP via UDP/IP encapsulation, which is suitable for IP/MPLS networks.
   The second method is to transport PTP messages inside a PW via
   Ethernet encapsulation, which is more suitable for MPLS-TP networks.

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 November 25, 2011.

Copyright Notice



Davari, et al.          Expires November 25, 2011               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft               1588 over MPLS                     May 2011


   Copyright (c) 2011 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.







































Davari, et al.          Expires November 25, 2011               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft               1588 over MPLS                     May 2011


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6

   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8

   3.  Problem Statement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9

   4.  Dedicated LSPs for PTP messages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

   5.  1588 over MPLS Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.1.  1588 over LSP Encapsulation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.2.  1588 over PW Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.3.  1588 over pure MPLS mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

   6.  1588 Message Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

   7.  Protection and Redundancy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

   8.  ECMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

   9.  OAM, Control and Management  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

   10. QoS Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

   11. FCS Recalculation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

   12. UDP Checksum Correction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

   13. Routing extensions for 1588aware LSRs  . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     13.1. 1588aware Link Capability for OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     13.2. 1588aware Link Capability for IS-IS  . . . . . . . . . . . 23

   14. RSVP-TE Extensions for support of 1588 . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

   15. Distributing PW labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
     15.1. LDP extensions for distributing PW labels  . . . . . . . . 26
     15.2. BGP extensions for distributing PW labels  . . . . . . . . 26

   16. Behavior of LER/LSR  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
     16.1. Behavior of 1588-aware LER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
     16.2. Behavior of 1588-aware LSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
     16.3. Behavior of non-1588-aware LSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

   17. Other considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

   18. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30




Davari, et al.          Expires November 25, 2011               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft               1588 over MPLS                     May 2011


   19. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

   20. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
     20.1. IANA Considerations for OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
     20.2. IANA Considerations for IS-IS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
     20.3. IANA Considerations for RSVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

   21. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
     21.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
     21.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35







































Davari, et al.          Expires November 25, 2011               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft               1588 over MPLS                     May 2011


   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 RFC2119 [RFC2119].

   When used in lower case, these words convey their typical use in
   common language, and are not to be interpreted as described in
   RFC2119 [RFC2119].












































Davari, et al.          Expires November 25, 2011               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft               1588 over MPLS                     May 2011


1.  Introduction

   The objective of Precision Time Protocol (PTP) is to synchronize
   independent clocks running on separate nodes of a distributed system.
   [IEEE] defines PTP messages for clock and time synchronization.  The
   PTP messages include PTP PDUs over UDP/IP (Annex D & E of [IEEE]) and
   PTP PDUs over Ethernet (Annex F of [IEEE]).  This document defines
   mapping and transport of the PTP messages defined in [IEEE] over MPLS
   networks.

   PTP defines intermediate clock functions (called transparent clocks)
   between the source of time (Master) and the Slave clocks.  Boundary
   Clocks (BC) form Master-Slave hierarchy with the Master clock as
   root.  The messages related to synchronization, establishing the
   Master-Slave hierarchy, and signaling, terminate in the protocol
   engine of a boundary clock and are not forwarded.  Management
   messages however, are forwarded to other ports on the boundary clock.

   Transparent clocks modify a "correction field" (CF) within the
   synchronization messages to compensate for residence and propagation
   delays.  Transparent clocks do not terminate synchronization, Master-
   Slave hierarchy control messages or signaling messages.

   There is a need to transport PTP messages over MPLS networks.  The
   MPLS network could be a transit network between 1588 Masters and
   Slaves.  The accuracy of the recovered clock improves and the Slave
   logic simplifies when intermediate nodes (e.g.  LSRs) properly handle
   PTP messages (e.g. perform TC), otherwise the jitter at the 1588
   Slave may be excessive and therefore the Slave may not be able to
   properly recover the clock and time of day.

   This document defines a "1588-aware LSR" that is able to identify
   1588 timing flows carried over MPLS.

   Transparent Clock (TC) function requires a 1588-aware LSR in the
   middle of an LSP to identify the PTP messages and perform proper
   update of the CF, via a 1-step or 2-step process.

   More generally this document requires that an LSR should be able to
   properly handle the PTP messages.  For instance for those cases when
   the TC function is not viable (e.g. due to layer violation) as an
   alternative it should be possible to instead control the delay for
   these messages on both directions across the node.

   In the above cases it is beneficial that PTP packets can be easily
   identified when carried over MPLS.

   This document provides two methods for transporting PTP messages over



Davari, et al.          Expires November 25, 2011               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft               1588 over MPLS                     May 2011


   MPLS.  The main objectives are for LSRs to be able to
   deterministically detect and identify the PTP messages.

















































Davari, et al.          Expires November 25, 2011               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft               1588 over MPLS                     May 2011


2.  Terminology

   1588: The timing and synchronization as defined by IEEE 1588

   PTP: The timing and synchronization protocol used by 1588

   Master: The Source of 1588 Timing and clock.  This will be a port in
   master state on a Grandmaster Clock or on a Boundary Clock.

   Slave: The Destination of 1588 Timing and clock that tries to follow
   the Master clock.  This will be a port in slave state on a boundary
   clock or on a Slave-Only Ordinary Clock.

   OC: Ordinary Clock - a device with a single PTP port.

   TC: Transparent Clock, a time stamping method applied by intermediate
   nodes between Master and Slave

   BC: Boundary Clock, is a node that recovers the Master clock via a
   Slave function and uses that clock as the Master for other Slaves

   PTP LSP: An LSP dedicated to carry PTP messages

   PTP PW: A PW within a PTP LSP that is dedicated to carry PTP
   messages.

   CW: Pseudowire Control Word

   LAG: Link Aggregation

   ECMP: Equal Cost Multipath

   CF: Correction Field, a field inside certain PTP messages (message
   type 0-3)that holds the accumulative transit time inside intermediate
   switches
















Davari, et al.          Expires November 25, 2011               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft               1588 over MPLS                     May 2011


3.  Problem Statement

   When PTP messages are transported over MPLS networks, there is a need
   for intermediate LSRs to detect such messages and perform proper
   processing (e.g.  Transparent Clock (TC)).  Note the TC processing
   could be in the form of 1-Step or 2-Step time stamping.

   PTP messages over Ethernet or IP can always be tunneled over MPLS.
   However the 1588 over MPLS mapping defined in this document is
   applicable whenever MPLS LSRs are 1588-aware and the intention is for
   those LSRs to perform proper processing on these packets.

   When 1588-awareness is needed, PTP messages should not be transported
   over LSPs or PWs that are carrying customer traffic because LSRs
   perform Label switching based on the top label in the stack.  To
   detect PTP messages inside such LSPs require special Hardware (HW) to
   do deep packet inspection at line rate.  Even if one assumes a deep
   packet inspection HW at line rate exists, the payload can't be
   deterministically identified by LSRs because the payload type is a
   context of the PW label and the PW label and its context are only
   known to the Edge routers (PEs) and LSRs don't know what is a PW's
   payload (Ethernet, ATM, FR, CES, etc).  Even if one assumes only
   Ethernet PWs are permitted in an LSP, the LSRs don't have the
   knowledge of whether PW Control Word (CW) is present or not and
   therefore can't deterministically identify the payload.

   Therefore a generic method is defined in this document that does not
   require deep packet inspection at line rate, and can
   deterministically identify PTP messages.  The defined method is
   applicable to both MPLS and MPLS-TP networks.





















Davari, et al.          Expires November 25, 2011               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft               1588 over MPLS                     May 2011


4.  Dedicated LSPs for PTP messages

   Many methods were considered for identifying the 1588 messages when
   they are encapsulated in MPLS such as by using GAL/ACH or a new
   reserved label.  These methods were not attractive since they either
   required deep packet inspection and snooping at line rate or they
   required use of scarce new reserved label.  Also one of the goals was
   to reuse existing OAM and protection mechanisms.

   The method defined in this document can be used by LSRs to identify
   PTP messages in MPLS tunnels by using dedicated LSPs to carry PTP
   messages.

   Compliant implementations MUST use dedicated LSPs to carry PTP
   messages over MPLS.  Let's call these LSPs as the "PTP LSPs" and the
   labels associated with these LSPs as "PTP labels".  These LSPs could
   be P2P or P2MP LSPs.  The PTP LSP between Master and Slaves MAY be
   P2MP or P2P LSP while the PTP LSP between each Slave and Master
   SHOULD be P2P LSP.  The PTP LSP between a Master and a Slave and the
   PTP LSP between the same Slave and Master MUST be co-routed.
   Alternatively, a single bidirectional co-routed LSP can be used.  The
   PTP LSP MAY be MPLS LSP or MPLS-TP LSP.

   The PTP LSPs could be configured or signaled via RSVP-TE/GMPLS.  New
   RSVP-TE/GMPLS TLVs and objects are defined in this document to
   indicate that these LSPs are PTP LSPs.

   We should be selective about the kind of traffic that flows over PTP
   LSPs as these will be handled as a special case by the LSR.  The only
   LSP user plane traffic MUST be PTP, but the LSP MAY also carry
   essential MPLS/MPLS-TP control plane traffic such as BFD and LSP-
   Ping.



















Davari, et al.          Expires November 25, 2011              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft               1588 over MPLS                     May 2011


5.  1588 over MPLS Encapsulation

   This document defines two methods for carrying PTP messages over
   MPLS.  The first method is carrying IP encapsulated PTP messages over
   PTP LSPs and the second method is to carry PTP messages over
   dedicated Ethernet PWs (called PTP PWs) inside PTP LSPs.

5.1.  1588 over LSP Encapsulation

   The simplest method of transporting PTP messages over MPLS is to
   encapsulate PTP PDUs in UDP/IP and then encapsulate them in PTP LSP.
   The 1588 over LSP format is shown in Figure 1.



          +----------------------+
          |   PTP Tunnel Label   |
          +----------------------+
          |        IPv4/6        |
          +----------------------+
          |         UDP          |
          +----------------------+
          |        PTP PDU       |
          +----------------------+

   Figure 1 - 1588 over LSP Encapsulation

   This encapsulation is very simple and is useful when the networks
   between 1588 Master and Slave are IP/MPLS networks.

   In order for an LSR to process PTP messages, the PTP Label must be
   the top label of the label stack.

   The UDP/IP encapsulation of PTP MUST follow Annex D and E of [IEEE].

5.2.  1588 over PW Encapsulation

   Another method of transporting 1588 over MPLS networks is by
   encapsulating PTP PDUs in Ethernet and then transporting them over
   Ethernet PW (PTP PW) as defined in [RFC4448], which in turn is
   transported over PTP LSPs.  Alternatively PTP PDUs MAY be
   encapsulated in UDP/IP/Ethernet and then transported over Ethernet
   PW.

   Both Raw and Tagged modes for Ethernet PW are permitted.  The 1588
   over PW format is shown in Figure 2.





Davari, et al.          Expires November 25, 2011              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft               1588 over MPLS                     May 2011


                    +----------------+
                    |PTP Tunnel Label|
                    +----------------+
                    |    PW Label    |
                    +----------------+
                    |  Entropy Label |
                    |    (optional)  |
                    +----------------+
                    |  Control Word  |
                    +----------------+
                    |    Ethernet    |
                    |     Header     |
                    +----------------+
                    |     VLANs      |
                    |   (optional)   |
                    +----------------+
                    |    IPV4/V6     |
                    |   (optional)   |
                    +----------------+
                    |      UDP       |
                    |   (optional)   |
                    +----------------+
                    |    PTP PDU     |
                    +----------------+

            Figure 2 - 1588 over PW Encapsulation

   The Control Word (CW) as specified in [RFC4448] SHOULD be used to
   ensure a more robust detection of PTP messages inside the MPLS
   packet.  If CW is used, the use of Sequence number is optional.

   The use of VLAN and UDP/IP are optional.  Note that 1 or 2 VLANs MAY
   exist in the PW payload.

   In order for an LSR to process PTP messages, the top label of the
   label stack (the Tunnel Label) MUST be from PTP label range.  However
   in some applications the PW label may be the top label in the stack,
   such as cases where there is only one-hop between PEs or in case of
   PHP.  In such cases, the PW label SHOULD be chosen from the PTP Label
   range.

   An Entropy label [I-D.ietf-pwe3-fat-pw] MAY be present at the bottom
   of stack.

   The Ethernet encapsulation of PTP MUST follow Annex F of [IEEE] and
   the UDP/IP encapsulation of PTP MUST follow Annex D and E of [IEEE].

   For 1588 over MPLS encapsulations that are PW based, there are some



Davari, et al.          Expires November 25, 2011              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft               1588 over MPLS                     May 2011


   cases in which the PTP LSP label may not be present:

   o  When PHP is applied to the PTP LSP, and the packet is received
      without PTP LSP label at PW termination point .

   o  When the PW is established between two routers directly connected
      to each other and no PTP LSP is needed.

   In such cases it is required for a router to identify these packets
   as PTP packets.  This would require the PW label to also be a label
   that is distributed specifically for carrying PTP traffic (aka PTP PW
   label).  Therefore there is a need to add extension to LDP/BGP PW
   label distribution protocol to indicate that a PW label is a PTP PW
   labels.

5.3.  1588 over pure MPLS mode

   Editor Note: The encapsulation is general enough and can support
   transporting 1588 in a pure MPLS mode (i.e., without any IP/UDP or
   Ethernet headers).  Should the WG pursue this?































Davari, et al.          Expires November 25, 2011              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft               1588 over MPLS                     May 2011


6.  1588 Message Transport

   1588 protocol comprises of the following message types:

   o  Announce

   o  SYNC

   o  FOLLOW UP

   o  DELAY REQ (Delay Request)

   o  DELAY RESP (Delay Response)

   o  PDELAY REQ (Peer Delay Request)

   o  PDELAY RESP (Peer Delay Response)

   o  PDELAY RESP FOLLOW UP (Peer Delay Response Follow up)

   o  Management

   o  Signaling

   A subset of PTP message types that require TC processing are called
   Event messages:

   o  SYNC

   o  DELAY REQ (Delay Request)

   o  PDELAY REQ (Peer Delay Request)

   o  PDELAY RESP (Peer Delay Response)

   SYNC and DELAY_REQ are exchanged between Master and Slave and MUST be
   transported over PTP LSPs.  PDELAY_REQ and PDELAY_RESP are exchanged
   between adjacent routers and MAY be transported over single hop PTP
   LSPs.  If Two Step Transparent clocks are present, then the FOLLOW_UP
   and DELAY_RESP messages must also be transported over the PTP LSPs.

   For a given instance of 1588 protocol, SYNC and DELAY_REQ MUST be
   transported over two PTP LSPs that are in opposite directions.  These
   PTP LSPs, which are in opposite directions MUST be congruent and co-
   routed.  Alternatively, a single bidirectional co-routed LSP can be
   used.

   Except as indicated above for the two-step Transparent clocks, Non-



Davari, et al.          Expires November 25, 2011              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft               1588 over MPLS                     May 2011


   Event PTP message types don't need to be processed by intermediate
   routers.  These message types MAY be carried in PTP Tunnel LSPs.

















































Davari, et al.          Expires November 25, 2011              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft               1588 over MPLS                     May 2011


7.  Protection and Redundancy

   In order to ensure continuous uninterrupted operation of 1588 Slaves,
   usually as a general practice, Redundant Masters are tracked by each
   Slave.  It is the responsibility of the network operator to ensure
   that physically disjoint PTP tunnels that don't share any link are
   used between the redundant Masters and a Slave.

   When redundant Masters are tracked by a Slave, any PTP LSP or PTP PW
   failure will trigger the slave to switch to the Redundant Master.
   However LSP/PW protection such as Linear Protection Switching
   (1:1,1+1), Ring protection switching or MPLS Fast Reroute (FRR)
   SHOULD still be used to ensure the LSP/PW is ready for a future
   failure.

   Note that any protection or reroute mechanism that adds additional
   label to the label stack, such as Facility Backup Fast Reroute, MUST
   ensure that the pushed label is a PTP Label to ensure proper
   processing of PTP messages by LSRs in the backup path.
































Davari, et al.          Expires November 25, 2011              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft               1588 over MPLS                     May 2011


8.  ECMP

   To ensure the proper operation of 1588 Slaves, the physical path for
   PTP messages from Master to Slave and vice versa must be the same for
   all PTP messages listed in section 7 and must not change even in the
   presence of ECMP in the MPLS network.

   To ensure the forward and reverse paths are the same PTP LSPs and PWs
   MUST not be subject to ECMP.










































Davari, et al.          Expires November 25, 2011              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft               1588 over MPLS                     May 2011


9.  OAM, Control and Management

   In order to manage PTP LSPs and PTP PWs, they MAY carry OAM, Control
   and Management messages.  These control and management messages can
   be differentiated from PTP messages via already defined IETF methods.

   In particular BFD [RFC5880], [RFC5884] and LSP-Ping [RFC4389]MAY run
   over PTP LSPs via UDP/IP encapsulation or via GAL/G-ACH.  These
   Management protocols are easily identified by the UDP Destination
   Port number or by GAL/ACH respectively.

   Also BFD, LSP-Ping and other Management messages MAY run over PTP PW
   via one of the defined VCCVs (Type 1, 2 or 3) [RFC5085].  In this
   case G-ACH, Router Alert Label (RAL), or PW label (TTL=1) are used to
   identify such management messages.




































Davari, et al.          Expires November 25, 2011              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft               1588 over MPLS                     May 2011


10.  QoS Considerations

   The PTP messages are time critical and must be treated with the
   highest priority.  Therefore 1588 over MPLS messages must be treated
   with the highest priority in the routers.  This can be achieved by
   proper setup of PTP tunnels.  It is recommended that the PTP LSPs are
   setup and marked properly to indicate EF-PHB for the CoS and Green
   for drop eligibility.











































Davari, et al.          Expires November 25, 2011              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft               1588 over MPLS                     May 2011


11.  FCS Recalculation

   Ethernet FCS of the outer encapsulation MUST be recalculated at every
   LSR that performs the TC processing and FCS retention for the payload
   Ethernet described in [RFC4720] MUST not be used.














































Davari, et al.          Expires November 25, 2011              [Page 20]


Internet-Draft               1588 over MPLS                     May 2011


12.  UDP Checksum Correction

   For UDP/IP encapsulation mode of 1588 over MPLS, the UDP checksum is
   optional when used for IPv4 encapsulation and mandatory in case of
   IPv6.  When IPv4/v6 UDP checksum is used each 1588-aware LSR must
   either incrementally update the UDP checksum after the CF update or
   should verify the UDP checksum on reception from upstream and
   recalculate the checksum completely on transmission after CF update
   to downstream node.










































Davari, et al.          Expires November 25, 2011              [Page 21]


Internet-Draft               1588 over MPLS                     May 2011


13.  Routing extensions for 1588aware LSRs

   MPLS-TE routing relies on extensions to OSPF [RFC2328] [RFC5340] and
   IS-IS [ISO] [RFC1195] in order to advertise Traffic Engineering (TE)
   link information used for constraint-based routing.

   Indeed, it is useful to advertise data plane TE router link
   capabilities, such as the capability for a router to be 1588-aware.
   This capability MUST then be taken into account during path
   computation to prefer links that advertise themselves as 1588-aware,
   so that the PTP LSPs can be properly handled.

   For this purpose, the following sections specify extensions to OSPF
   and IS-IS in order to advertise 1588 aware capabilities of a link.

13.1.  1588aware Link Capability for OSPF

   OSPF uses the Link TLV (Type 2) that is itself carried within either
   the Traffic Engineering LSA specified in [RFC3630] or the OSPFv3
   Intra-Area-TE LSA (function code 10) defined in [RFC5329] to
   advertise the TE related information for the locally attached router
   links.  For an LSA Type 10, one LSA can contain one Link TLV
   information for a single link.  This extension defines a new 1588-
   aware capability sub-TLV that can be carried as part of the Link TLV.

   The 1588-aware capability sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST NOT appear
   more than once within the Link TLV.  If a second instance of the
   1588-aware capability sub-TLV is present, the receiving system MUST
   only process the first instance of the sub-TLV.  It is defined as
   follows:

      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     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                Figure 3: 1588-aware Capability TLV


   Where:

   Type, 16 bits: 1588-aware Capability TLV where the value is TBD

   Length, 16 bits: Gives the length of the flags field in octets, and
   is currently set to 1



Davari, et al.          Expires November 25, 2011              [Page 22]


Internet-Draft               1588 over MPLS                     May 2011


   Flags, 8 bits: The bits are defined least-significant-bit (LSB)
   first, so bit 7 is the least significant bit of the flags octet.


       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |   Reserved  |C|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     Figure 4: Flags Format


   Correction (C) field Update field, 1 bit: Setting the C bit to 1
   indicates that the link is capable of recognizing the PTP event
   packets and can compensate for residence time by updating the PTP
   packet Correction Field.  When this is set to 0, it means that this
   link cannot perform the residence time correction but is capable of
   performing MPLS frame forwarding of the frames with PTP labels using
   a method that support the end to end delivery of accurate timing.
   The exact method is not defined herein.

   Reserved, 7 bits: Reserved for future use.  The reserved bits must be
   ignored by the receiver.

   The 1588-aware Capability sub-TLV is applicable to both OSPFv2 and
   OSPFv3.

13.2.  1588aware Link Capability for IS-IS

   The IS-IS Traffic Engineering [RFC3784] defines the intra-area
   traffic engineering enhancements and uses the Extended IS
   Reachability TLV (Type 22) [RFC5305] to carry the per link TE-related
   information.  This extension defines a new 1588-aware capability sub-
   TLV that can be carried as part of the Extended IS Reachability TLV.

   The 1588-aware capability sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST NOT appear
   more than once within the Extended IS Reachability TLV or the Multi-
   Topology (MT) Intermediate Systems TLV (type 222) specified in
   [RFC5120].  If a second instance of the 1588-aware capability sub-TLV
   is present, the receiving system MUST only process the first instance
   of the sub-TLV.

   The format of the IS-IS 1588-aware sub-TLV is identical to the TLV
   format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to IS-IS [RFC3784].
   That is, the TLV is comprised of 1 octet for the type, 1 octet
   specifying the TLV length, and a value field.  The Length field
   defines the length of the value portion in octets.




Davari, et al.          Expires November 25, 2011              [Page 23]


Internet-Draft               1588 over MPLS                     May 2011


      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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |     Type      |     Length    |    Flags      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

             Figure 5: 1588-aware Capability sub-TLV

   Where:

   Type, 8 bits: 1588-aware Capability sub-TLV where the value is TBD

   Length, 8 bits: Gives the length of the flags field in octets, and is
   currently set to 1

   Flags, 8 bits: The bits are defined least-significant-bit (LSB)
   first, so bit 7 is the least significant bit of the flags octet.


       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |   Reserved  |C|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     Figure 6: Flags Format

   Correction (C) field Update field, 1 bit: Setting the C bit to 1
   indicates that the link is capable of recognizing the PTP event
   packets and can compensate for residence time by updating the PTP
   packet Correction Field.  When this is set to 0, it means that this
   link cannot perform the residence time correction but is capable of
   performing MPLS frame forwarding of the frames with PTP labels using
   a method that support the end to end delivery of accurate timing.
   The exact method is not defined herein.

   Reserved, 7 bits: Reserved for future use.  The reserved bits must be
   ignored by the receiver.














Davari, et al.          Expires November 25, 2011              [Page 24]


Internet-Draft               1588 over MPLS                     May 2011


14.  RSVP-TE Extensions for support of 1588

   RSVP-TE signaling MAY be used to setup the PTP LSPs.  A new RSVP
   object is defined to signal that this is a PTP LSP.  The OFFSET to
   the start of the PTP message header MAY also be signaled.
   Implementations can trivially locate the correctionField (CF)
   location given this information.  The OFFSET points to the start of
   the PTP header as a node may want to check the PTP messageType before
   it touches the correctionField (CF).

   The LSRs that receive and process the RSVP-TE/GMPLS messages MAY use
   the OFFSET to locate the start of the PTP message header.

   Note that the new object/TLV Must be ignored by LSRs that are not
   compliant to this specification.

   The new RSVP 1588_PTP_LSP object should be included in signaling PTP
   LSPs and is defined as follows:

                   0             1             2             3
            +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
            |       Length (bytes)      |  Class-Num  |   C-Type    |
            +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
            | Offset to locate the start of the PTP message header  |
            +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

                     Figure 7: RSVP 1588_PTP_LSP object


   The ingress LSR MUST include this object in the RSVP PATH Message.
   It is just a normal RSVP path that is exclusively set up for PTP
   messages



















Davari, et al.          Expires November 25, 2011              [Page 25]


Internet-Draft               1588 over MPLS                     May 2011


15.  Distributing PW labels

15.1.  LDP extensions for distributing PW labels

   TBD

15.2.  BGP extensions for distributing PW labels

   TBD










































Davari, et al.          Expires November 25, 2011              [Page 26]


Internet-Draft               1588 over MPLS                     May 2011


16.  Behavior of LER/LSR

16.1.  Behavior of 1588-aware LER

   A 1588-aware LER advertises it's 1588-awareness via the OSPF
   procedure explained in earlier section of this specification.  The
   1588-aware LER then signals PTP LSPs by including the 1588_PTP_LSP
   object in the RSVP-TE signaling.

   When a 1588 message is received from a non-MPLS interface, the LER
   MUST redirect them to a previously established PTP LSP.  When a 1588
   over MPLS message is received from an MPLS interface, the processing
   is similar to 1588-aware LSR processing.

16.2.  Behavior of 1588-aware LSR

   1588-aware LSRs are LSRs that understand the 1588_PTP_LSP RSVP object
   and can perform 1588 processing (e.g.  TC processing).

   A 1588-aware LSR advertises it's 1588-awareness via the OSPF
   procedure explained in earlier section of this specification.

   When a 1588-aware LSR distributes a label for PTP LSP, it maintains
   this information.  When the 1588-aware LSR receives an MPLS packet,
   it performs a label lookup and if the label lookup indicates it is a
   PTP label then further parsing must be done to positively identify
   that the payload is 1588 and not OAM, BFD or control and management.
   Ruling out non-1588 messages can easily be done when parsing
   indicates the presence of GAL, ACH or VCCV (Type 1, 2, 3) or when the
   UDP port number does not match one of the 1588 UDP port numbers.

   After a 1588 message is positively identified in a PTP LSP, the PTP
   message type indicates what type of processing (TC) if any is
   required.  After 1588 processing the packet is forwarded as a normal
   MPLS packet to downstream node.

16.3.  Behavior of non-1588-aware LSR

   It is most beneficial that all LSRs in the path of a PTP LSP be 1588-
   aware LSRs.  This would ensure the highest quality time and clock
   synchronization by 1588 Slaves.  However, this specification does not
   mandate that all LSRs in path of a PTP LSP be 1588-aware.

   Non-1588-aware LSRs are LSRs that either don't have the capability to
   process 1588 packets (e.g.  TC processing) or don't understand the
   1588_PTP_LSP RSVP object.

   Non-1588-aware LSRs ignore the RSVP 1588_PTP_LSP object and just



Davari, et al.          Expires November 25, 2011              [Page 27]


Internet-Draft               1588 over MPLS                     May 2011


   switch the MPLS packets carrying 1588 messages as data packets and
   don't perform any TC processing.  However as explained in QoS section
   the 1588 over MPLS packets MUST be still be treated with the highest
   priority.















































Davari, et al.          Expires November 25, 2011              [Page 28]


Internet-Draft               1588 over MPLS                     May 2011


17.  Other considerations

   The use of Explicit Null (Label= 0 or 2) is acceptable as long as
   either the Explicit Null label is the bottom of stack label
   (applicable only to UDP/IP encapsulation) or the label below the
   Explicit Null label is a PTP label.

   The use of Penultimate Hop Pop (PHP) is acceptable as long as either
   the PHP label is the bottom of stack label (applicable only to UDP/IP
   encapsulation) or the label below the PHP label is a PTP label.









































Davari, et al.          Expires November 25, 2011              [Page 29]


Internet-Draft               1588 over MPLS                     May 2011


18.  Security Considerations

   MPLS PW security considerations in general are discussed in [RFC3985]
   and [RFC4447],and those considerations also apply to this document.

   An experimental security protocol is defined in [IEEE].  The PTP
   security extension and protocol provides group source authentication,
   message integrity, and replay attack protection for PTP messages.











































Davari, et al.          Expires November 25, 2011              [Page 30]


Internet-Draft               1588 over MPLS                     May 2011


19.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Luca Martini, Ron Cohen, Yaakov
   Stein, Tal Mizrahi and other members of the TICTOC WG for reviewing
   and providing feedback on this draft.














































Davari, et al.          Expires November 25, 2011              [Page 31]


Internet-Draft               1588 over MPLS                     May 2011


20.  IANA Considerations

20.1.  IANA Considerations for OSPF

   IANA has defined a sub-registry for the sub-TLVs carried in an OSPF
   TE Link TLV (type 2).  IANA is requested to assign a new sub-TLV
   codepoint for the 1588aware capability sub-TLV carried within the
   Router Link TLV.

      Value            Sub-TLV                   References
      -----     ----------------------           ----------
       TBD       1588aware node sub-TLV        (this document)

20.2.  IANA Considerations for IS-IS

   IANA has defined a sub-registry for the sub-TLVs carried in the IS-IS
   Extended IS Reacability TLV.  IANA is requested to assign a new sub-
   TLV code-point for the 1588aware capability sub-TLV carried within
   the Extended IS Reacability TLV.


      Value            Sub-TLV                   References
      -----     ----------------------           ----------
       TBD       1588aware node sub-TLV        (this document)

20.3.  IANA Considerations for RSVP

   IANA is requested to assign a new Class Number for 1588 PTP LSP
   object that is used to signal PTP LSPs.

   1588 PTP LSP Object

   Class-Num of type 11bbbbbb

   Suggested value TBD

   Defined CType: 1 (1588 PTP LSP)














Davari, et al.          Expires November 25, 2011              [Page 32]


Internet-Draft               1588 over MPLS                     May 2011


21.  References

21.1.  Normative References

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

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

   [RFC3985]  Bryant, S. and P. Pate, "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-
              Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005.

   [RFC4389]  Thaler, D., Talwar, M., and C. Patel, "Neighbor Discovery
              Proxies (ND Proxy)", RFC 4389, April 2006.

   [RFC4447]  Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and G.
              Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label
              Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April 2006.

   [RFC4448]  Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., and G. Heron,
              "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over MPLS
              Networks", RFC 4448, April 2006.

   [RFC4720]  Malis, A., Allan, D., and N. Del Regno, "Pseudowire
              Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Frame Check Sequence
              Retention", RFC 4720, November 2006.

   [RFC5085]  Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Pseudowire Virtual Circuit
              Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for
              Pseudowires", RFC 5085, December 2007.

   [RFC5880]  Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
              (BFD)", RFC 5880, June 2010.

   [RFC5884]  Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and G. Swallow,
              "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for MPLS Label
              Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5884, June 2010.

21.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-pwe3-fat-pw]
              Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Drafz, U., Kompella, V., Regan,
              J., and S. Amante, "Flow Aware Transport of Pseudowires
              over an MPLS Packet Switched Network",
              draft-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw-06 (work in progress), May 2011.




Davari, et al.          Expires November 25, 2011              [Page 33]


Internet-Draft               1588 over MPLS                     May 2011


   [ISO]      ISO/IEC 10589:1992, "Intermediate system to Intermediate
              system routeing  information exchange protocol for use in
              conjunction with the Protocol for providing the
              Connectionless-mode  Network Service (ISO 8473)".

   [RFC1195]  Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
              dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.

   [RFC2328]  Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.

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

   [RFC3784]  Smit, H. and T. Li, "Intermediate System to Intermediate
              System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic Engineering (TE)",
              RFC 3784, June 2004.

   [RFC4970]  Lindem, A., Shen, N., Vasseur, JP., Aggarwal, R., and S.
              Shaffer, "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional
              Router Capabilities", RFC 4970, July 2007.

   [RFC4971]  Vasseur, JP., Shen, N., and R. Aggarwal, "Intermediate
              System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for
              Advertising Router Information", RFC 4971, July 2007.

   [RFC5120]  Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi
              Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to
              Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120, February 2008.

   [RFC5305]  Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
              Engineering", RFC 5305, October 2008.

   [RFC5329]  Ishiguro, K., Manral, V., Davey, A., and A. Lindem,
              "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 3",
              RFC 5329, September 2008.

   [RFC5340]  Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
              for IPv6", RFC 5340, July 2008.












Davari, et al.          Expires November 25, 2011              [Page 34]


Internet-Draft               1588 over MPLS                     May 2011


Authors' Addresses

   Shahram Davari
   Broadcom Corp.
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email: davari@broadcom.com


   Amit Oren
   Broadcom Corp.
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email: amito@broadcom.com


   Manav Bhatia
   Alcatel-Lucent
   Bangalore,
   India

   Email: manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com


   Peter Roberts
   Alcatel-Lucent
   Kanata,
   Canada

   Email: peter.roberts@alcatel-lucent.com


   Laurent Montini
   Cisco Systems
   San Jose CA
   USA

   Email: lmontini@cisco.com











Davari, et al.          Expires November 25, 2011              [Page 35]


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