draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions-06.txt   draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions-07.txt 
Networking Working Group S. Previdi, Ed. Networking Working Group S. Previdi, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track S. Giacalone Intended status: Standards Track S. Giacalone
Expires: October 22, 2015 Unaffiliated Expires: December 18, 2015 Unaffiliated
D. Ward D. Ward
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
J. Drake J. Drake
A. Atlas A. Atlas
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
C. Filsfils C. Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Q. Wu Q. Wu
Huawei Huawei
April 20, 2015 June 16, 2015
IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions
draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions-06 draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions-07
Abstract Abstract
In certain networks, such as, but not limited to, financial In certain networks, such as, but not limited to, financial
information networks (e.g. stock market data providers), network information networks (e.g. stock market data providers), network
performance criteria (e.g. latency) are becoming as critical to data performance criteria (e.g. latency) are becoming as critical to data
path selection as other metrics. path selection as other metrics.
This document describes extensions to IS-IS Traffic Engineering This document describes extensions to IS-IS Traffic Engineering
Extensions (RFC5305) such that network performance information can be Extensions (RFC5305) such that network performance information can be
skipping to change at page 2, line 20 skipping to change at page 2, line 20
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 22, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 18, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 3, line 33 skipping to change at page 3, line 33
ability to access market data in "real time" and to predictably make ability to access market data in "real time" and to predictably make
trades faster than the competition. Because of this, using metrics trades faster than the competition. Because of this, using metrics
such as hop count or cost as routing metrics is becoming only such as hop count or cost as routing metrics is becoming only
tangentially important. Rather, it would be beneficial to be able to tangentially important. Rather, it would be beneficial to be able to
make path selection decisions based on performance data (such as make path selection decisions based on performance data (such as
latency) in a cost-effective and scalable way. latency) in a cost-effective and scalable way.
This document describes extensions to IS-IS Extended Reachability TLV This document describes extensions to IS-IS Extended Reachability TLV
defined in [RFC5305] (hereafter called "IS-IS TE Metric Extensions"), defined in [RFC5305] (hereafter called "IS-IS TE Metric Extensions"),
that can be used to distribute network performance information (such that can be used to distribute network performance information (such
as link delay, delay variation, packet loss, residual bandwidth, and as link delay, delay variation, link loss, residual bandwidth, and
available bandwidth). available bandwidth).
The data distributed by the TE Metric Extensions proposed in this The data distributed by the TE Metric Extensions proposed in this
document is meant to be used as part of the operation of the routing document is meant to be used as part of the operation of the routing
protocol (e.g. by replacing cost with latency or considering protocol (e.g. by replacing cost with latency or considering
bandwidth as well as cost), by enhancing Constrained-SPF (CSPF), or bandwidth as well as cost), by enhancing Constrained-SPF (CSPF), or
for other uses such as supplementing the data used by an ALTO server for other uses such as supplementing the data used by an ALTO server
[RFC7285]. With respect to CSPF, the data distributed by ISIS TE [RFC7285]. With respect to CSPF, the data distributed by ISIS TE
Metric Extensions can be used to setup, fail over, and fail back data Metric Extensions can be used to setup, fail over, and fail back data
paths using protocols such as RSVP-TE [RFC3209]. paths using protocols such as RSVP-TE [RFC3209].
skipping to change at page 4, line 34 skipping to change at page 4, line 34
additional sub-TLVs: additional sub-TLVs:
Type Value Type Value
---------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------
33 (Suggested) Unidirectional Link Delay 33 (Suggested) Unidirectional Link Delay
34 (Suggested) Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay 34 (Suggested) Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay
35 (Suggested) Unidirectional Delay Variation 35 (Suggested) Unidirectional Delay Variation
36 (Suggested) Unidirectional Packet Loss 36 (Suggested) Unidirectional Link Loss
37 (Suggested) Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth 37 (Suggested) Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth
38 (Suggested) Unidirectional Available Bandwidth 38 (Suggested) Unidirectional Available Bandwidth
39 (Suggested) Unidirectional Bandwidth Utilization 39 (Suggested) Unidirectional Bandwidth Utilization
As can be seen in the list above, the sub-TLVs described in this As can be seen in the list above, the sub-TLVs described in this
document carry different types of network performance information. document carry different types of network performance information.
The new sub-TLVs include a bit called the Anomalous (or "A") bit. The new sub-TLVs include a bit called the Anomalous (or "A") bit.
skipping to change at page 5, line 38 skipping to change at page 5, line 38
Note that when a sub-TLV does not include the A bit, that sub-TLV 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 cannot be used for failover purposes. The A bit was intentionally
omitted from some sub-TLVs to help mitigate oscillations. See omitted from some sub-TLVs to help mitigate oscillations. See
Section 5 for more information. Section 5 for more information.
Consistent with existing IS-IS TE specification [RFC5305], the Consistent with existing IS-IS TE specification [RFC5305], the
bandwidth advertisements defined in this draft MUST be encoded as bandwidth advertisements defined in this draft MUST be encoded as
IEEE floating point values. The delay and delay variation IEEE floating point values. The delay and delay variation
advertisements defined in this draft MUST be encoded as integer advertisements defined in this draft MUST be encoded as integer
values. Delay values MUST be quantified in units of microseconds, values. Delay values MUST be quantified in units of microseconds,
packet loss MUST be quantified as a percentage of packets sent, and link loss MUST be quantified as a percentage of packets sent, and
bandwidth MUST be sent as bytes per second. All values (except bandwidth MUST be sent as bytes per second. All values (except
residual bandwidth) MUST be calculated as rolling averages where the residual bandwidth) MUST be calculated as rolling averages where the
averaging period MUST be a configurable period of time. See averaging period MUST be a configurable period of time. See
Section 5 for more information. Section 5 for more information.
3. Interface and Neighbor Addresses 3. Interface and Neighbor Addresses
The use of TE Metric Extensions SubTLVs is not confined to the TE The use of TE Metric Extensions SubTLVs is not confined to the TE
context. In other words, IS-IS TE Metric Extensions SubTLVs defined context. In other words, IS-IS TE Metric Extensions SubTLVs defined
in this document can also be used for computing paths in the absence in this document can also be used for computing paths in the absence
skipping to change at page 8, line 46 skipping to change at page 8, line 46
Delay Variation. This 24-bit field carries the average link delay Delay Variation. This 24-bit field carries the average link delay
variation over a configurable interval in microseconds, encoded as an variation over a configurable interval in microseconds, encoded as an
integer value. When set to 0, it has not been measured. When set to 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 the maximum value 16,777,215 (16.777215 sec), then the delay is at
least that value and may be larger. least that value and may be larger.
4.4. Unidirectional Link Loss Sub-TLV 4.4. Unidirectional Link Loss Sub-TLV
This sub-TLV advertises the loss (as a packet percentage) between two This sub-TLV advertises the loss (as a packet percentage) between two
directly connected IS-IS neighbors. The link loss advertised by this directly connected IS-IS neighbors. The link loss advertised by this
sub-TLV MUST be the packet loss from the local neighbor to the remote sub-TLV MUST be the packet loss from the advertising node to its
one (i.e. the forward path loss). The format of this sub-TLV is neighbor (i.e. the forward path loss). The format of this sub-TLV is
shown in the following diagram: shown in the following diagram:
0 1 2 3 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 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 | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A| RESERVED | Link Loss | |A| RESERVED | Link Loss |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 15, line 13 skipping to change at page 15, line 13
and 223: and 223:
Type Value Type Value
---------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------
33 (Suggested) Unidirectional Link Delay 33 (Suggested) Unidirectional Link Delay
34 (Suggested) Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay 34 (Suggested) Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay
35 (Suggested) Unidirectional Delay Variation 35 (Suggested) Unidirectional Delay Variation
36 (Suggested) Unidirectional Packet Loss 36 (Suggested) Unidirectional Link Loss
37 (Suggested) Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth 37 (Suggested) Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth
38 (Suggested) Unidirectional Available Bandwidth 38 (Suggested) Unidirectional Available Bandwidth
39 (Suggested) Unidirectional Bandwidth Utilization 39 (Suggested) Unidirectional Bandwidth Utilization
13. Acknowledgements 13. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to recognize Ayman Soliman, Nabil Bitar, David The authors would like to recognize Ayman Soliman, Nabil Bitar, David
 End of changes. 9 change blocks. 
10 lines changed or deleted 10 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/