draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-02.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-03.txt 
MPLS Working Group G. Mirsky MPLS Working Group G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft S. Ruffini Internet-Draft S. Ruffini
Intended status: Standards Track E. Gray Intended status: Standards Track E. Gray
Expires: August 13, 2016 Ericsson Expires: August 15, 2016 Ericsson
J. Drake J. Drake
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
S. Bryant S. Bryant
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
A. Vainshtein A. Vainshtein
ECI Telecom ECI Telecom
February 10, 2016 February 12, 2016
Residence Time Measurement in MPLS network Residence Time Measurement in MPLS network
draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-02 draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-03
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies G-ACh based Residence Time Measurement and This document specifies G-ACh based Residence Time Measurement and
how it can be used by time synchronization protocols being how it can be used by time synchronization protocols being
transported over MPLS domain. transported over MPLS domain.
Residence time is the variable part of propagation delay of timing Residence time is the variable part of propagation delay of timing
and synchronization messages and knowing what this delay is for each and synchronization messages and knowing what this delay is for each
message allows for a more accurate determination of the delay to be message allows for a more accurate determination of the delay to be
skipping to change at page 1, line 45 skipping to change at page 1, line 45
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 August 13, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 15, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 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 2, line 45 skipping to change at page 2, line 45
4.6. RSVP-TE Control Plane Operation to Support RTM . . . . . 10 4.6. RSVP-TE Control Plane Operation to Support RTM . . . . . 10
4.7. RTM_SET Sub-object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.7. RTM_SET Sub-object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.7.1. RSSO Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.7.1. RSSO Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Data Plane Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5. Data Plane Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Applicable PTP Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6. Applicable PTP Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. One-step Clock and Two-step Clock Modes . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7. One-step Clock and Two-step Clock Modes . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.1. New RTM G-ACh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8.1. New RTM G-ACh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.2. New RTM TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8.2. New RTM TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.3. New RTM Sub-TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 8.3. New RTM Sub-TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.4. RTM Capability sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 8.4. RTM Capability sub-TLV in OSPFv2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.5. IS-IS RTM Application ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 8.5. RTM Capability sub-TLV in OSPFv3 . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.6. RTM_SET Sub-object RSVP Type and sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . 20 8.6. IS-IS RTM Application ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.7. RTM_SET Sub-object RSVP Type and sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . 20
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Time synchronization protocols, Network Time Protocol version 4 Time synchronization protocols, Network Time Protocol version 4
(NTPv4) [RFC5905] and Precision Time Protocol (PTP) Version 2 (NTPv4) [RFC5905] and Precision Time Protocol (PTP) Version 2
[IEEE.1588.2008] can be used to synchronize clocks across network [IEEE.1588.2008] can be used to synchronize clocks across network
domain. Measurement of the time a PTP event message spends domain. Measurement of the time a PTP event message spends
traversing a node (using precise times of receipt at an ingress traversing a node (using precise times of receipt at an ingress
interface and transmission at an egress interface), called Residence interface and transmission at an egress interface), called Residence
skipping to change at page 8, line 42 skipping to change at page 8, line 42
LSAs sent from a router which describe a particular interface that LSAs sent from a router which describe a particular interface that
does not support the same capability for RTM messages it receives. does not support the same capability for RTM messages it receives.
4.2. RTM Capability Sub-TLV 4.2. RTM Capability Sub-TLV
The format for the RTM Capabilities sub-TLV is presented in Figure 4 The format for the RTM Capabilities sub-TLV is presented in Figure 4
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(TBA2) | Length | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RTM | Reserved | | RTM | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: RTM Capability sub-TLV Figure 4: RTM Capability sub-TLV
o Type value (TBA2) will be assigned by IANA from appropriate o Type values TBA2 and TBA3 will be assigned by IANA from
registries. appropriate registries for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 respectively.
o Length MUST be set to 4. o Length MUST be set to 4.
o RTM (capability) - is a three-bit long bit-map field with values o RTM (capability) - is a three-bit long bit-map field with values
defined as follows: defined as follows:
* 0b001 - one-step RTM supported; * 0b001 - one-step RTM supported;
* 0b010 - two-step RTM supported; * 0b010 - two-step RTM supported;
skipping to change at page 10, line 19 skipping to change at page 10, line 19
o The S bit MUST be cleared to prevent the RTM Capability sub-TLV o The S bit MUST be cleared to prevent the RTM Capability sub-TLV
from leaking between levels. from leaking between levels.
o The D bit of the Flags field MUST be cleared as required by o The D bit of the Flags field MUST be cleared as required by
[RFC6823]. [RFC6823].
o The I bit and the V bit MUST be set accordingly depending on o The I bit and the V bit MUST be set accordingly depending on
whether RTM capability being advertised for IPv4 or IPv6 interface whether RTM capability being advertised for IPv4 or IPv6 interface
of the node. of the node.
Application ID (TBA3) will be assigned from the Application Application ID (TBA4) will be assigned from the Application
Identifiers for TLV 251 IANA registry. The RTM Capability sub-TLV, Identifiers for TLV 251 IANA registry. The RTM Capability sub-TLV,
presented in Figure 4, MUST be included in GENINFO TLV in Application presented in Figure 4, MUST be included in GENINFO TLV in Application
Specific Information. Specific Information.
4.6. RSVP-TE Control Plane Operation to Support RTM 4.6. RSVP-TE Control Plane Operation to Support RTM
Throughout this document we refer to an LSR as RTM capable LSR when Throughout this document we refer to an LSR as RTM capable LSR when
at least one of its interfaces is RTM capable. Figure 5 provides an at least one of its interfaces is RTM capable. Figure 5 provides an
example of relationship between roles a network element may have in example of relationship between roles a network element may have in
PTP over MPLS scenario and RTM capability: PTP over MPLS scenario and RTM capability:
skipping to change at page 11, line 49 skipping to change at page 11, line 49
expire on that first subsequent RTM capable LSR. expire on that first subsequent RTM capable LSR.
It should be noted that RTM can also be used for LSPs instantiated 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 using [RFC3209] in an environment in which all interfaces in an IGP
support RTM. In this case the RSSO and LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object MAY be support RTM. In this case the RSSO and LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object MAY be
omitted. omitted.
4.7. RTM_SET Sub-object 4.7. RTM_SET Sub-object
RTM capable interfaces can be recorded via RTM_SET sub-object (RSSO). RTM capable interfaces can be recorded via RTM_SET sub-object (RSSO).
The RTM Set Class is TBA7. This document defines one C_Type, Type The RTM_SET sub-object format is of generic Type, Length, Value
TBA8 RTM Set. The RTM_SET sub-object format is of generic Type, (TLV), presented in Figure 6
Length, Value (TLV), presented in Figure 6
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 | Reserved | | Type | Length | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Value ~ ~ Value ~
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: RTM Set Sub-object format Figure 6: RTM Set Sub-object format
Type value (TBA4) will be assigned by IANA from its Attributes TLV Type value (TBA5) will be assigned by IANA from its Attributes TLV
Space sub-registry. Space sub-registry.
The Length contains the total length of the sub-object in bytes, The Length contains the total length of the sub-object in bytes,
including the Type and Length fields. including the Type and Length fields.
Reserved field must be zeroed on transmit and ignored on receipt. Reserved field must be zeroed on transmit and ignored on receipt.
The content of an RSSO is a series of variable-length sub-TLVs. The The content of an RSSO is a series of variable-length sub-TLVs. The
sub-TLVs are defined in Section 4.7.1 below. sub-TLVs are defined in Section 4.7.1 below.
skipping to change at page 19, line 41 skipping to change at page 19, line 41
+-----------+-------------+-------------------------+ +-----------+-------------+-------------------------+
| 0 | Reserved | This document | | 0 | Reserved | This document |
| 1 | PTP 2-step | This document | | 1 | PTP 2-step | This document |
| 2-127 | Reserved | IETF Consensus | | 2-127 | Reserved | IETF Consensus |
| 128 - 191 | Reserved | First Come First Served | | 128 - 191 | Reserved | First Come First Served |
| 192 - 255 | Reserved | Private Use | | 192 - 255 | Reserved | Private Use |
+-----------+-------------+-------------------------+ +-----------+-------------+-------------------------+
Table 3: RTM Sub-TLV Type Table 3: RTM Sub-TLV Type
8.4. RTM Capability sub-TLV 8.4. RTM Capability sub-TLV in OSPFv2
IANA is requested to assign a new type for RTM Capability sub-TLV IANA is requested to assign a new type for RTM Capability sub-TLV
from future OSPF Extended Link TLV Sub-TLVs registry as follows: from OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV Sub-TLVs registry as follows:
+-------+----------------+---------------+ +-------+----------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference | | Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+----------------+---------------+ +-------+----------------+---------------+
| TBA2 | RTM Capability | This document | | TBA2 | RTM Capability | This document |
+-------+----------------+---------------+ +-------+----------------+---------------+
Table 4: RTM Capability sub-TLV Table 4: RTM Capability sub-TLV
8.5. IS-IS RTM Application ID 8.5. RTM Capability sub-TLV in OSPFv3
IANA is requested to assign a new type for RTM Capability sub-TLV
from future OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs registry that would be part
of OSPFv3 IANA registry as follows:
+-------+----------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+----------------+---------------+
| TBA3 | RTM Capability | This document |
+-------+----------------+---------------+
Table 5: RTM Capability sub-TLV
8.6. IS-IS RTM Application ID
IANA is requested to assign a new Application ID for RTM from the IANA is requested to assign a new Application ID for RTM from the
Application Identifiers for TLV 251 registry as follows: Application Identifiers for TLV 251 registry as follows:
+-------+-------------+---------------+ +-------+-------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference | | Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+-------------+---------------+ +-------+-------------+---------------+
| TBA3 | RTM | This document | | TBA4 | RTM | This document |
+-------+-------------+---------------+ +-------+-------------+---------------+
Table 5: IS-IS RTM Application ID Table 6: IS-IS RTM Application ID
8.6. RTM_SET Sub-object RSVP Type and sub-TLVs 8.7. RTM_SET Sub-object RSVP Type and sub-TLVs
IANA is requested to assign a new Type for RTM_SET sub-object from IANA is requested to assign a new Type for RTM_SET sub-object from
Attributes TLV Space sub-registry as follows: Attributes TLV Space sub-registry as follows:
+----+------------+-----------+----------------+---------+----------+ +-----+------------+-----------+---------------+---------+----------+
| Ty | Name | Allowed | Allowed on LSP | Allowed | Referenc | | Typ | Name | Allowed | Allowed on | Allowed | Referenc |
| pe | | on LSP_AT | _REQUIRED_ATTR | on LSP | e | | e | | on LSP_A | LSP_REQUIRED_ | on LSP | e |
| | | TRIBUTES | IBUTES | Hop Att | | | | | TTRIBUTES | ATTRIBUTES | Hop Att | |
| | | | | ributes | | | | | | | ributes | |
+----+------------+-----------+----------------+---------+----------+ +-----+------------+-----------+---------------+---------+----------+
| TB | RTM_SET | Yes | No | No | This | | TBA | RTM_SET | Yes | No | No | This |
| A4 | sub-object | | | | document | | 5 | sub-object | | | | document |
+----+------------+-----------+----------------+---------+----------+ +-----+------------+-----------+---------------+---------+----------+
Table 6: RTM_SET Sub-object Type Table 7: RTM_SET Sub-object Type
IANA requested to create new sub-registry for sub-TLV types of IANA requested to create new sub-registry for sub-TLV types of
RTM_SET sub-object as follows: RTM_SET sub-object as follows:
+-----------+----------------------+-------------------------+ +-----------+----------------------+-------------------------+
| Value | Description | Reference | | Value | Description | Reference |
+-----------+----------------------+-------------------------+ +-----------+----------------------+-------------------------+
| 0 | Reserved | | | 0 | Reserved | |
| 1 | IPv4 address | This document | | 1 | IPv4 address | This document |
| 2 | IPv6 address | This document | | 2 | IPv6 address | This document |
| 3 | Unnumbered interface | This document | | 3 | Unnumbered interface | This document |
| 4-127 | Reserved | IETF Consensus | | 4-127 | Reserved | IETF Consensus |
| 128 - 191 | Reserved | First Come First Served | | 128 - 191 | Reserved | First Come First Served |
| 192 - 255 | Reserved | Private Use | | 192 - 255 | Reserved | Private Use |
+-----------+----------------------+-------------------------+ +-----------+----------------------+-------------------------+
Table 7: RTM_SET object sub-object types Table 8: RTM_SET object sub-object types
9. Security Considerations 9. Security Considerations
Routers that support Residence Time Measurement are subject to the Routers that support Residence Time Measurement are subject to the
same security considerations as defined in [RFC5586] . same security considerations as defined in [RFC5586] .
In addition - particularly as applied to use related to PTP - there In addition - particularly as applied to use related to PTP - there
is a presumed trust model that depends on the existence of a trusted 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 relationship of at least all PTP-aware nodes on the path traversed by
PTP messages. This is necessary as these nodes are expected to PTP messages. This is necessary as these nodes are expected to
 End of changes. 21 change blocks. 
36 lines changed or deleted 49 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/