draft-mirsky-mpls-residence-time-04.txt   draft-mirsky-mpls-residence-time-05.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: September 7, 2015 Ericsson Expires: September 10, 2015 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
March 6, 2015 March 9, 2015
Residence Time Measurement in MPLS network Residence Time Measurement in MPLS network
draft-mirsky-mpls-residence-time-04 draft-mirsky-mpls-residence-time-05
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.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
skipping to change at page 1, line 39 skipping to change at page 1, line 39
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 September 7, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 10, 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 2, line 29 skipping to change at page 2, line 29
4. Control Plane Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Control Plane Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. RTM Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1. RTM Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. RTM Capability Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.2. RTM Capability Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. RTM Capability Advertisement in OSPFv2 . . . . . . . . . 9 4.3. RTM Capability Advertisement in OSPFv2 . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4. RTM Capability Advertisement in OSPFv3 . . . . . . . . . 9 4.4. RTM Capability Advertisement in OSPFv3 . . . . . . . . . 9
4.5. RTM Capability Advertisement in IS-IS . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.5. RTM Capability Advertisement in IS-IS . . . . . . . . . . 9
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 Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.7. RTM_SET Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.7.1. RSO Sub-objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.7.1. RSO Sub-objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Data Plane Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5. Data Plane Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Applicable PTP Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6. Applicable PTP Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. One-step Clock and Two-step Clock Modes . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7. One-step Clock and Two-step Clock Modes . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.1. New RTM G-ACh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8.1. New RTM G-ACh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.2. New RTM TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8.2. New RTM TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.3. New RTM Sub-TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8.3. New RTM Sub-TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.4. RTM Capability sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8.4. RTM Capability sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.5. IS-IS RTM Application ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 8.5. IS-IS RTM Application ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.6. RTM_SET Object RSVP Class Number, Class Type and Sub- 8.6. RTM_SET Object RSVP Class Number, Class Type and Sub-
object Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 object Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
skipping to change at page 9, line 14 skipping to change at page 9, line 14
* 0b001 - one-step RTM supported; * 0b001 - one-step RTM supported;
* 0b010 - two-step RTM supported; * 0b010 - two-step RTM supported;
* 0b100 - reserved. * 0b100 - reserved.
o Reserved field must be set to all zeroes on transmit and ignored o Reserved field must be set to all zeroes on transmit and ignored
on receipt. on receipt.
[RFC4202] explains that ?the Interface Switching Capability
Descriptor describes switching capability of an interface. For bi-
directional links, the switching capabilities of an interface are
defined to be the same in either direction. I.e., for data entering
the node through that interface and for data leaving the node through
that interface". That principle SHOULD be applied when a node
advertises RTM Capability.
A node that supports RTM MUST be able to act in two-step mode and MAY A node that supports RTM MUST be able to act in two-step mode and MAY
also support one-step RTM mode. Detailed discussion of one-step and also support one-step RTM mode. Detailed discussion of one-step and
two-step RTM modes in Section 7. two-step RTM modes in Section 7.
4.3. RTM Capability Advertisement in OSPFv2 4.3. RTM Capability Advertisement in OSPFv2
The capability to support RTM on a particular link advertised in the The capability to support RTM on a particular link advertised in the
OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSA [I-D.ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr] as OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSA [I-D.ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr] as
RTM Capability sub-TLV, presented in Figure 4, of the OSPFv2 Extended RTM Capability sub-TLV, presented in Figure 4, of the OSPFv2 Extended
Link TLV. Link TLV.
skipping to change at page 22, line 19 skipping to change at page 22, line 19
[RFC6423] Li, H., Martini, L., He, J., and F. Huang, "Using the [RFC6423] Li, H., Martini, L., He, J., and F. Huang, "Using the
Generic Associated Channel Label for Pseudowire in the Generic Associated Channel Label for Pseudowire in the
MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)", RFC 6423, November MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)", RFC 6423, November
2011. 2011.
[RFC6823] Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and M. Shand, "Advertising [RFC6823] Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and M. Shand, "Advertising
Generic Information in IS-IS", RFC 6823, December 2012. Generic Information in IS-IS", RFC 6823, December 2012.
11.2. Informative References 11.2. Informative References
[RFC4202] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Routing Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008. May 2008.
[RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay [RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374, September 2011. Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374, September 2011.
[RFC7384] Mizrahi, T., "Security Requirements of Time Protocols in [RFC7384] Mizrahi, T., "Security Requirements of Time Protocols in
Packet Switched Networks", RFC 7384, October 2014. Packet Switched Networks", RFC 7384, October 2014.
 End of changes. 7 change blocks. 
5 lines changed or deleted 17 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/