draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-07.txt   draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-08.txt 
Network Working Group S. Giacalone Network Working Group S. Giacalone
Internet Draft Unaffiliated Internet Draft Unaffiliated
Intended status: Proposed Standard Intended status: Proposed Standard
Expires: May 2015 D. Ward Expires: June 2015 D. Ward
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
J. Drake J. Drake
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
A. Atlas A. Atlas
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
S. Previdi S. Previdi
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
November 11, 2014 December 01, 2014
OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions
draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-07.txt draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-08.txt
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 OSPF TE [RFC3630] such that This document describes extensions to RFC 3630 'Traffic Engineering
network performance information can be distributed and collected in a (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2' such that network performance
scalable fashion. The information distributed using OSPF TE Metric information can be distributed and collected in a scalable fashion.
Extensions can then be used to make path selection decisions based on The information distributed using OSPF TE Metric Extensions can then
network performance. be used to make path selection decisions based on network
performance.
Note that this document only covers the mechanisms with which network Note that this document only covers the mechanisms with which network
performance information is distributed. The mechanisms for measuring performance information is distributed. The mechanisms for measuring
network performance or acting on that information, once distributed, network performance or acting on that information, once distributed,
are outside the scope of this document. are outside the scope of this document.
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
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
skipping to change at page 2, line 21 skipping to change at page 2, line 21
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 11, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 1, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 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 43 skipping to change at page 2, line 43
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................4 1. Introduction...................................................4
2. Conventions used in this document..............................5 2. Conventions used in this document..............................5
3. TE Metric Extensions to OSPF TE................................5 3. TE Metric Extensions to OSPF TE................................5
4. Sub TLV Details................................................7 4. Sub-TLV Details................................................7
4.1. Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV.........................7 4.1. Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV.........................7
4.1.1. Type.................................................7 4.1.1. Type.................................................7
4.1.2. Length...............................................7 4.1.2. Length...............................................7
4.1.3. A bit................................................7 4.1.3. A bit................................................7
4.1.4. Reserved.............................................7 4.1.4. Reserved.............................................7
4.1.5. Delay Value..........................................8 4.1.5. Delay Value..........................................8
4.2. Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV.................8 4.2. Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV.................8
4.2.1. Type.................................................8 4.2.1. Type.................................................8
4.2.2. Length...............................................8 4.2.2. Length...............................................8
4.2.3. A bit................................................8 4.2.3. A bit................................................8
skipping to change at page 4, line 8 skipping to change at page 4, line 8
12. IANA Considerations..........................................17 12. IANA Considerations..........................................17
13. References...................................................17 13. References...................................................17
13.1. Normative References....................................17 13.1. Normative References....................................17
13.2. Informative References..................................18 13.2. Informative References..................................18
14. Acknowledgments..............................................18 14. Acknowledgments..............................................18
15. Author's Addresses...........................................19 15. Author's Addresses...........................................19
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
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 information (e.g. latency) is becoming as critical to performance information (e.g., latency) is becoming as critical to
data path selection as other metrics. data path selection as other metrics.
In these networks, extremely large amounts of money rest on the In these networks, extremely large amounts of money rest on the
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 OSPF TE (hereafter called "OSPF This document describes extensions to OSPF TE (hereafter called "OSPF
TE Metric Extensions"), that can be used to distribute network TE Metric Extensions"), that can be used to distribute network
performance information (viz link delay, delay variation, link loss, performance information (viz link delay, delay variation, link loss,
residual bandwidth, available bandwidth, and utilized bandwidth). residual bandwidth, available bandwidth, and utilized bandwidth).
The data distributed by OSPF TE Metric Extensions is meant to be used 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 as part of the operation of the routing protocol (e.g., by replacing
cost with latency or considering bandwidth as well as cost), by cost with latency or considering bandwidth as well as cost), by
enhancing CSPF, or for use by a PCE [RFC4655] or an Alto server enhancing CSPF, or for use by a PCE [RFC4655] or an Alto server
[RFC7285]. With respect to CSPF, the data distributed by OSPF TE [RFC7285]. With respect to CSPF, the data distributed by OSPF 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].
Note that the mechanisms described in this document only disseminate Note that the mechanisms described in this document only disseminate
performance information. The methods for initially gathering that performance information. The methods for initially gathering that
performance information or acting on it once it is distributed are performance information or acting on it once it is distributed are
outside the scope of this document. Example mechanisms to measure outside the scope of this document. Example mechanisms to measure
latency, delay variation, and loss in an MPLS network are given in latency, delay variation, and loss in an MPLS network are given in
[RFC6374]. While this document does not specify how the performance [RFC6374]. While this document does not specify how the performance
information should be obtained, the measurement of delay SHOULD NOT information should be obtained, the measurement of delay SHOULD NOT
vary significantly based upon the offered traffic load. Thus, vary significantly based upon the offered traffic load. Thus,
queuing delays and/or loss SHOULD NOT be included in any dynamic queuing delays and/or loss SHOULD NOT be included in any dynamic
delay measurement. For links, such as Forwarding Adjacencies, care delay measurement. For links, such as Forwarding Adjacencies, care
must be taken that measurement of the associated delay avoids must be taken that measurement of the associated delay avoids
significant queuing delay; that could be accomplished in a variety significant queuing delay; that could be accomplished in a variety
of ways, including either by measuring with a traffic class that of ways, including either by measuring with a traffic class that
experiences minimal queuing or by summing the measured link delays experiences minimal queuing or by summing the measured link delays
of the components of the link's path. of the components of the link's path.
skipping to change at page 5, line 25 skipping to change at page 5, line 25
interpreted as carrying RFC-2119 significance. interpreted as carrying RFC-2119 significance.
3. TE Metric Extensions to OSPF TE 3. TE Metric Extensions to OSPF TE
This document proposes new OSPF TE sub-TLVs that can be announced in This document proposes new OSPF TE sub-TLVs that can be announced in
OSPF TE LSAs to distribute network performance information. The OSPF TE LSAs to distribute network performance information. The
extensions in this document build on the ones provided in OSPF TE extensions in this document build on the ones provided in OSPF TE
[RFC3630] and GMPLS [RFC4203]. [RFC3630] and GMPLS [RFC4203].
OSPF TE LSAs [RFC3630] are opaque LSAs [RFC5250] with area flooding 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 scope. Each consists of a single TLV with one or more nested sub-
LSA to be readily extended. There are two main types of OSPF TE LSA; TLVs, permitting the TE LSA to be readily extended. There are two
the Router Address or Link TE LSA. Like the extensions in GMPLS OSPF TE LSA TLVs, the Router Address and the Link TLV. Like the
(RFC4203), this document proposes several additional sub-TLVs for extensions in GMPLS (RFC4203), this document proposes several
the Link TE LSA: additional sub-TLVs for the Link TLV:
Type Length Value Type Length Value
TBD1 4 Unidirectional Link Delay TBD1 4 Unidirectional Link Delay
TBD2 8 Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay TBD2 8 Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay
TBD3 4 Unidirectional Delay Variation TBD3 4 Unidirectional Delay Variation
TBD4 4 Unidirectional Link Loss TBD4 4 Unidirectional Link Loss
skipping to change at page 7, line 7 skipping to change at page 7, line 7
Link delay, delay variation, and link loss MUST be encoded as Link delay, delay variation, and link loss MUST be encoded as
integers. Consistent with existing OSPF TE specifications [RFC3630], integers. Consistent with existing OSPF TE specifications [RFC3630],
residual, available, and utilized bandwidth MUST be encoded in IEEE residual, available, and utilized bandwidth MUST be encoded in IEEE
floating point. Link delay and delay variation MUST be in units of floating point. Link delay and delay variation MUST be in units of
microseconds, link loss MUST be a percentage, and bandwidth MUST be microseconds, link loss MUST be a percentage, and bandwidth MUST be
in units of bytes per second. All values (except residual bandwidth) in units of bytes per second. All values (except residual bandwidth)
MUST be calculated as rolling averages where the averaging period MUST be calculated as rolling averages where the averaging period
MUST be a configurable period of time. See section 5. for more MUST be a configurable period of time. See section 5. for more
information. information.
4. Sub TLV Details 4. Sub-TLV Details
4.1. Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV 4.1. Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV
This sub-TLV advertises the average link delay between two directly This sub-TLV advertises the average link delay between two directly
connected OSPF neighbors. The delay advertised by this sub-TLV MUST 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 be the delay from the advertising node to its neighbor (i.e., the
forward path delay). The format of this sub-TLV is shown in the forward path delay). The format of this sub-TLV is shown in the
following diagram: 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TBD1 | 4 | | TBD1 | 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A| RESERVED | Delay | |A| RESERVED | Delay |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 8, line 18 skipping to change at page 8, line 18
interval in micro-seconds, encoded as an integer value. When set to interval in micro-seconds, encoded as an integer value. 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. If there is no value to send least that value and may be larger. If there is no value to send
(unmeasured and not statically specified), then the sub-TLV should (unmeasured and not statically specified), then the sub-TLV should
not be sent or be withdrawn. not be sent or be withdrawn.
4.2. Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV 4.2. Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV
This sub-TLV advertises the minimum and maximum delay values between This sub-TLV advertises the minimum and maximum delay values between
two directly connected OSPF neighbors. The delay advertised by this two directly connected OSPF neighbors. The delay advertised by this
sub-TLV MUST be the delay from the local neighbor to the remote one sub-TLV MUST be the delay from the advertising node to its neighbor
(i.e. the forward path delay). The format of this sub-TLV is shown in (i.e., the forward path delay). The format of this sub-TLV is shown
the following diagram: 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TBD2 | 8 | | TBD2 | 8 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A| RESERVED | Min Delay | |A| RESERVED | Min Delay |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RESERVED | Max Delay | | RESERVED | Max Delay |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 9, line 49 skipping to change at page 9, line 49
4.2.7. Reserved 4.2.7. Reserved
This field is reserved for future use. It MUST be set to 0 when sent This field is reserved for future use. It MUST be set to 0 when sent
and MUST be ignored when received. and MUST be ignored when received.
4.3. Unidirectional Delay Variation Sub-TLV 4.3. Unidirectional Delay Variation Sub-TLV
This sub-TLV advertises the average link delay variation between two This sub-TLV advertises the average link delay variation between two
directly connected OSPF neighbors. The delay variation advertised by directly connected OSPF neighbors. The delay variation advertised by
this sub-TLV MUST be the delay from the local neighbor to the remote this sub-TLV MUST be the delay from the advertising node to its
one (i.e. the forward path delay variation). The format of this sub- neighbor (i.e., the forward path delay variation). The format of this
TLV is shown in the following diagram: sub-TLV is 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TBD3 | 4 | | TBD3 | 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RESERVED | Delay Variation | | RESERVED | Delay Variation |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
4.3.1. Type 4.3.1. Type
skipping to change at page 10, line 38 skipping to change at page 10, line 38
This 24-bit field carries the average link delay variation over a This 24-bit field carries the average link delay variation over a
configurable interval in micro-seconds, encoded as an integer value. configurable interval in micro-seconds, encoded as an integer value.
When set to 0, it has not been measured. When set to the maximum 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 16,777,215 (16.777215 sec), then the delay is at least that
value and may be larger. 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 OSPF neighbors. The link loss advertised by this directly connected OSPF 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 shown neighbor (i.e., the forward path loss). The format of this sub-TLV is
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TBD4 | 4 | | TBD4 | 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A| RESERVED | Link Loss | |A| RESERVED | Link Loss |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
4.4.1. Type 4.4.1. Type
skipping to change at page 11, line 45 skipping to change at page 11, line 45
to advertise loss rates greater than this, and that high speed links to advertise loss rates greater than this, and that high speed links
with over 50% loss are unusable). Therefore, measured values that are with over 50% loss are unusable). Therefore, measured values that are
larger than the field maximum SHOULD be encoded as the maximum value. 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 When set to a value of all 1s (2^24 - 1), the link packet loss has
not been measured. not been measured.
4.5. Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth Sub-TLV 4.5. Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth Sub-TLV
This sub-TLV advertises the residual bandwidth between two directly This sub-TLV advertises the residual bandwidth between two directly
connected OSPF neighbors. The residual bandwidth advertised by this connected OSPF neighbors. The residual bandwidth advertised by this
sub-TLV MUST be the residual bandwidth from the system originating sub-TLV MUST be the residual bandwidth from the advertising node to
the LSA to its neighbor. its neighbor.
The format of this sub-TLV is shown in the following diagram: The format of this sub-TLV is 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TBD5 | 4 | | TBD5 | 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Residual Bandwidth | | Residual Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 12, line 35 skipping to change at page 12, line 35
This field carries the residual bandwidth on a link, forwarding This field carries the residual bandwidth on a link, forwarding
adjacency [RFC4206], or bundled link in IEEE floating point format adjacency [RFC4206], or bundled link in IEEE floating point format
with units of bytes per second. For a link or forwarding adjacency, with units of bytes per second. For a link or forwarding adjacency,
residual bandwidth is defined to be Maximum Bandwidth [RFC3630] minus residual bandwidth is defined to be Maximum Bandwidth [RFC3630] minus
the bandwidth currently allocated to RSVP-TE LSPs. For a bundled 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 bandwidth is defined to be the sum of the component
link residual bandwidths. link residual bandwidths.
The calculation of Residual Bandwidth is different than that of The calculation of Residual Bandwidth is different than that of
Unreserved Bandwidth [RFC3630]. Residual Bandwidth subtracts tunnel Unreserved Bandwidth [RFC3630]. Residual Bandwidth subtracts tunnel
reservations from Maximum Bandwidth (i.e. the link capacity) reservations from Maximum Bandwidth (i.e., the link capacity)
[RFC3630] and provides an aggregated remainder across QoS classes. [RFC3630] and provides an aggregated remainder across QoS classes.
Unreserved Bandwidth [RFC3630], on the other hand, is subtracted from Unreserved Bandwidth [RFC3630], on the other hand, is subtracted from
the Maximum Reservable Bandwidth (the bandwidth that can the Maximum Reservable Bandwidth (the bandwidth that can
theoretically be reserved) [RFC3630] and provides per-QoS-class theoretically be reserved) [RFC3630] and provides per-QoS-class
remainders. Residual Bandwidth and Unreserved Bandwidth [RFC3630] can remainders. Residual Bandwidth and Unreserved Bandwidth [RFC3630] can
be used concurrently, and each has a separate use case (e.g. the be used concurrently, and each has a separate use case (e.g., the
former can be used for applications like Weighted ECMP while the former can be used for applications like Weighted ECMP while the
latter can be used for call admission control). latter can be used for call admission control).
4.6. Unidirectional Available Bandwidth Sub-TLV 4.6. Unidirectional Available Bandwidth Sub-TLV
This TLV advertises the available bandwidth between two directly This TLV advertises the available bandwidth between two directly
connected OSPF neighbors. The available bandwidth advertised by this connected OSPF neighbors. The available bandwidth advertised by this
sub-TLV MUST be the available bandwidth from the system originating sub-TLV MUST be the available bandwidth from the advertising node to
the LSA to its neighbor. The format of this sub-TLV is shown in the its neighbor. The format of this sub-TLV is shown in the following
following diagram: 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TBD6 | 4 | | TBD6 | 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Available Bandwidth | | Available Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
4.6.1. Type 4.6.1. Type
skipping to change at page 13, line 43 skipping to change at page 13, line 43
of bytes per second. For a link or forwarding adjacency, available of bytes per second. For a link or forwarding adjacency, available
bandwidth is defined to be residual bandwidth (see section 4.5. ) bandwidth is defined to be residual bandwidth (see section 4.5. )
minus the measured bandwidth used for the actual forwarding of non- minus the measured bandwidth used for the actual forwarding of non-
RSVP-TE LSP packets. For a bundled link, available bandwidth is RSVP-TE LSP packets. For a bundled link, available bandwidth is
defined to be the sum of the component link available bandwidths. defined to be the sum of the component link available bandwidths.
4.7. Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth Sub-TLV 4.7. Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth Sub-TLV
This Sub-TLV advertises the bandwidth utilization between two This Sub-TLV advertises the bandwidth utilization between two
directly connected OSPF neighbors. The bandwidth utilization directly connected OSPF neighbors. The bandwidth utilization
advertised by this sub-TLV MUST be the bandwidth from the system advertised by this sub-TLV MUST be the bandwidth from the advertising
originating this Sub-TLV. The format of this Sub-TLV is shown in the node to its neighbor. The format of this Sub-TLV is shown in the
following diagram: 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TBD7 | 4 | | TBD7 | 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Utilized Bandwidth | | Utilized Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 14, line 26 skipping to change at page 14, line 26
4.7.2. Length 4.7.2. Length
The length is 4. The length is 4.
4.7.3. Utilized Bandwidth 4.7.3. Utilized Bandwidth
This field carries the bandwidth utilization on a link, forwarding This field carries the bandwidth utilization on a link, forwarding
adjacency, or bundled link in IEEE floating point format with units adjacency, or bundled link in IEEE floating point format with units
of bytes per second. For a link or forwarding adjacency, bandwidth of bytes per second. For a link or forwarding adjacency, bandwidth
utilization represents the actual utilization of the link (i.e. as utilization represents the actual utilization of the link (i.e., as
measured in the router). For a bundled link, bandwidth utilization is measured by the advertising node). For a bundled link, bandwidth
defined to be the sum of the component link bandwidth utilizations. utilization is defined to be the sum of the component link bandwidth
utilizations.
5. Announcement Thresholds and Filters 5. Announcement Thresholds and Filters
The values advertised in all sub-TLVs (except min/max delay and The values advertised in all sub-TLVs (except min/max delay and
residual bandwidth) MUST represent an average over a period or be residual bandwidth) MUST represent an average over a period or be
obtained by a filter that is reasonably representative of an obtained by a filter that is reasonably representative of an
average. For example, a rolling average is one such filter. average. For example, a rolling average is one such filter.
Min and max delay MAY be the lowest and/or highest measured value Min and max delay MAY be the lowest and/or highest measured value
over a measurement interval or MAY make use of a filter, or other over a measurement interval or MAY make use of a filter, or other
technique to obtain a reasonable representation of a min and max technique to obtain a reasonable representation of a min and max
value representative of the interval with compensation for outliers. value representative of the interval with compensation for outliers.
The measurement interval, any filter coefficients, and any The measurement interval, any filter coefficients, and any
advertisement intervals MUST be configurable per sub-TLV. advertisement intervals MUST be configurable per sub-TLV.
In addition to the measurement intervals governing re-advertisement, In addition to the measurement intervals governing re-advertisement,
implementations SHOULD provide per sub-TLV configurable accelerated implementations SHOULD provide per sub-TLV configurable accelerated
advertisement thresholds, such that: advertisement thresholds, such that:
1. If the measured parameter falls outside a configured upper bound 1. If the measured parameter falls outside a configured upper bound
for all but the min delay metric (or lower bound for min delay for all but the min delay metric (or lower bound for min delay
metric only) and the advertised sub-TLV is not already outside metric only) and the advertised sub-TLV is not already outside
that bound or, that bound or,
2. If the difference between the last advertised value and current 2. If the difference between the last advertised value and current
measured value exceed a configured threshold then, measured value exceed a configured threshold then,
3. The advertisement is made immediately. 3. The advertisement is made immediately.
4. For sub-TLVs which include an A-bit (except min/max delay), an 4. For sub-TLVs which include an A-bit (except min/max delay), an
skipping to change at page 17, line 8 skipping to change at page 17, line 8
basis in order to simplify migrations and to mitigate scenarios where basis in order to simplify migrations and to mitigate scenarios where
measurements are not possible across an entire network. measurements are not possible across an entire network.
10. Compatibility 10. Compatibility
As per (RFC3630), unrecognized TLVs should be silently ignored As per (RFC3630), unrecognized TLVs should be silently ignored
11. Security Considerations 11. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce security issues beyond those This document does not introduce security issues beyond those
discussed in [RFC3630] and [RFC5329]. discussed in [RFC3630].
12. IANA Considerations 12. IANA Considerations
IANA maintains the registry for the sub-TLVs. OSPF TE Metric IANA maintains the registry for the Link TLV sub-TLVs. OSPF TE Metric
Extensions will require one new type code per sub-TLV defined in this Extensions will require one new type code per sub-TLV defined in this
document, as follows: document, as follows:
Type Description Type Description
TBD1 Unidirectional Link Delay TBD1 Unidirectional Link Delay
TBD2 Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay TBD2 Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay
TBD3 Unidirectional Delay Variation TBD3 Unidirectional Delay Variation
skipping to change at page 18, line 7 skipping to change at page 18, line 7
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., Yeung, D., "Traffic [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., Yeung, D., "Traffic
Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
September 2003. September 2003.
13.2. Informative References 13.2. 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, [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan,
V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC5250] Berger, L., Bryskin I., Zinin, A., Coltun, R., "The OSPF [RFC4203] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "OSPF Extensions in Support of
Opaque LSA Option", RFC 5250, July 2008. Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC
4203, October 2005.
[RFC4206] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206, October 2005.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path
Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
August 2006. August 2006.
[RFC5250] Berger, L., Bryskin I., Zinin, A., Coltun, R., "The OSPF
Opaque LSA Option", RFC 5250, July 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.
[RFC7285] Almi, R., Penno, R., Yang, Y., Kiesel, S., Previdi, S., [RFC7285] Almi, R., Penno, R., Yang, Y., Kiesel, S., Previdi, S.,
Roome, W., Shalunov, S., and R. Woundy, "Application- Roome, W., Shalunov, S., and R. Woundy, "Application-
Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Protocol", RFC 7285, Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Protocol", RFC 7285,
September 2014. September 2014.
14. Acknowledgments 14. Acknowledgments
 End of changes. 28 change blocks. 
55 lines changed or deleted 60 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/