draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-09.txt   draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-10.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: June 2015 D. Ward Expires: July 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
December 27, 2014 January 05, 2015
OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions
draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-09.txt draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-10.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 information (e.g., latency) is becoming critical to data
path selection as other metrics. path selection.
This document describes extensions to RFC 3630 'Traffic Engineering This document describes common extensions to RFC 3630 "Traffic
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2' such that network performance Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2" and RFC 5329 "Traffic
information can be distributed and collected in a scalable fashion. Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 3" to enable network
The information distributed using OSPF TE Metric Extensions can then performance information to be distributed in a scalable fashion. The
be used to make path selection decisions based on network information distributed using OSPF TE Metric Extensions can then be
performance. 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 by 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 information or using that information, once
are outside the scope of this document. distributed, 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.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
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 June 27, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 5, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
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
skipping to change at page 3, line 6 skipping to change at page 3, line 6
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..........................................7
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
4.2.4. Reserved.............................................9 4.2.4. Reserved.............................................8
4.2.5. Min Delay............................................9 4.2.5. Min Delay............................................9
4.2.6. Reserved.............................................9 4.2.6. Reserved.............................................9
4.2.7 Max Delay.............................................9 4.2.7 Max Delay.............................................9
4.3. Unidirectional Delay Variation Sub-TLV....................9 4.3. Unidirectional Delay Variation Sub-TLV....................9
4.3.1. Type................................................10 4.3.1. Type................................................10
4.3.2. Length..............................................10 4.3.2. Length..............................................10
4.3.3. Reserved............................................10 4.3.3. Reserved............................................10
4.3.4. Delay Variation.....................................10 4.3.4. Delay Variation.....................................10
4.4. Unidirectional Link Loss Sub-TLV.........................10 4.4. Unidirectional Link Loss Sub-TLV.........................10
4.4.1. Type................................................11 4.4.1. Type................................................11
skipping to change at page 3, line 44 skipping to change at page 3, line 44
4.7. Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth Sub-TLV................13 4.7. Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth Sub-TLV................13
4.7.1. Type................................................14 4.7.1. Type................................................14
4.7.2. Length..............................................14 4.7.2. Length..............................................14
4.7.3. Utilized Bandwidth..................................14 4.7.3. Utilized Bandwidth..................................14
5. Announcement Thresholds and Filters...........................14 5. Announcement Thresholds and Filters...........................14
6. Announcement Suppression......................................15 6. Announcement Suppression......................................15
7. Network Stability and Announcement Periodicity................15 7. Network Stability and Announcement Periodicity................15
8. Enabling and Disabling Sub-TLVs...............................16 8. Enabling and Disabling Sub-TLVs...............................16
9. Static Metric Override........................................16 9. Static Metric Override........................................16
10. Compatibility................................................16 10. Compatibility................................................16
11. Security Considerations......................................16 11. Security Considerations......................................17
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..............................................19
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 Because of this, using metrics such as hop count or cost as routing
ability to access market data in "real time" and to predictably make metrics is becoming only tangentially important. Rather, it would be
trades faster than the competition. Because of this, using metrics beneficial to be able to make path selection decisions based on
such as hop count or cost as routing metrics is becoming only performance data (such as latency) in a cost-effective and scalable
tangentially important. Rather, it would be beneficial to be able to way.
make path selection decisions based on performance data (such as
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].
information should be obtained, the measurement of delay SHOULD NOT
vary significantly based upon the offered traffic load. Thus, While this document does not specify how the performance information
queuing delays and/or loss SHOULD NOT be included in any dynamic should be obtained, the measurement of delay SHOULD NOT vary
delay measurement. For links, such as Forwarding Adjacencies, care significantly based upon the offered traffic load. Thus, queuing
must be taken that measurement of the associated delay avoids delays and/or loss SHOULD NOT be included in any dynamic delay
significant queuing delay; that could be accomplished in a variety measurement. For links, such as Forwarding Adjacencies, care must
of ways, including either by measuring with a traffic class that be taken that measurement of the associated delay avoids significant
experiences minimal queuing or by summing the measured link delays queuing delay; this can be accomplished in a variety of ways, e.g.,
of the components of the link's path. measuring with a traffic class that experiences minimal queuing or
summing the measured link delays of the components of the link's
path.
2. Conventions used in this document 2. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119].
In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation
only when in ALL CAPS. Lower case uses of these words are not to be only when in ALL CAPS. Lower case uses of these words are not to be
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 defines new OSPF TE sub-TLVs that can be announced in This document defines 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 OSPFv2 TE
[RFC3630] and GMPLS [RFC4203]. [RFC3630] and OSPFv3 TE [RFC5329].
OSPF TE LSAs [RFC3630] are opaque LSAs [RFC5250] with area flooding OSPF TE LSAs are opaque LSAs [RFC5250] with area flooding scope.
scope. Each consists of a single TLV with one or more nested sub- Each consists of a single TLV with one or more nested sub-TLVs,
TLVs, permitting the TE LSA to be readily extended. There are two permitting the TE LSA to be readily extended. The Link TLV is common
OSPF TE LSA TLVs, the Router Address and the Link TLV. Like the to both OSPFv2 TE [RFC3630] and OSPFv3 TE [RFC5329] and describes
extensions in GMPLS (RFC4203), this document defines several the characteristics of a link between OSPF neighbors.
additional sub-TLVs for the Link TLV:
This document defines several 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
TBD5 4 Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TBD5 4 Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth
TBD6 4 Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TBD6 4 Unidirectional Available Bandwidth
TBD7 4 Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TBD7 4 Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth
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.
Many (but not all) of the sub-TLVs include a bit called the Anomalous Many (but not all) of the sub-TLVs include a bit called the Anomalous
(or "A") bit. When the A bit is clear (or when the sub-TLV does not (or A) bit. When the A bit is clear (or when the sub-TLV does not
include an A bit), the sub-TLV describes steady state link include an A bit), the sub-TLV describes steady state link
performance. This information could conceivably be used to construct performance. This information could conceivably be used to construct
a steady state performance topology for initial tunnel path a steady state performance topology for initial tunnel path
computation, or to verify alternative failover paths. computation, or to verify alternative failover paths.
When network performance violates configurable link-local thresholds When network performance violates configurable link-local thresholds
a sub-TLV with the A bit set is advertised. These sub-TLVs could be a sub-TLV with the A bit set is advertised. These sub-TLVs could be
used by the receiving node to determine whether to fail traffic to a used by the receiving node to determine whether to fail traffic to a
backup path, or whether to calculate an entirely new path. From an backup path, or whether to calculate an entirely new path. From an
MPLS perspective, the intent of the A bit is to permit LSP ingress MPLS perspective, the intent of the A bit is to permit LSP ingress
skipping to change at page 6, line 36 skipping to change at page 6, line 36
C) The node could then conceivably move affected traffic to a pre- C) The node could then conceivably move affected traffic to a pre-
established protection LSP or establish a new LSP and place the established protection LSP or establish a new LSP and place the
traffic in it. traffic in it.
If link performance then improves beyond a configurable minimum If link performance then improves beyond a configurable minimum
value (reuse threshold), that sub-TLV can be re-advertised with the value (reuse threshold), that sub-TLV can be re-advertised with the
Anomalous bit cleared. In this case, a receiving node can Anomalous bit cleared. In this case, a receiving node can
conceivably do whatever re-optimization (or failback) it wishes to conceivably do whatever re-optimization (or failback) it wishes to
do (including nothing). do (including nothing).
Note that when a sub-TLV does not include the A bit, that sub-TLV The A bit was intentionally omitted from some sub-TLVs to help
cannot be used for failover purposes. The A bit was intentionally mitigate oscillations. See section 7. 1. for more information.
omitted from some sub-TLVs to help mitigate oscillations. See section
7. 1. for more information.
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 [IEEE754]. Link delay and delay variation MUST be in floating point [IEEE754]. Link delay and delay variation MUST be in
units of microseconds, link loss MUST be a percentage, and bandwidth units of microseconds, link loss MUST be a percentage, and bandwidth
MUST be in units of bytes per second. All values (except residual MUST be in units of bytes per second. All values (except residual
bandwidth) MUST be calculated as rolling averages where the averaging bandwidth) MUST be calculated as rolling averages where the averaging
period MUST be a configurable period of time. See section 5. for more period MUST be a configurable period of time. See section 5. for more
information. information.
skipping to change at page 16, line 35 skipping to change at page 16, line 35
9. Static Metric Override 9. Static Metric Override
Implementations SHOULD permit the static configuration and/or manual Implementations SHOULD permit the static configuration and/or manual
override of dynamic measurements data on a per sub-TLV, per metric override of dynamic measurements data on a per sub-TLV, per metric
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], an unrecognized TLV should be silently ignored.
I.e., it should not be processed but it should be included in LSAs
sent to OSPF neighbors.
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]. discussed in [RFC3630]. OSPFv2 HMAC-SHA [RFC5709] provides
additional protection for OSPFv2.
OSPF KARP [RFC6863] provides an analysis of OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 routing
security and OSPFv2 Security Extensions [OSPFSEC] provides extensions
designed to address the identified gaps in OSPFv2.
12. IANA Considerations 12. IANA Considerations
IANA maintains the registry for the Link TLV 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
skipping to change at page 17, line 38 skipping to change at page 18, line 9
13.1. Normative References 13.1. Normative References
[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.
[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "OSPF Extensions in Support of [RFC5329] Ishiguro, K., Manral, V., Davey, A., Lindem, A., "Traffic
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 3", RFC 5329,
4203, October 2005. September 2009.
[IEEE754] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, [IEEE754] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
"Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic", IEEE Standard "Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic", IEEE Standard
754, August 2008. 754, August 2008.
13.2. Informative References 13.2. Informative References
[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., Swallow, G., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC4206] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "Label Switched Paths (LSP) [RFC4206] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206, October 2005. (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., Ash, J., "A Path Computation
Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.
August 2006.
[RFC5250] Berger, L., Bryskin I., Zinin, A., Coltun, R., "The OSPF [RFC5250] Berger, L., Bryskin I., Zinin, A., Coltun, R., "The OSPF
Opaque LSA Option", RFC 5250, July 2008. Opaque LSA Option", RFC 5250, July 2008.
[RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay [RFC5709] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Fanto, M., White, R., Barnes, M.,
Li, T., Atkinson, R., "OSPFv2 HMAC-SHA Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5709, October 2009.
[RFC6374] Frost, D., Bryant, S., "Packet Loss and Delay
Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374, September 2011. Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374, September 2011.
[RFC6863] Hartman, S., Zhang, D., "Analysis of OSPF Security
According to the Keying and Authentication for Routing
Protocols (KARP) Design Guide", RFC 6863, March 2013.
[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., Woundy, R., "Application-Layer
Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Protocol", RFC 7285, Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Protocol", RFC 7285, September
September 2014. 2014.
[OSPFSEC] Bhatia, M., Hartman, S., Zhang, D., Lindem, A., "Security
Extensions for OSPFv2 when using Manual Key Management",
draft-ietf-ospf-security-extension-manual-keying, Work in
Progress.
14. Acknowledgments 14. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to recognize Ayman Soliman, Nabil Bitar, David The authors would like to recognize Ayman Soliman, Nabil Bitar, David
McDysan, Edward Crabbe, and Don Fedyk for their contributions. McDysan, Edward Crabbe, and Don Fedyk for their contributions.
The authors also recognize Curtis Villamizar for significant comments The authors also recognize Curtis Villamizar for significant comments
and direct content collaboration. and direct content collaboration.
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot. This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
 End of changes. 27 change blocks. 
63 lines changed or deleted 81 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/