draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-10.txt   draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-11.txt 
skipping to change at page 1, line 17 skipping to change at page 1, line 17
J. Drake J. Drake
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
A. Atlas A. Atlas
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
S. Previdi S. Previdi
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
January 05, 2015 January 09, 2015
OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions
draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-10.txt draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-11.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 information (e.g., latency) is becoming critical to data performance information (e.g., link propagation delay) is becoming
path selection. critical to data path selection.
This document describes common extensions to RFC 3630 "Traffic This document describes common extensions to RFC 3630 "Traffic
Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2" and RFC 5329 "Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2" and RFC 5329 "Traffic
Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 3" to enable network Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 3" to enable network
performance information to be distributed in a scalable fashion. The performance information to be distributed in a scalable fashion. The
information distributed using OSPF TE Metric Extensions can then be information distributed using OSPF TE Metric Extensions can then be
used to make path selection decisions based on network performance. used to make path selection decisions based on network performance.
Note that this document only covers the mechanisms by 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
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 July 5, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 9, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 3, line 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......................................17 11. Security Considerations......................................16
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..............................................19 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., link propagation delay) is becoming as
data path selection as other metrics. critical to data path selection as other metrics.
Because of this, using metrics such as hop count or cost as routing Because of this, using metrics such as hop count or cost as routing
metrics is becoming only tangentially important. Rather, it would be metrics is becoming only tangentially important. Rather, it would be
beneficial to be able to make path selection decisions based on beneficial to be able to make path selection decisions based on
performance data (such as latency) in a cost-effective and scalable network performance information (such as link propagation delay) in a
way. cost-effective and scalable way.
This document describes extensions to OSPF TE (hereafter called "OSPF This document describes extensions to OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 TE (hereafter
TE Metric Extensions"), that can be used to distribute network called "OSPF TE Metric Extensions"), that can be used to distribute
performance information (viz link delay, delay variation, link loss, network performance information (viz link propagation delay, delay
residual bandwidth, available bandwidth, and utilized bandwidth). variation, link loss, 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 link propagation delay or considering bandwidth as well as
enhancing CSPF, or for use by a PCE [RFC4655] or an Alto server cost), by enhancing CSPF, or for use by a PCE [RFC4655] or an Alto
[RFC7285]. With respect to CSPF, the data distributed by OSPF TE server [RFC7285]. With respect to CSPF, the data distributed by OSPF
Metric Extensions can be used to setup, fail over, and fail back data TE Metric Extensions can be used to setup, fail over, and fail back
paths using protocols such as RSVP-TE [RFC3209]. data 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 distribute
performance information. The methods for initially gathering that network performance information. The methods for measuring that
performance information or acting on it once it is distributed are information or acting on it once it is distributed are outside the
outside the scope of this document. Example mechanisms to measure scope of this document. A method for measuring loss and delay in an
latency, delay variation, and loss in an MPLS network are given in MPLS network is described in [RFC6374].
[RFC6374].
While this document does not specify how the performance information While this document does not specify the method for measuring
should be obtained, the measurement of delay SHOULD NOT vary network performance information, any measurement of link propagation
significantly based upon the offered traffic load. Thus, queuing delay SHOULD NOT vary significantly based upon the offered traffic
delays and/or loss SHOULD NOT be included in any dynamic delay load and hence SHOULD NOT include queuing delays. For a forwarding
measurement. For links, such as Forwarding Adjacencies, care must adjacency (FA) [RFC4206], care must be taken that measurement of the
be taken that measurement of the associated delay avoids significant link propagation delay avoids significant queuing delay; this can be
queuing delay; this can be accomplished in a variety of ways, e.g., accomplished in a variety of ways, e.g., measuring with a traffic
measuring with a traffic class that experiences minimal queuing or class that experiences minimal queuing or summing the measured link
summing the measured link delays of the components of the link's propagation delay of the links on the FA's path.
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 are used to
OSPF TE LSAs to distribute network performance information. The distribute network performance information. The extensions in this
extensions in this document build on the ones provided in OSPFv2 TE document build on the ones provided in OSPFv2 TE [RFC3630] and OSPFv3
[RFC3630] and OSPFv3 TE [RFC5329]. TE [RFC5329].
OSPF TE LSAs are opaque LSAs [RFC5250] with area flooding scope. OSPFv2 TE LSAs [RFC3630] are opaque LSAs [RFC5250] with area
Each consists of a single TLV with one or more nested sub-TLVs, flooding scope while OSPFv3 Intra-Area-TE-LSAs have their own LSA
permitting the TE LSA to be readily extended. The Link TLV is common type, also with area flooding scope; both consist of a single TLV
to both OSPFv2 TE [RFC3630] and OSPFv3 TE [RFC5329] and describes with one or more nested sub-TLVs. The Link TLV is common to both
the characteristics of a link between OSPF neighbors. and describes the characteristics of a link between OSPF neighbors.
This document defines several 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
skipping to change at page 6, line 15 skipping to change at page 6, line 15
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 move 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
nodes to: nodes to:
A) Determine whether the link referenced in the sub-TLV affects any A) Determine whether the link referenced in the sub-TLV affects any
of the LSPs for which it is ingress. If there are, then: of the LSPs for which it is ingress. If there are, then:
B) The node determines whether those LSPs still meet end-to-end B) The node determines whether those LSPs still meet end-to-end
performance objectives. If not, then: performance objectives. If not, then:
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
do (including nothing). (including nothing).
The A bit was intentionally omitted from some sub-TLVs to help The A bit was intentionally omitted from some sub-TLVs to help
mitigate oscillations. See section 7. 1. for more information. 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 single precision floating point [IEEE754]. Link delay and delay
units of microseconds, link loss MUST be a percentage, and bandwidth variation MUST be in units of microseconds, link loss MUST be a
MUST be in units of bytes per second. All values (except residual percentage, and bandwidth MUST be in units of bytes per second. All
bandwidth) MUST be calculated as rolling averages where the averaging values (except residual bandwidth) MUST be calculated as rolling
period MUST be a configurable period of time. See section 5. for more averages where the averaging period MUST be a configurable period of
information. time. See section 5. for more 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 advertising node to its neighbor (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:
skipping to change at page 9, line 29 skipping to change at page 9, line 29
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.
4.2.7 Max Delay 4.2.7 Max Delay
This 24-bit field carries the maximum measured link delay value (in This 24-bit field carries the maximum measured link delay value (in
microseconds) over a configurable interval, encoded as an integer microseconds) over a configurable interval, encoded as an integer
value. value.
Implementations MAY also permit the configuration of an offset value Implementations may also permit the configuration of an offset value
(in microseconds) to be added to the measured delay value to (in microseconds) to be added to the measured delay value to
advertise operator specific delay constraints. advertise operator specific delay constraints.
It is possible for min delay and max delay to be the same value. It is possible for min delay and max delay to be the same value.
When the delay value is set to maximum value 16,777,215 (16.777215 When the delay value is set to maximum value 16,777,215 (16.777215
sec), then the delay is at least that value and may be larger. sec), then the delay is at least that value and may be larger.
4.3. Unidirectional Delay Variation Sub-TLV 4.3. Unidirectional Delay Variation Sub-TLV
skipping to change at page 11, line 36 skipping to change at page 11, line 36
4.4.5. Link Loss 4.4.5. Link Loss
This 24-bit field carries link packet loss as a percentage of the This 24-bit field carries link packet loss as a percentage of the
total traffic sent over a configurable interval. The basic unit is total traffic sent over a configurable interval. The basic unit is
0.000003%, where (2^24 - 2) is 50.331642%. This value is the highest 0.000003%, where (2^24 - 2) is 50.331642%. This value is the highest
packet loss percentage that can be expressed (the assumption being packet loss percentage that can be expressed (the assumption being
that precision is more important on high speed links than the ability that precision is more important on high speed links than the ability
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
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 advertising node to sub-TLV MUST be the residual bandwidth from the advertising node 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:
skipping to change at page 14, line 39 skipping to change at page 14, line 36
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 for each 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 for each sub-TLV configurable
advertisement thresholds, such that: accelerated 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.
skipping to change at page 15, line 46 skipping to change at page 15, line 41
All suppression and re-advertisement interval back-off timer features All suppression and re-advertisement interval back-off timer features
SHOULD be configurable. SHOULD be configurable.
7. Network Stability and Announcement Periodicity 7. Network Stability and Announcement Periodicity
Sections 5 and 6 provide configurable mechanisms to bound the number Sections 5 and 6 provide configurable mechanisms to bound the number
of re-advertisements. Instability might occur in very large networks of re-advertisements. Instability might occur in very large networks
if measurement intervals are set low enough to overwhelm the if measurement intervals are set low enough to overwhelm the
processing of flooded information at some of the routers in the processing of flooded information at some of the routers in the
topology. Therefore care SHOULD be taken in setting these values. topology. Therefore care should be taken in setting these values.
Additionally, the default measurement interval for all sub-TLVs Additionally, the default measurement interval for all sub-TLVs
SHOULD be 30 seconds. should be 30 seconds.
Announcements MUST also be able to be throttled using configurable Announcements must also be able to be throttled using configurable
inter-update throttle timers. The minimum announcement periodicity is inter-update throttle timers. The minimum announcement periodicity is
1 announcement per second. The default value SHOULD be set to 120 1 announcement per second. The default value should be set to 120
seconds. seconds.
Implementations SHOULD NOT permit the inter-update timer to be lower Implementations should not permit the inter-update timer to be lower
than the measurement interval. than the measurement interval.
Furthermore, it is RECOMMENDED that any underlying performance Furthermore, it is recommended that any underlying performance
measurement mechanisms not include any significant buffer delay, any measurement mechanisms not include any significant buffer delay, any
significant buffer induced delay variation, or any significant significant buffer induced delay variation, or any significant
loss due to buffer overflow or due to active queue management. loss due to buffer overflow or due to active queue management.
8. Enabling and Disabling Sub-TLVs 8. Enabling and Disabling Sub-TLVs
Implementations MUST make it possible to individually enable or Implementations MUST make it possible to individually enable or
disable each sub-TLV based on configuration. disable the advertisement of each sub-TLV.
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 for each sub-TLV in order to
basis in order to simplify migrations and to mitigate scenarios where simplify migration and to mitigate scenarios where dynamic
measurements are not possible across an entire network. measurements are not possible.
10. Compatibility 10. Compatibility
As per [RFC3630], an unrecognized TLV 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 I.e., it should not be processed but it should be included in LSAs
sent to OSPF neighbors. 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]. OSPFv2 HMAC-SHA [RFC5709] provides discussed in [RFC3630]. OSPFv2 HMAC-SHA [RFC5709] provides
additional protection for OSPFv2. additional protection for OSPFv2. OSPFv3 IPsec [RFC4552] and OSPFv3
Authentication Trailer [RFC7166] provide additional protection for
OSPFv3.
OSPF KARP [RFC6863] provides an analysis of OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 routing OSPF KARP [RFC6863] provides an analysis of OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 routing
security and OSPFv2 Security Extensions [OSPFSEC] provides extensions security and OSPFv2 Security Extensions [OSPFSEC] provides extensions
designed to address the identified gaps in OSPFv2. 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 for each sub-TLV defined in
document, as follows: this 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
TBD4 Unidirectional Link Loss TBD4 Unidirectional Link Loss
skipping to change at page 18, line 27 skipping to change at page 18, line 19
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., Swallow, G., "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.
[RFC4552] Gupta, M., Melam, M., "Authentication/Confidentiality for
OSPFv3", RFC 4552, June 2006.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., Ash, J., "A Path Computation [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., Ash, J., "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006. Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, 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.
[RFC5709] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Fanto, M., White, R., Barnes, M., [RFC5709] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Fanto, M., White, R., Barnes, M.,
Li, T., Atkinson, R., "OSPFv2 HMAC-SHA Cryptographic Li, T., Atkinson, R., "OSPFv2 HMAC-SHA Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5709, October 2009. Authentication", RFC 5709, October 2009.
[RFC6374] Frost, D., Bryant, S., "Packet Loss and Delay [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 [RFC6863] Hartman, S., Zhang, D., "Analysis of OSPF Security
According to the Keying and Authentication for Routing According to the Keying and Authentication for Routing
Protocols (KARP) Design Guide", RFC 6863, March 2013. Protocols (KARP) Design Guide", RFC 6863, March 2013.
[RFC7166] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Lindem, A., "Supporting
Authentication Trailer for OSPFv3", RFC 7166, March 2014.
[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., Woundy, R., "Application-Layer Roome, W., Shalunov, S., Woundy, R., "Application-Layer
Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Protocol", RFC 7285, September Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Protocol", RFC 7285, September
2014. 2014.
[OSPFSEC] Bhatia, M., Hartman, S., Zhang, D., Lindem, A., "Security [OSPFSEC] Bhatia, M., Hartman, S., Zhang, D., Lindem, A., "Security
Extensions for OSPFv2 when using Manual Key Management", Extensions for OSPFv2 when using Manual Key Management",
draft-ietf-ospf-security-extension-manual-keying, Work in draft-ietf-ospf-security-extension-manual-keying, Work in
Progress. Progress.
14. Acknowledgments 14. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to recognize Ayman Soliman, Nabil Bitar, David The authors would like to recognize Nabil Bitar, Edward Crabbe, Don
McDysan, Edward Crabbe, and Don Fedyk for their contributions. Fedyk, Acee Lindem, David McDysan, and Ayman Soliman for their
contributions to this document.
The authors also recognize Curtis Villamizar for significant comments The authors would also like to acknowledge Curtis Villamizar for his
and direct content collaboration. significant comments 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.
15. Author's Addresses 15. Author's Addresses
Spencer Giacalone Spencer Giacalone
Unaffiliated Unaffiliated
Email: spencer.giacalone@gmail.com Email: spencer.giacalone@gmail.com
 End of changes. 34 change blocks. 
76 lines changed or deleted 82 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/