draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-02.txt   draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-03.txt 
TEAS Working Group Zafar Ali TEAS Working Group Zafar Ali
Internet Draft George Swallow Internet Draft George Swallow
Intended status: Standard Track Clarence Filsfils Intended status: Standard Track Clarence Filsfils
Expires: January 5, 2016 Matt Hartley Expires: August 7, 2016 Matt Hartley
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
Kenji Kumaki Kenji Kumaki
KDDI Corporation KDDI Corporation
Ruediger Kunze Ruediger Kunze
Deutsche Telekom AG Deutsche Telekom AG
July 6, 2015 February 8, 2016
Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
extension for recording TE Metric of a Label Switched Path extension for recording TE Metric of a Label Switched Path
draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-02 draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-03
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). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts
as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in
progress." progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 5, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 7, 2016.
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-02.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-03.txt
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
skipping to change at page 3, line 4 skipping to change at page 3, line 4
1. Introduction.............................................3 1. Introduction.............................................3
1.1. Use Cases..............................................4 1.1. Use Cases..............................................4
1.1.1. GMPLS..........................................4 1.1.1. GMPLS..........................................4
1.1.2. Inter-area tunnels with loose-hops.............4 1.1.2. Inter-area tunnels with loose-hops.............4
2. RSVP-TE Requirement......................................4 2. RSVP-TE Requirement......................................4
2.1. Cost, Delay and Delay Variation Collection Indication..4 2.1. Cost, Delay and Delay Variation Collection Indication..4
2.2. Cost, Delay and Delay Variation Collection.............4 2.2. Cost, Delay and Delay Variation Collection.............4
2.3. Cost, Delay and Delay Variation Update.................5 2.3. Cost, Delay and Delay Variation Update.................5
2.4. Cost Definition........................................5 2.4. Cost Definition........................................5
3. RSVP-TE signaling extensions.............................5 3. RSVP-TE signaling extensions.............................5
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-02.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-03.txt
3.1. Cost, Delay and Delay Variation Collection Flags.......5 3.1. Cost, Delay and Delay Variation Collection Flags.......5
3.2. Cost Subobject.........................................6 3.2. Cost Subobject.........................................6
3.3. Delay Subobject........................................6 3.3. Delay Subobject........................................6
3.4. Delay Variation Subobject..............................7 3.4. Delay Variation Subobject..............................7
4. Signaling Procedures.....................................8 4. Signaling Procedures.....................................8
4.1. Cost, Delay and Delay Variation Collection Request.....8 4.1. Cost, Delay and Delay Variation Collection Request.....8
4.2. Cost, Delay and Delay Variation Recoding...............8 4.2. Cost, Delay and Delay Variation Recoding...............8
4.3. Metric Update..........................................10 4.3. Metric Update..........................................10
4.4. Compatibility..........................................10 4.4. Compatibility..........................................10
skipping to change at page 4, line 4 skipping to change at page 4, line 4
and/or egress nodes cannot provide the correct Delay, Delay and/or egress nodes cannot provide the correct Delay, Delay
variation and cost information associated with the TE-Link variation and cost information associated with the TE-Link
automatically. automatically.
In summary, there is a requirement for the ingress and egress In summary, there is a requirement for the ingress and egress
nodes to learn the cost, Delay and Delay variation information nodes to learn the cost, Delay and Delay variation information
of the TE link formed by a LSP. This document provides a of the TE link formed by a LSP. This document provides a
mechanism to collect the cost, Delay and Delay variation mechanism to collect the cost, Delay and Delay variation
information of a LSP, which can then be advertised as properties information of a LSP, which can then be advertised as properties
of the TE-link formed by that LSP. Note that specification of of the TE-link formed by that LSP. Note that specification of
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-02.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-03.txt
the use of the collected cost, Delay and Delay variation the use of the collected cost, Delay and Delay variation
information is outside the scope of this document. information is outside the scope of this document.
1.1. Use Cases 1.1. Use Cases
This section describes some of the use cases for TE metric This section describes some of the use cases for TE metric
recording. recording.
1.1.1. GMPLS 1.1.1. GMPLS
skipping to change at page 5, line 5 skipping to change at page 5, line 5
2.2. Cost, Delay and Delay Variation Collection 2.2. Cost, Delay and Delay Variation Collection
If requested, the cost and/or delay and/ or delay variation If requested, the cost and/or delay and/ or delay variation
information SHOULD be collected during the setup of an LSP. Each information SHOULD be collected during the setup of an LSP. Each
of the cost, delay or delay variation can be collected of the cost, delay or delay variation can be collected
independently. The endpoints of the LSP can use the collected independently. The endpoints of the LSP can use the collected
information, for example, for routing, flooding and other information, for example, for routing, flooding and other
purposes. purposes.
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-02.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-03.txt
2.3. Cost, Delay and Delay Variation Update 2.3. Cost, Delay and Delay Variation Update
When the cost and/or delay and/ or delay variation information When the cost and/or delay and/ or delay variation information
of an existing LSP for which corresponding information was of an existing LSP for which corresponding information was
collected during signaling changes, the relevant nodes of the collected during signaling changes, the relevant nodes of the
LSP SHOULD be capable of updating the associated information of LSP SHOULD be capable of updating the associated information of
the LSP. This means that the signaling procedure SHOULD be the LSP. This means that the signaling procedure SHOULD be
capable of updating the new cost and/or delay and/ or delay capable of updating the new cost and/or delay and/ or delay
variation information. variation information.
skipping to change at page 6, line 4 skipping to change at page 6, line 4
- Delay Variation Collection flag (Bit number to be assigned by - Delay Variation Collection flag (Bit number to be assigned by
IANA) IANA)
The Cost, Delay and Delay Variation Collection flag is The Cost, Delay and Delay Variation Collection flag is
meaningful on a Path message. If the Cost Collection flag is meaningful on a Path message. If the Cost Collection flag is
set to 1, it means that the cost information SHOULD be reported set to 1, it means that the cost information SHOULD be reported
to the ingress and egress node along the setup of the LSP. to the ingress and egress node along the setup of the LSP.
Similarly, if the Delay Collection flag is set to 1, it means Similarly, if the Delay Collection flag is set to 1, it means
that the Delay information SHOULD be reported to the ingress and that the Delay information SHOULD be reported to the ingress and
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-02.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-03.txt
egress node along the setup of the LSP. Likewise, if the Delay egress node along the setup of the LSP. Likewise, if the Delay
Variation Collection flag is set to 1, it means that the Delay Variation Collection flag is set to 1, it means that the Delay
Variation information SHOULD be reported to the ingress and Variation information SHOULD be reported to the ingress and
egress node along the setup of the LSP. egress node along the setup of the LSP.
The rules of the processing of the Attribute Flags TLV are not The rules of the processing of the Attribute Flags TLV are not
changed. changed.
3.2. Cost Subobject 3.2. Cost Subobject
skipping to change at page 7, line 4 skipping to change at page 7, line 4
object) to record the delay information of the LSP. Its format object) to record the delay information of the LSP. Its format
is modeled on the RRO sub-objects defined in RFC 3209 [RFC3209]. is modeled on the RRO sub-objects defined in RFC 3209 [RFC3209].
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Reserved (must be zero) | | Type | Length | Reserved (must be zero) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A| Reserved | Delay | |A| Reserved | Delay |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-02.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-03.txt
Type: The type of the sub-object (value to be assigned by Type: The type of the sub-object (value to be assigned by
IANA). IANA).
Length: The Length field contains the total length of the Length: The Length field contains the total length of the
sub-object in bytes, including the Type and Length fields. sub-object in bytes, including the Type and Length fields.
The Length value is set to 8. The Length value is set to 8.
A-bit: These fields represent the Anomalous (A) bit A-bit: These fields represent the Anomalous (A) bit
associated with the Downstream and Upstream Delay associated with the Downstream and Upstream Delay
skipping to change at page 8, line 4 skipping to change at page 8, line 4
A-bit: These fields represent the Anomalous (A) bit A-bit: These fields represent the Anomalous (A) bit
associated with the Downstream and Upstream Delay Variation associated with the Downstream and Upstream Delay Variation
respectively, as defined in RFC 7471 [RFC7471]. respectively, as defined in RFC 7471 [RFC7471].
Reserved: These fields are reserved for future use. It SHOULD Reserved: These fields are reserved for future use. It SHOULD
be set to 0 when sent and MUST be ignored when received. be set to 0 when sent and MUST be ignored when received.
Delay Variation: Delay Variation of the local TE link along Delay Variation: Delay Variation of the local TE link along
the route of the LSP, encoded as 24-bit integer, as defined the route of the LSP, encoded as 24-bit integer, as defined
in RFC 7471 [RFC7471]. When set to the maximum value in RFC 7471 [RFC7471]. When set to the maximum value
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-02.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-03.txt
16,777,215 (16.777215 sec), the delay variation is at least 16,777,215 (16.777215 sec), the delay variation is at least
that value and may be larger. that value and may be larger.
4. Signaling Procedures 4. Signaling Procedures
The rules of the processing of the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES, The rules of the processing of the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES,
LSP_ATTRIBUTE and ROUTE_RECORD Objects are not changed. LSP_ATTRIBUTE and ROUTE_RECORD Objects are not changed.
As signaling procedure for cost, delay and delay variation As signaling procedure for cost, delay and delay variation
skipping to change at page 9, line 4 skipping to change at page 9, line 4
Delay Variation Collection Flag set, if local policy determines Delay Variation Collection Flag set, if local policy determines
that the Delay Variation information is not to be provided to that the Delay Variation information is not to be provided to
the endpoints or the information is not known, it MUST return a the endpoints or the information is not known, it MUST return a
PathErr message with error code 2 (policy) and error subcode PathErr message with error code 2 (policy) and error subcode
"Delay Variation Recording Rejected" (value to be assigned by "Delay Variation Recording Rejected" (value to be assigned by
IANA) to reject the Path message. IANA) to reject the Path message.
When a node receives a Path message which carries an When a node receives a Path message which carries an
LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object and the Cost and/or Delay and/or Delay LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object and the Cost and/or Delay and/or Delay
Variation Collection Flag set, if local policy determines that Variation Collection Flag set, if local policy determines that
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-02.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-03.txt
the corresponding information is not to be provided to the the corresponding information is not to be provided to the
endpoints, or the information is not known, the Path message endpoints, or the information is not known, the Path message
SHOULD NOT be rejected due to the recording restriction and the SHOULD NOT be rejected due to the recording restriction and the
Path message SHOULD be forwarded without any Cost and/or Delay Path message SHOULD be forwarded without any Cost and/or Delay
and/or Delay Variation sub-object(s) in the RRO of the and/or Delay Variation sub-object(s) in the RRO of the
corresponding outgoing Path message. corresponding outgoing Path message.
If local policy permits the recording of the Cost and/or Delay If local policy permits the recording of the Cost and/or Delay
and/or Delay Variation information, the processing node SHOULD and/or Delay Variation information, the processing node SHOULD
skipping to change at page 10, line 4 skipping to change at page 10, line 4
When a node receives a Resv message for an LSP for which Cost When a node receives a Resv message for an LSP for which Cost
and/or Delay and/or Delay Variation Collection is requested, and/or Delay and/or Delay Variation Collection is requested,
then when local policy allows recording of the requested then when local policy allows recording of the requested
information, the node SHOULD add corresponding information, to information, the node SHOULD add corresponding information, to
the RRO of the outgoing Resv message, as specified below. The the RRO of the outgoing Resv message, as specified below. The
A-bit for the Delay MUST be set as described in RFC 7471 A-bit for the Delay MUST be set as described in RFC 7471
[RFC7471]. Similarly, the A-bit for the Delay Variation MUST be [RFC7471]. Similarly, the A-bit for the Delay Variation MUST be
set as described in RFC 7471 [RFC7471]. When the Resv message set as described in RFC 7471 [RFC7471]. When the Resv message
arrives at the ingress node, the ingress node can extract the arrives at the ingress node, the ingress node can extract the
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-02.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-03.txt
requested information from the RRO in the same way as the egress requested information from the RRO in the same way as the egress
node. node.
A node MUST NOT push a Cost, Delay or Delay Variation sub-object A node MUST NOT push a Cost, Delay or Delay Variation sub-object
in the RECORD_ROUTE without also pushing an IPv4 sub-object, an in the RECORD_ROUTE without also pushing an IPv4 sub-object, an
IPv6 sub-object, an Unnumbered Interface ID sub-object or a Path IPv6 sub-object, an Unnumbered Interface ID sub-object or a Path
Key sub-object. Key sub-object.
Note that a link's Cost and/or Delay and/or Delay Variation Note that a link's Cost and/or Delay and/or Delay Variation
skipping to change at page 11, line 5 skipping to change at page 11, line 5
4.4. Compatibility 4.4. Compatibility
A node that does not recognize the Cost and/or Delay and/or A node that does not recognize the Cost and/or Delay and/or
Delay Variation Collection Flag in the Attribute Flags TLV is Delay Variation Collection Flag in the Attribute Flags TLV is
expected to proceed as specified in RFC 5420 [RFC5420]. It is expected to proceed as specified in RFC 5420 [RFC5420]. It is
expected to pass the TLV on unaltered if it appears in a expected to pass the TLV on unaltered if it appears in a
LSP_ATTRIBUTES object, or reject the Path message with the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object, or reject the Path message with the
appropriate Error Code and Value if it appears in a appropriate Error Code and Value if it appears in a
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object. LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object.
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-02.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-03.txt
A node that does not recognize the Cost and/or Delay and/or A node that does not recognize the Cost and/or Delay and/or
Delay Variation RRO sub-object is expected to behave as Delay Variation RRO sub-object is expected to behave as
specified in RFC 3209 [RFC3209]: unrecognized subobjects are to specified in RFC 3209 [RFC3209]: unrecognized subobjects are to
be ignored and passed on unchanged. be ignored and passed on unchanged.
5. Endpoint processing 5. Endpoint processing
Based on the procedures mentioned in Section 4, the endpoints Based on the procedures mentioned in Section 4, the endpoints
can get the Cost and/or Delay and/or Delay Variation information can get the Cost and/or Delay and/or Delay Variation information
skipping to change at page 12, line 5 skipping to change at page 12, line 5
variation metric is beyond the scope of this document. variation metric is beyond the scope of this document.
6. Manageability Considerations 6. Manageability Considerations
6.1. Policy Configuration 6.1. Policy Configuration
In a border node of inter-domain or inter-layer network, the In a border node of inter-domain or inter-layer network, the
following Cost and/or Delay and/or Delay Variation processing following Cost and/or Delay and/or Delay Variation processing
policy SHOULD be capable of being configured: policy SHOULD be capable of being configured:
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-02.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-03.txt
o Whether the Cost and/or Delay and/or Delay Variation of the o Whether the Cost and/or Delay and/or Delay Variation of the
domain or specific layer network can be exposed to the nodes domain or specific layer network can be exposed to the nodes
outside the domain or layer network, or whether they SHOULD be outside the domain or layer network, or whether they SHOULD be
summarized, mapped to values that are comprehensible to nodes summarized, mapped to values that are comprehensible to nodes
outside the domain or layer network, or removed entirely. outside the domain or layer network, or removed entirely.
A node using RFC 5553 [RFC5553] and PKS MAY apply the same A node using RFC 5553 [RFC5553] and PKS MAY apply the same
policy. policy.
skipping to change at page 13, line 4 skipping to change at page 13, line 4
----------- ---------- ---------- ----------- --- ------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ----------- --- -------
TBA by Cost Yes Yes Yes This I-D TBA by Cost Yes Yes Yes This I-D
IANA Collection IANA Collection
Flag Flag
TBA by Delay Yes Yes Yes This I-D TBA by Delay Yes Yes Yes This I-D
IANA Collection IANA Collection
Flag Flag
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-02.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-03.txt
TBA by Delay Yes Yes Yes This I-D TBA by Delay Yes Yes Yes This I-D
IANA Variation IANA Variation
Collection Collection
Flag Flag
5.2. ROUTE_RECORD subobject 5.2. ROUTE_RECORD subobject
IANA manages the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at IANA manages the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters. This document http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters. This document
skipping to change at page 14, line 5 skipping to change at page 14, line 5
TBA by IANA Cost Recoding Rejected This I-D TBA by IANA Cost Recoding Rejected This I-D
TBA by IANA Delay Recoding Rejected This I-D TBA by IANA Delay Recoding Rejected This I-D
TBA by IANA Delay Variation Recoding Rejected This I-D TBA by IANA Delay Variation Recoding Rejected This I-D
9. Acknowledgments 9. Acknowledgments
Authors would like to thank Ori Gerstel, Gabriele Maria Authors would like to thank Ori Gerstel, Gabriele Maria
Galimberti, Luyuan Fang and Walid Wakim for their review Galimberti, Luyuan Fang and Walid Wakim for their review
comments. comments.
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-02.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-03.txt
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative References 10.1. 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.
[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 V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for
skipping to change at page 15, line 4 skipping to change at page 15, line 4
[RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS [RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010. Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
[DRAFT-SRLG-RECORDING] F. Zhang, O. Gonzalez de Dios, M. [DRAFT-SRLG-RECORDING] F. Zhang, O. Gonzalez de Dios, M.
Hartley, Z. Ali, C. Margaria, "RSVP-TE Extensions for Hartley, Z. Ali, C. Margaria, "RSVP-TE Extensions for
Collecting SRLG Information", draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te- Collecting SRLG Information", draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-
srlg-collect.txt, work in progress. srlg-collect.txt, work in progress.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-02.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-03.txt
Zafar Ali Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: zali@cisco.com Email: zali@cisco.com
George Swallow George Swallow
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
swallow@cisco.com swallow@cisco.com
Clarence Filsfils Clarence Filsfils
 End of changes. 19 change blocks. 
19 lines changed or deleted 19 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/