TEAS Working Group                                        Zafar Ali
     Internet Draft                                       George Swallow
     Intended status: Standard Track                   Clarence Filsfils
     Expires: January 5, August 7, 2016                                Matt Hartley
                                                           Cisco Systems

                                                            Kenji Kumaki
                                                        KDDI Corporation

                                                          Ruediger Kunze
                                                     Deutsche Telekom AG

                                                           July 6, 2015

                                                        February 8, 2016

          Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
           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

     This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
     provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

     Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
     Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
     working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
     Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

     Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
     months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
     documents at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts
     as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in
     progress."

     This Internet-Draft will expire on January 5, August 7, 2016.

     Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-02.txt    draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-03.txt

     Copyright Notice

     Copyright (c) 2015 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
     document authors.  All rights reserved.

     This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
     Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
     (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
     publication of this document.  Please review these documents
     carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
     respect to this document.  Code Components extracted from this
     document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
     Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
     warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

     This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
     Contributions published or made publicly available before November
     10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
     material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
     modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
     Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s)
     controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not
     be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative
     works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process,
     except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it
     into languages other than English.

     Abstract

     There are many scenarios in which Traffic Engineering (TE) metrics
     such as cost, Delay and Delay variation associated with the TE link
     formed by Label Switched Path (LSP) are not available to the
     ingress and egress nodes. This draft provides extensions for the
     Resource ReserVation Protocol- Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to
     support automatic collection of cost, Delay and Delay variation
     information for the TE link formed by a LSP.

     Conventions used in this document

     The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
     "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in
     this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119
     [RFC2119].

     Table of Contents

        Copyright Notice............................................1
        1. Introduction.............................................3
        1.1. Use Cases..............................................4
              1.1.1. GMPLS..........................................4
              1.1.2. Inter-area tunnels with loose-hops.............4
        2. RSVP-TE Requirement......................................4
        2.1. Cost, Delay and Delay Variation Collection Indication..4
        2.2. Cost, Delay and Delay Variation Collection.............4
        2.3. Cost, Delay and Delay Variation Update.................5
        2.4. Cost Definition........................................5
        3. RSVP-TE signaling extensions.............................5
     Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-02.txt    draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-03.txt

        3.1. Cost, Delay and Delay Variation Collection Flags.......5
        3.2. Cost Subobject.........................................6
        3.3. Delay Subobject........................................6
        3.4. Delay Variation Subobject..............................7
        4. Signaling Procedures.....................................8
        4.1. Cost, Delay and Delay Variation Collection Request.....8
        4.2. Cost, Delay and Delay Variation Recoding...............8
        4.3. Metric Update..........................................10
        4.4. Compatibility..........................................10
        5. Endpoint processing......................................11
        6. Manageability Considerations.............................11
        6.1. Policy Configuration...................................11
        7. Security Considerations..................................12
        8. IANA Considerations......................................12
        8.1. RSVP Attribute Bit Flags...............................12
        8.2. Policy Control Failure Error subcodes..................13
        9. Acknowledgments..........................................13
        10. References..............................................14
        10.1. Normative References..................................14
        10.2. Informative References................................14

     1. Introduction

        In certain networks, such as financial information networks,
        network performance information (e.g. Delay, Delay variation) is
        becoming as critical to data path selection as other metrics RFC
        7471 [RFC7471], [DRAFT-ISIS-TE-METRIC]. If cost, Delay or Delay
        variation associated with a Forwarding Adjacency (FA) or a
        Routing Adjacency (RA) LSP is not available to the ingress or
        egress node, it cannot be advertised as an attribute of the TE
        link (FA or RA). There are scenarios in packet and optical
        networks where the route information of an LSP may not be
        provided to the ingress node for confidentiality reasons and/or
        the ingress node may not run the same routing instance as the
        intermediate nodes traversed by the path. Similarly, there are
        scenarios in which measuring Delay and/ or Delay variation on a
        TE link formed by a LSP is not supported. In such scenarios, the
        ingress node cannot determine the cost, Delay and Delay
        variation properties of the LSP's route.

        One possible way to address this issue is to configure cost,
        Delay and Delay variation values manually. However, in the event
        of an LSP being rerouted (e.g. due to re-optimization), such
        configuration information may become invalid. Consequently, in
        cases where that an LSP is advertised as a TE-Link, the ingress
        and/or egress nodes cannot provide the correct Delay, Delay
        variation and cost information associated with the TE-Link
        automatically.

        In summary, there is a requirement for the ingress and egress
        nodes to learn the cost, Delay and Delay variation information
        of the TE link formed by a LSP. This document provides a
        mechanism to collect the cost, Delay and Delay variation
        information of a LSP, which can then be advertised as properties
        of the TE-link formed by that LSP.  Note that specification of
     Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-02.txt    draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-03.txt

        the use of the collected cost, Delay and Delay variation
        information is outside the scope of this document.

     1.1. Use Cases

        This section describes some of the use cases for TE metric
        recording.

     1.1.1. GMPLS

        In Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) networks
        signaling bidirectional LSPs, the egress node cannot determine
        the cost, Delay and Delay variation properties of the LSP path.
        A multi-domain or multi-layer network is an example of such
        networks. A GMPLS User-Network Interface (UNI) [RFC4208] is also
        an example of such networks.

     1.1.2. Inter-area tunnels with loose-hops

        When a LSP is established over multiple IGP-areas using loose
        hops in the ERO, the ingress node only has knowledge of the
        first IGP-area traversed by the LSP. In this case, it cannot
        determine the cost, Delay and Delay variation properties of the
        LSP path.

     2. RSVP-TE Requirement

        This section outlines RSVP-TE requirements for the support of
        the automatic discovery of cost, Delay and Delay variation
        information of an LSP.

     2.1. Cost, Delay and Delay Variation Collection Indication

        The ingress node of the LSP SHOULD be capable of indicating
        whether the cost and/or delay and/ or delay variation
        information of the LSP is to be collected during the signaling
        procedure of setting up an LSP. A separate collection indication
        flag for each of this attribute is required. Cost, delay and
        delay variation information SHOULD NOT be collected without an
        explicit request for it being made by the ingress node.

     2.2. Cost, Delay and Delay Variation Collection

        If requested, the cost and/or delay and/ or delay variation
        information SHOULD be collected during the setup of an LSP. Each
        of the cost, delay or delay variation can be collected
        independently. The endpoints of the LSP can use the collected
        information, for example, for routing, flooding and other
        purposes.

     Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-02.txt    draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-03.txt

     2.3. Cost, Delay and Delay Variation Update

        When the cost and/or delay and/ or delay variation information
        of an existing LSP for which corresponding information was
        collected during signaling changes, the relevant nodes of the
        LSP SHOULD be capable of updating the associated information of
        the LSP.  This means that the signaling procedure SHOULD be
        capable of updating the new cost and/or delay and/ or delay
        variation information.

     2.4. Cost Definition

        Although the terms Delay and Delay variation are well
        understood, "cost" may be ambiguous; in particular, in the
        context of a LSP that traverses nodes and links operated by
        different entities, there may be no common definition of cost.
        However, there are situations in which the entire LSP may be
        within a single AS (e.g. inter-area LSPs) in which cost
        discovery is useful.

        The precise meaning and interpretation of numerical costs is a
        matter for the network operator. For the purposes of this
        document, two constraints are assumed:

          .  A higher cost represents an inferior path.

          .  Simple addition of costs for different sections of a path
             must make sense.

     3. RSVP-TE signaling extensions

     3.1. Cost, Delay and Delay Variation Collection Flags

        In order to indicate nodes that cost and/or Delay and/ or Delay
        variation collection is desired, this document defines a new
        flags in the Attribute Flags TLV (see RFC 5420 [RFC5420]), which
        MAY be carried in an LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_ATTRIBUTES
        Object:

        - Cost Collection flag (Bit number to be assigned by IANA)

        - Delay Collection flag (Bit number to be assigned by IANA)

        - Delay Variation Collection flag (Bit number to be assigned by
        IANA)

        The Cost, Delay and Delay Variation 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
        to the ingress and egress node along the setup of the LSP.
        Similarly, if the Delay Collection flag is set to 1, it means
        that the Delay information SHOULD be reported to the ingress and
     Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-02.txt    draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-03.txt

        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 information SHOULD be reported to the ingress and
        egress node along the setup of the LSP.

        The rules of the processing of the Attribute Flags TLV are not
        changed.

     3.2. Cost Subobject

        This document defines a new RRO sub-object (ROUTE_RECORD sub-
        object) to record the cost information of the LSP.  Its format
        is modeled on the RRO sub-objects defined in RFC 3209 [RFC3209].

        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |     Type      |    Length     |    Reserved (must be zero)    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                              Cost                             |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

           Type: The type of the sub-object (value to be assigned by
           IANA).

           Length: The Length field contains the total length of the
           sub-object in bytes, including the Type and Length fields.
           The Length value is set to 8.

           Reserved: This field is reserved for future use. It MUST be
           set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored when received.

           Cost: Cost of the local TE link along the route of the LSP.

     3.3. Delay Subobject

        This document defines a new RRO sub-object (ROUTE_RECORD sub-
        object) to record the delay information of the LSP.  Its format
        is modeled on the RRO sub-objects defined in RFC 3209 [RFC3209].

        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |   Type        |   Length      |    Reserved (must be zero)    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |A|  Reserved   |                      Delay                    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-02.txt    draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-03.txt

           Type: The type of the sub-object (value to be assigned by
           IANA).

           Length: The Length field contains the total length of the
           sub-object in bytes, including the Type and Length fields.
           The Length value is set to 8.

           A-bit: These fields represent the Anomalous (A) bit
           associated with the Downstream and Upstream Delay
           respectively, as defined in RFC 7471 [RFC7471].

           Reserved: These fields are reserved for future use. They MUST
           be set to 0 when sent and MUST be ignored when received.

           Delay: Delay of the local TE link along the route of the LSP,
           encoded as 24-bit integer, as defined in RFC 7471 [RFC7471].
           When set to the maximum value 16,777,215 (16.777215 sec), the
           delay is at least that value and may be larger.

     3.4. Delay Variation Subobject

        This document defines a new RRO sub-object (ROUTE_RECORD sub-
        object) to record the delay variation information of the LSP.
        Its format is modeled on the RRO sub-objects defined in RFC 3209
        [RFC3209].

        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |   Type        |   Length      |    Reserved (must be zero)    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |A|  Reserved   |                 Delay Variation               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

           Type: The type of the sub-object (value to be assigned by
           IANA).

           Length: The Length field contains the total length of the
           sub-object in bytes, including the Type and Length fields.
           The Length value is set to 8.

           A-bit: These fields represent the Anomalous (A) bit
           associated with the Downstream and Upstream Delay Variation
           respectively, as defined in RFC 7471 [RFC7471].

           Reserved: These fields are reserved for future use. It SHOULD
           be set to 0 when sent and MUST be ignored when received.

           Delay Variation: Delay Variation of the local TE link along
           the route of the LSP, encoded as 24-bit integer, as defined
           in RFC 7471 [RFC7471]. When set to the maximum value
     Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-02.txt    draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-03.txt

           16,777,215 (16.777215 sec), the delay variation is at least
           that value and may be larger.

     4. Signaling Procedures

        The rules of the processing of the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES,
        LSP_ATTRIBUTE and ROUTE_RECORD Objects are not changed.

        As signaling procedure for cost, delay and delay variation
        collection is similar, many parts of this section are written
        such that they apply equally to cost, delay and delay variation
        collection. There is also very strong similarity of these
        procedures with SRLG recording [DRAFT-SRLG-RECORDING].

     4.1. Cost, Delay and Delay Variation Collection Request

        Per RFC 3209 [RFC3209], an ingress node initiates the recording
        of the route information of an LSP by adding a RRO to a Path
        message. If an ingress node also desires Cost and/or Delay
        and/or Delay Variation recording, it MUST set the appropriate
        flag(s) in the Attribute Flags TLV which MAY be carried either
        in an LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object when the collection is
        mandatory, or in an LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object when the collection is
        desired, but not mandatory.

     4.2. Cost, Delay and Delay Variation Recoding

        When a node receives a Path message which carries an
        LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object and the Cost Collection Flag set,
        if local policy determines that the cost information is not to
        be provided to the endpoints or the information is not known, it
        MUST return a PathErr message with error code 2 (policy) and
        error subcode "Cost Recording Rejected" (value to be assigned by
        IANA) to reject the Path message. Similarly, when a node
        receives a Path message which carries an LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES
        Object and the Delay Collection Flag set, if local policy
        determines that the Delay information is not to be provided to
        the endpoints or the information is not known, it MUST return a
        PathErr message with error code 2 (policy) and error subcode
        "Delay Recording Rejected" (value to be assigned by IANA) to
        reject the Path message. Likewise, when a node receives a Path
        message which carries an LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object and the
        Delay Variation Collection Flag set, if local policy determines
        that the Delay Variation information is not to be provided to
        the endpoints or the information is not known, it MUST return a
        PathErr message with error code 2 (policy) and error subcode
        "Delay Variation Recording Rejected" (value to be assigned by
        IANA) to reject the Path message.

        When a node receives a Path message which carries an
        LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object and the Cost and/or Delay and/or Delay
        Variation Collection Flag set, if local policy determines that
     Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-02.txt    draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-03.txt

        the corresponding information is not to be provided to the
        endpoints, or the information is not known, the Path message
        SHOULD NOT be rejected due to the recording restriction and the
        Path message SHOULD be forwarded without any Cost and/or Delay
        and/or Delay Variation sub-object(s) in the RRO of the
        corresponding outgoing Path message.

        If local policy permits the recording of the Cost and/or Delay
        and/or Delay Variation information, the processing node SHOULD
        add corresponding information for the local TE link, as defined
        below, to the RRO of the corresponding outgoing Path message.
        The A-bit for the Delay MUST be set as described in RFC 7471
        [RFC7471]. Similarly, the A-bit for the Delay Variation MUST be
        set as described in RFC 7471 [RFC7471]. It then forwards the
        Path message to the next node in the downstream direction.

        If the addition of Cost and/or Delay and/or Delay Variation
        information to the RRO would result in the RRO exceeding its
        maximum possible size or becoming too large for the Path message
        to contain it, the requested information MUST NOT be added. If
        the Cost and/or Delay and/or Delay Variation collection request
        was contained in an LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object, the
        processing node MUST behave as specified by RFC 3209 [RFC3209]
        and drop the RRO from the Path message entirely.  If the Cost
        and/or Delay and/or Delay Variation collection request was
        contained in an LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object, the processing node MAY
        omit some or all of the corresponding information from the RRO;
        otherwise it MUST behave as specified by RFC 3209 [RFC3209] and
        drop the RRO from the Path message entirely.

        Following the steps described above, the intermediate nodes of
        the LSP can collect the Cost and/or Delay and/or Delay Variation
        information in the RRO during the processing of the Path message
        hop by hop.  When the Path message arrives at the egress node,
        the egress node receives the corresponding information in the
        RRO.

        Per RFC 3209 [RFC3209], when issuing a Resv message for a Path
        message, which contains an RRO, an egress node initiates the RRO
        process by adding an RRO to the outgoing Resv message.  The
        processing for RROs contained in Resv messages then mirrors that
        of the Path messages.

        When a node receives a Resv message for an LSP for which Cost
        and/or Delay and/or Delay Variation Collection is requested,
        then when local policy allows recording of the requested
        information, the node SHOULD add corresponding information, to
        the RRO of the outgoing Resv message, as specified below.  The
        A-bit for the Delay MUST be set as described in RFC 7471
        [RFC7471]. Similarly, the A-bit for the Delay Variation MUST be
        set as described in RFC 7471 [RFC7471]. When the Resv message
        arrives at the ingress node, the ingress node can extract the
     Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-02.txt    draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-03.txt

        requested information from the RRO in the same way as the egress
        node.

        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
        IPv6 sub-object, an Unnumbered Interface ID sub-object or a Path
        Key sub-object.

        Note that a link's Cost and/or Delay and/or Delay Variation
        information for the upstream direction cannot be assumed to be
        the same as that in the downstream.

        .  For Path and Resv messages for a unidirectional LSP, a node
          SHOULD include Cost and/or Delay and/or Delay Variation sub-
          objects in the RRO for the downstream data link only.

        .  For Path and Resv messages for a bidirectional LSP, a node
          SHOULD include Cost and/or Delay and/or Delay Variation sub-
          objects in the RRO for both the upstream data link and the
          downstream data link from the local node.  In this case, the
          node MUST include the information in the same order for both
          Path messages and Resv messages.  That is, the Cost and/or
          Delay and/or Delay Variation sub- object for the upstream link
          is added to the RRO before the corresponding sub-object for
          the downstream link.

     4.3. Metric Update

        When the Cost and/or Delay and/or Delay Variation information of
        a link is changed, the LSPs using that link need to be aware of
        the changes.  The procedures defined in Section 4.4.3 of RFC
        3209 [RFC3209] MUST be used to refresh the Cost and/or Delay
        and/or Delay Variation information if the corresponding change
        is to be communicated to other nodes according to the local
        node's policy.  If local policy is that the Cost and/or Delay
        and/or Delay Variation change SHOULD be suppressed or would
        result in no change to the previously signaled information, the
        node SHOULD NOT send an update.

     4.4. Compatibility

        A node that does not recognize the Cost and/or Delay and/or
        Delay Variation Collection Flag in the Attribute Flags TLV is
        expected to proceed as specified in RFC 5420 [RFC5420].  It is
        expected to pass the TLV on unaltered if it appears in a
        LSP_ATTRIBUTES object, or reject the Path message with the
        appropriate Error Code and Value if it appears in a
        LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object.

     Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-02.txt    draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-03.txt

        A node that does not recognize the Cost and/or Delay and/or
        Delay Variation RRO sub-object is expected to behave as
        specified in RFC 3209 [RFC3209]: unrecognized subobjects are to
        be ignored and passed on unchanged.

     5. Endpoint processing

        Based on the procedures mentioned in Section 4, the endpoints
        can get the Cost and/or Delay and/or Delay Variation information
        automatically.  Then the endpoints can for instance advertise it
        as a TE link to the routing instance based on the procedure
        described in [RFC6107]. How the end point uses the collected
        information is outside the scope of this document.

        The ingress and egress nodes of a LSP may calculate the end-to-
        end cost, Delay and/or Delay variation properties of the LSP
        from the supplied values in the Resv or Path RRO respectively.

        Typically, cost and Delay are additive metrics, but Delay
        variation is not an additive metric. The means by which the
        ingress and egress nodes compute the end-to-end cost, Delay and
        Delay variation metric from information recorded in the RRO is a
        local decision and is beyond the scope of this document.

        Based on the local policy, the ingress and egress nodes can
        advertise the calculated end-to-end cost, Delay and/or Delay
        variation properties of the FA or RA LSP in TE link
        advertisement to the routing instance based on the procedure
        described in RFC 7471 [RFC7471], [DRAFT-ISIS-TE-METRIC].

        Based on the local policy, a transit node (e.g. the edge node of
        a domain) may edit a Path or Resv RRO to remove route
        information (e.g. node or interface identifier information)
        before forwarding it. A node that does this SHOULD summarize the
        cost, Delay and Delay Variation data. How a node that performs
        the RRO edit operation calculates the cost, Delay o and/or Delay
        variation metric is beyond the scope of this document.

     6. Manageability Considerations

     6.1. Policy Configuration

        In a border node of inter-domain or inter-layer network, the
        following Cost and/or Delay and/or Delay Variation processing
        policy SHOULD be capable of being configured:

     Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-02.txt    draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-03.txt

        o  Whether the Cost and/or Delay and/or Delay Variation of the
        domain or specific layer network can be exposed to the nodes
        outside the domain or layer network, or whether they SHOULD be
        summarized, mapped to values that are comprehensible to nodes
        outside the domain or layer network, or removed entirely.

        A node using RFC 5553 [RFC5553] and PKS MAY apply the same
        policy.

     7. Security Considerations

        This document builds on the mechanisms defined in [RFC3473],
        which also discusses related security measures.  In addition,
        [RFC5920] provides an overview of security vulnerabilities and
        protection mechanisms for the GMPLS control plane.  The
        procedures defined in this document permit the transfer of Cost
        and/or Delay and/or Delay Variation data between layers or
        domains during the signaling of LSPs, subject to policy at the
        layer or domain boundary.  It is recommended that domain/layer
        boundary policies take the implications of releasing Cost and/or
        Delay and/or Delay Variation information into consideration and
        behave accordingly during LSP signaling.

     8. IANA Considerations

     8.1. RSVP Attribute Bit Flags

        IANA has created a registry and manages the space of the
        Attribute bit flags of the Attribute Flags TLV, as described in
        section 11.3 of RFC 5420 [RFC5420], in the "Attribute Flags"
        section of the "Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic
        Engineering (RSVP-TE) Parameters" registry located in
        http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te- parameters".

        This document introduces the following three new Attribute Bit
        Flags:

        Bit No      Name        Attribute   Attribute   RRO  Reference

                                Flags Path  Flags Resv

        ----------- ----------  ----------  ----------- ---  -------

        TBA by      Cost        Yes         Yes         Yes  This I-D
        IANA        Collection
                    Flag

        TBA by      Delay       Yes         Yes         Yes  This I-D
        IANA        Collection
                    Flag
     Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-02.txt    draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-03.txt

        TBA by      Delay       Yes         Yes         Yes  This I-D
        IANA        Variation
                    Collection
                    Flag

        5.2. ROUTE_RECORD subobject

        IANA manages the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at
        http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters. This document
        introduces the following three new RRO subobject:

             Type         Name                        Reference

             ---------    ----------------------      ---------

             TBA by IANA  Cost subobject              This I-D

             TBA by IANA  Delay subobject             This I-D

             TBA by IANA  Delay Variation subobject   This I-D

     8.2. Policy Control Failure Error subcodes

        IANA manages the assignments in the "Error Codes and Globally-
        Defined Error Value Sub-Codes" section of the "RSVP PARAMETERS"
        registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-
        parameters. This document introduces the following three new
        Policy Control Failure Error sub-code:

        Value           Description                          Reference
        -----           -----------                          ---------
        TBA by IANA     Cost Recoding Rejected               This I-D
        TBA by IANA     Delay Recoding Rejected              This I-D
        TBA by IANA     Delay Variation Recoding Rejected    This I-D

     9. Acknowledgments

        Authors would like to thank Ori Gerstel, Gabriele Maria
        Galimberti, Luyuan Fang and Walid Wakim for their review
        comments.

     Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-02.txt    draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-03.txt

     10. References

     10.1. Normative References

        [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
                  Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

        [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan,
                  V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for
                  LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.

        [RFC5420] Farrel, A., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and
                  A. Ayyangarps, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP
                  Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol
                  Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, February
                  2009.

        [RFC7471] S. Giacalone, D. Ward, J. Drake, A. Atlas, S.
                  Previdi., "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
                  Extensions", RFC 7471, March 2015.

        [DRAFT-ISIS-TE-METRIC] S. Previdi, S. Giacalone, D. Ward, J.
                  Drake, A. Atlas, C. Filsfils, "IS-IS Traffic
                  Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions", draft-ietf-isis-
                  te-metric-extensions, work in progress.

     10.2. Informative References

        [RFC4208] Swallow, G., Drake, J., Ishimatsu, H., and Y. Rekhter,
                  "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
                  User-Network Interface (UNI): Resource ReserVation
                  Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Support for the
                  Overlay Model", RFC 4208, October 2005.

        [RFC2209] Braden, R. and L. Zhang, "Resource ReSerVation
                  Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Message Processing
                  Rules", RFC 2209, September 1997.

        [RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
                  Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.

        [DRAFT-SRLG-RECORDING] F. Zhang, O. Gonzalez de Dios, M.
                  Hartley, Z. Ali, C. Margaria, "RSVP-TE Extensions for
                  Collecting SRLG Information", draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-
                  srlg-collect.txt, work in progress.

     Authors' Addresses
     Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-02.txt    draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-03.txt

        Zafar Ali
        Cisco Systems, Inc.
        Email: zali@cisco.com

        George Swallow
        Cisco Systems, Inc.
        swallow@cisco.com

        Clarence Filsfils
        Cisco Systems, Inc.
        cfilsfil@cisco.com

        Matt Hartley
        Cisco Systems
        Email: mhartley@cisco.com

        Kenji Kumaki
        KDDI Corporation
        Email: ke-kumaki@kddi.com

        Rudiger Kunze
        Deutsche Telekom AG
        Ruediger.Kunze@telekom.de