Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording
draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording
CCAMP Working Group Zafar Ali
Internet Draft George Swallow
Intended status: Standard Track Clarence Filsfils
Expires: February 20, 2015 Matt Hartley
Cisco Systems
Kenji Kumaki
KDDI Corporation
Ruediger Kunze
Deutsche Telekom AG
August 20, 2014
Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
extension for recording TE Metric of a Label Switched Path
draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-04.txt
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 February 20, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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.
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils, et al Expires February 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-04.txt
Abstract
There are many scenarios in which Traffic Engineering (TE) metrics
such as cost, latency and latency variation associated with a
Forwarding Adjacency (FA) or Routing Adjacency (RA) 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) for the support of the discovery of
cost, latency and latency variation of an 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
1. Introduction................................................3
2. RSVP-TE Requirement.........................................4
2.1. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Collection Indication.4
2.2. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Collection............4
2.3. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Update................4
3. RSVP-TE signaling extensions................................5
3.1. Cost, Latency, and Latency Variation Collection Flags.....5
3.4. Cost subobject............................................5
3.5. Latency subobject.........................................6
3.6. Latency Variation subobject...............................7
3.7. Signaling Procedures......................................8
4. Security Considerations....................................12
5. IANA Considerations........................................12
5.1. RSVP Attribute Bit Flags.................................12
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires February 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-04.txt
5.2. New RSVP error sub-code..................................13
6. Acknowledgments............................................14
7. References.................................................14
7.1. Normative References.....................................14
7.2. Informative References...................................14
1. Introduction
In certain networks, such as financial information networks,
network performance information (e.g. latency, latency
variation) is becoming as critical to data path selection as
other metrics [DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC], [DRAFT-ISIS-TE-METRIC]. If
cost, latency or latency 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 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. In such scenarios,
the ingress node cannot determine the cost, latency and latency
variation properties of the LSP's route.
One possible way to address this issue is to configure cost,
latency and latency 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 latency,
latency variation and cost attribute associated with the TE-Link
automatically.
In summary, there is a requirement for the ingress and egress
nodes to learn the cost, latency and latency variation
attributes of an FA or RA LSP. This draft provides extensions to
the Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
for the support of the automatic discovery of these attributes.
1.1. Use Cases
1.1.1. GMPLS
In Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) networks
signaling bidirectional LSPs, the egress node cannot determine
the cost, latency and latency 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.
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires February 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-04.txt
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, latency and latency variation properties of
the LSP path.
2. RSVP-TE Requirements
This section outlines RSVP-TE requirements for the support of
the automatic discovery of cost, latency and latency variation
attributes of an LSP. These requirements are very similar to the
requirement of discovering the Shared Risk Link Groups (SRLGs)
associated with the route taken by an LSP [DRAFT-SRLG-
RECORDING].
2.1. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Collection Indication
The ingress node of the LSP must be capable of indicating
whether the cost, latency and latency variation attributes of
the LSP should be collected during the signaling procedure of
setting up the LSP. No cost, latency or latency variation
information is collected without an explicit request being made
by the ingress node.
2.2. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Collection
If requested, cost, latency and latency variation is
collected during the setup of an LSP. The endpoints of the LSP
may use the collected information for routing, flooding and TE
link configuration and other purposes.
2.3. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Update
When the cost, latency or latency variation property of a TE
link along the route of a LSP for which that property was
collected changes (e.g., if the administrator changes the cost
of a TE link traversed by the LSP), the node where the change
occurred needs to be capable of updating the cost, latency and
latency variation information of the path and signaling this to
the end-points. Similarly, if a path segment of the LSP is
rerouted, the endpoints of the re-routed segment need to be
capable of updating the cost, latency and latency variation
information of the path. Any node which adds cost, latency or
latency variation information to an LSP during initial setup,
needs to signal changes to these values to both endpoints.
2.4. Cost Definition
Although the terms latency and latency variation are well
understood, "cost" may be ambiguous; in particular, in the
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires February 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-04.txt
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, Latency and Latency Variation Collection Flags
In order to indicate nodes that cost, latency and/ or latency
variation collection is desired, the following three Attribute
flags are defined in the Attribute Flags TLV:
- Cost Collection flag (to be assigned by IANA)
- Latency Collection flag (to be assigned by IANA)
- Latency Variation Collection flag (to be assigned by IANA)
These flags are set and carried in either the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Objects in a Path message.
3.2. Cost Subobject
The Cost subobject is a new RRO (ROUTE_RECORD OBJECT) sub-object
used to record the cost information of the LSP. Its format is
similar to the other RRO subobjects defined in [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) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Downstream Cost |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Upstream Cost |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: TBA1 - Cost subobject (to be assigned by IANA).
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires February 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-04.txt
Length: The Length value is set to 8 or 12 depending on the
presence of Upstream Cost information. It MUST NOT be set to
any other value.
Reserved: This field is reserved for future use. It MUST be
set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored when received.
Downstream Cost: Cost of the local link along the route of
the LSP in the direction of the tail-end node, encoded as a
32-bit integer. This approach has been taken to avoid
defining a flag for each cost type in the Attribute-Flags
TLV.
Upstream Cost: Cost of the local link along the route of the
LSP in the direction of the head-end node, encoded as a 32-
bit integer.
3.3. Latency Subobject
The Latency subobject is a new RRO sub-object to record the
latency information of the LSP. Its format is similar the other
RRO subobjects defined in [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 | Downstream Delay |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A| Reserved | Upstream Delay |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: TBA2 - Latency subobject (to be assigned by IANA).
Length: 8 or 12 depending on the presence of Upstream Delay
information.
A-bit: These fields represent the Anomalous (A) bit
associated with the Downstream and Upstream Delay
respectively, as defined in [DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC].
Reserved: These fields are reserved for future use. They MUST
be set to 0 when sent and MUST be ignored when received.
Downstream Delay: Delay of the local link along the route of
the LSP in the direction of the tail-end node, encoded as 24-
bit integer, as defined in [DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC]. When set
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires February 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-04.txt
to the maximum value 16,777,215 (16.777215 sec), the delay is
at least that value and may be larger.
Upstream Delay: Delay of the local link along the route of
the LSP in the direction of the head-end node, encoded as 24-
bit integer, as defined in [DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC]. 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. Latency Variation Subobject
The Latency Variation subobject is a new RRO sub-object to
record the Latency Variation information of the LSP. Its format
is similar to the other RRO subobjects defined in [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 | Downstream Delay Variation |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A| Reserved | Upstream Delay Variation |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: TBA3 - Latency Variation subobject (to be assigned by
IANA).
Length: 8 or 12 depending on the presence of Upstream Latency
Variation information.
A-bit: These fields represent the Anomalous (A) bit
associated with the Downstream and Upstream Delay Variation
respectively, as defined in [DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC].
Reserved: These fields are reserved for future use. It SHOULD
be set to 0 when sent and MUST be ignored when received.
Downstream Delay Variation: Delay Variation of the local link
along the route of the LSP in the direction of the tail-end
node, encoded as 24-bit integer, as defined in [DRAFT-OSPF-
TE-METRIC]. When set to the maximum value 16,777,215
(16.777215 sec), the delay is at least that value and may be
larger.
Upstream Delay Variation: Delay Variation of the local link
along the route of the LSP in the direction of the head-end
node, encoded as 24-bit integer. When set to 0, it has not
been measured. When set to the maximum value 16,777,215
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires February 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-04.txt
(16.777215 sec), the delay is at least that value and may be
larger.
4. Signaling Procedures
The rules for processing the LSP_ATTRIBUTES and
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Objects and RRO defined in [RFC5420] are
not changed.
4.1. Collection request
Typically, the ingress node learns the route of an LSP by adding
a RRO in the Path message. If an ingress node also desires cost,
latency and/or latency variation recording, it MUST set the
appropriate flag(s) in the Attribute Flags TLV of the
LSP_ATTRIBUTES (if recording is desired but not mandatory) or
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES (if recording in mandatory) Object.
None, all or any of the Cost Collection, Latency Collection or
Latency Variation Collection flags MAY be set in the Attribute
Flags TLV of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES
Object. These flags affect both Path and Resv RRO processing, as
described below.
The Cost Collection, Latency Collection or Latency Variation
Collection flags SHOULD NOT be set in an Attribute Flags TLV in
a Resv message. If any of these flags is set in a received
Attribute Flags TLV in a Resv message, it MUST be ignored.
The Cost Collection, Latency Collection or Latency Variation
Collection flags SHOULD NOT be set in an Attribute Flags TLV in
a RRO. If any of these flags is set in a received Attribute
Flags TLV in a RRO, it MUST be ignored.
4.2. Path and Resv message processing
4.2.1. Cost
If a node receives a Path message containing a
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object with the Cost Collection Flag set
in the Attribute Flags TLV:
. If local policy disallows providing the requested
information to the endpoints, the node MUST return a Path
Error message with error code "Policy Control Failure" (2)
and subcode "Cost Recording Rejected" (value to be assigned
by IANA, suggested value 105).
. It SHOULD add a Cost subobject to the Path and Resv RROs
for the LSP. It SHOULD supply only downstream information
for a unidirectional LSP, and SHOULD provide both upstream
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires February 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-04.txt
and downstream information if a bidirectional LSP is being
signaled.
. If Cost information is not known, a Cost subobject SHOULD
NOT be added to either the Path or Resv RRO.
If a node receives a Path message containing a LSP_ATTRIBUTES
Object with the Cost Collection Flag set in the Attribute Flags
TLV:
. If local policy disallows providing the requested
information to the endpoints, the Path message SHOULD NOT
be rejected. A Cost subobject is not added to the Path or
Resv RRO.
. If local policy permits, it SHOULD add a Cost subobject to
the Path and Resv RROs for the LSP. It SHOULD supply only
downstream information for a unidirectional LSP, and SHOULD
provide both upstream and downstream information if a
bidirectional LSP is being signaled.
. If Cost information is not known, a Cost subobject SHOULD
NOT be added to either the Path or Resv RRO.
When adding a Cost subobject to a Path or Resv RRO:
. The Downstream Cost is set to the cost of the local link
used by the LSP in the direction of the egress node. It
SHOULD be set to zero by the egress node.
. The Upstream Cost, if set, is set to the cost of the local
link used by the LSP in the direction of the ingress node.
It SHOULD be set to zero by the ingress node.
. The cost of a local link is the Interior Gateway Protocol
(IGP) metric or TE metric of the link in question,
depending on the policy of the processing node.
4.2.2. Latency
If a node receives a Path message containing a
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object with the Latency Collection Flag
set in the Attribute Flags TLV:
. If local policy disallows providing the requested
information to the endpoints, the node MUST return a Path
Error message with error code "Policy Control Failure" (2)
and subcode "Latency Recording Rejected" (value to be
assigned by IANA, suggested value 106).
. It SHOULD add a Latency subobject to the Path and Resv
RROs for the LSP. It SHOULD supply only downstream
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires February 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-04.txt
information for a unidirectional LSP, and SHOULD provide
both upstream and downstream information if a bidirectional
LSP is being signaled.
. If Latency information is not known, a Latency subobject
SHOULD NOT be added to either the Path or Resv RRO.
If a node receives a Path message containing a LSP_ATTRIBUTES
Object with the Latency Collection Flag set in the Attribute
Flags TLV:
. If local policy disallows providing the requested
information to the endpoints, the Path message SHOULD NOT
be rejected. A Latency subobject is not added to the Path
or Resv RRO.
. If local policy permits, it SHOULD add a Latency subobject
to the Path and Resv RROs for the LSP. It SHOULD supply
only downstream information for a unidirectional LSP, and
SHOULD provide both upstream and downstream information if
a bidirectional LSP is being signaled.
. If Latency information is not known, a Latency subobject
SHOULD NOT be added to either the Path or Resv RRO.
When adding a Latency subobject to a Path or Resv RRO:
. The Downstream Delay is set to the delay of the local link
used by the LSP in the direction of the egress node. It
SHOULD be set to zero by the egress node.
. The Upstream Delay, if set, is set to the delay of the
local link used by the LSP in the direction of the ingress
node. It SHOULD be set to zero by the ingress node.
. The A-bit for the downstream and upstream latency SHOULD
be set as described in [DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC].
4.2.3. Latency Variation
If a node receives a Path message containing a
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object with the Latency Variation
Collection Flag set in the Attribute Flags TLV:
. If local policy disallows providing the requested
information to the endpoints, the node MUST return a Path
Error message with error code "Policy Control Failure" (2)
and subcode "Latency Variation Recording Rejected" (value
to be assigned by IANA, suggested value 107).
. It SHOULD add a Latency Variation subobject to the Path
and Resv RROs for the LSP. It SHOULD supply only downstream
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires February 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-04.txt
information for a unidirectional LSP, and SHOULD provide
both upstream and downstream information if a bidirectional
LSP is being signaled.
. If Latency Variation information is not known, a Latency
subobject SHOULD NOT be added to either the Path or Resv
RRO.
If a node receives a Path message containing a LSP_ATTRIBUTES
Object with the Latency Variation Collection Flag set in the
Attribute Flags TLV:
. If local policy disallows providing the requested
information to the endpoints, the Path message SHOULD NOT
be rejected. A Latency Variation subobject is not added to
the Path or Resv RRO.
. If local policy permits, it SHOULD add a Latency Variation
subobject to the Path and Resv RROs for the LSP. It SHOULD
supply only downstream information for a unidirectional
LSP, and SHOULD provide both upstream and downstream
information if a bidirectional LSP is being signaled.
. If Latency Variation information is not known, a Latency
subobject SHOULD NOT be added to either the Path or Resv
RRO.
When adding a Latency Variation subobject to a Path or Resv RRO:
. The Downstream Latency Variation is set to the latency of
the local link used by the LSP in the direction of the
egress node. It SHOULD be set to zero by the egress node.
. The Upstream Latency Variation, if set, is set to the
latency of the local link used by the LSP in the direction
of the ingress node. It SHOULD be set to zero by the egress
node.
. The A-bit for the downstream and upstream latency SHOULD
be set as described in [DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC].
4.3. Metric Update
When the cost, latency and/or latency variation information of a
link is changed, the corresponding metric values for the LSPs
using that link should also be updated. If node has added Cost,
Latency and/or Latency Variation subobjects to the Path or Resv
RRO, the procedures defined in Section 4.4.3 of RFC 3209
[RFC3209] MUST be used to communicate any changes to relevant
information to the other nodes on the LSP's path. The node need
not send an update for changes to information which has not been
added to the RRO.
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires February 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-04.txt
5. Endpoint processing
The ingress and egress nodes of a LSP may calculate the end-to-
end cost, latency and/or latency variation properties of the LSP
from the supplied values in the Resv or Path RRO respectively.
Typically, cost and latency are additive metrics, but latency
variation is not an additive metric. The means by which the
ingress and egress nodes compute the end-to-end cost, latency
and latency 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, latency and/or latency
variation properties of the FA or RA LSP in TE link
advertisement to the routing instance based on the procedure
described in [DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC], [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, latency and latency variation data and SHOULD follow
procedure defined in [DRAFT-RRO-EDIT]. How a node that performs
the RRO edit operation calculates the cost, latency o and/or
latency variation metric is beyond the scope of this document.
6. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any additional security issues
above those identified in [RFC5920], [RFC5420], [RFC2205],
[RFC3209], and [RFC3473].
7. IANA Considerations
7.1. RSVP Attribute Bit Flags
The IANA has created a registry and manages the space of
attributes bit flags of Attribute Flags TLV as described in
section 11.3 of [RFC5420]. It is requested that the IANA makes
assignments from the Attribute Bit Flags defined in this
document.
This document introduces the following three new Attribute
Bit Flag:
- Bit number: TBD (recommended bit position 11)
- Defining RFC: this I-D
- Name of bit: Cost Collection Flag
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires February 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-04.txt
- Bit number: TBD (recommended bit position 12)
- Defining RFC: this I-D
- Name of bit: Latency Collection Flag
- Bit number: TBD (recommended bit position 13)
- Defining RFC: this I-D
- Name of bit: Latency Variation Flag
5.2. ROUTE_RECORD subobject
This document introduces the following three new RRO
subobject:
Type Name Reference
--------- ---------------------- ---------
TBD (35) Cost subobject This I-D
TBD (36) Latency subobject This I-D
TBD (37) Latency Variation subobject This I-D
7.2. New RSVP error sub-code
For Error Code = 2 "Policy Control Failure" (see [RFC2205]) the
following sub-code is defined.
Sub-code Value
-------- -----
Cost Recoding Rejected To be assigned by IANA.
Suggested Value: 105.
Latency Recoding Rejected To be assigned by IANA.
Suggested Value: 106.
Latency Variation Recoding Rejected To be assigned by IANA.
Suggested Value: 107.
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires February 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-04.txt
8. Acknowledgments
Authors would like to thank Ori Gerstel, Gabriele Maria
Galimberti, Luyuan Fang and Walid Wakim for their review
comments.
9. References
9.1. 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.
[DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC] S. Giacalone, D. Ward, J. Drake, A.
Atlas, S. Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE)
Metric Extensions", draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-
extensions, work in progress.
[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.
9.2. 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.
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires February 2015 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-04.txt
[DRAFT-SRLG-RECORDING] F. Zhang, D. Li, O. Gonzalez de Dios, C.
Margaria,, "RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG
Information", draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-
collect.txt, work in progress.
Authors' Addresses
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
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires February 2015 [Page 15]
