Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension
draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension
Network Working Group B. Cheng
Internet-Draft MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Intended status: Standards Track L. Berger, Ed.
Expires: May 23, 2020 LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
November 20, 2019
Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Latency Range Extension
draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension-05
Abstract
This document defines an extension to the Dynamic Link Exchange
Protocol (DLEP) to provide the range of latency that can be
experienced on a link.
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 https://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 May 23, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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
(https://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.
Cheng & Berger Expires May 23, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DLEP Latency Range Extension November 2019
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Extension Usage and Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Latency Range Data Item . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.1. Extension Type Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.2. Data Item Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction
The Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) is defined in [RFC8175].
It provides the exchange of link related control information between
DLEP peers. DLEP peers are comprised of a modem and a router. DLEP
defines a base set of mechanisms as well as support for possible
extensions. This document defines one such extension.
The base DLEP specification includes the Latency metric which
provides a single latency value on a link, which is implementation
dependent. This document adds the ability to relay the minimum and
maximum latency range seen on a link. The extension defined in this
document is referred to as "Latency Range".
This document defines a new DLEP Extension Type Value in Section 2
which is used to indicate the use of the extension, and one new DLEP
Data Item in Section 3.
1.1. Key Words
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Extension Usage and Identification
The use of the Latency Range Extension SHOULD be configurable. To
indicate that the Latency Range Extension is to be used, an
implementation MUST include the Latency Range Extension Type Value in
the Extensions Supported Data Item. The Extensions Supported Data
Item is sent and processed according to [RFC8175].
Cheng & Berger Expires May 23, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DLEP Latency Range Extension November 2019
Note: the usage of the extension defined in this document does not
impact processing associated with the Latency Data Item defined in
[RFC8175].
The Latency Range Extension Type Value is TBA1, see Section 5.
3. Latency Range Data Item
The Latency Range Data Item serves much the same purpose as the
Latency Data Item defined in [RFC8175] with the addition of being
able to communicate the latency range that can be experienced by
traffic on a link. The Latency Range Data Item MUST be included in
the Session Initialization Response Message, with default values to
be used on a session-wide basis. The Latency Range Data Item also
MAY be carried in any message where the Latency Data Item [RFC8175]
is allowed and is carried as an additional data item. When present,
the Latency Range Data Item MUST be processed according to the same
rules as the Latency Data Item defined in [RFC8175].
The format of the Latency Range Data Item is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data Item Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Maximum Latency :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: Maximum Latency |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Minimum Latency :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: Minimum Latency |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Data Item Type: TBA2
Length: 16
Maximum Latency:
A 64-bit unsigned integer, representing the longest transmission
delay, in microseconds, that a packet encounters as it is
transmitted over the link.
Minimum Latency:
Cheng & Berger Expires May 23, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DLEP Latency Range Extension November 2019
A 64-bit unsigned integer, representing the shortest transmission
delay, in microseconds, that a packet can encounter as it is
transmitted over the link.
4. Security Considerations
The extension introduces a new Data Item for DLEP. The extension
does not inherently introduce any additional vulnerabilities above
those documented in [RFC8175]. The approach taken to Security in
that document applies equally when running the extension defined in
this document.
5. IANA Considerations
This document requests the assignment of two values by IANA. All
assignments are to registries defined by [RFC8175].
5.1. Extension Type Value
This document requests one new assignment to the DLEP Extensions
Registry named "Extension Type Values" in the range with the
"Specification Required" policy. The requested value is as follows:
+------+---------------+
| Code | Description |
+------+---------------+
| TBA1 | Latency Range |
+------+---------------+
Table 1: Requested Extension Type Value
5.2. Data Item Value
This document requests one new assignment to the DLEP Data Item
Registry named "Data Item Type Values" in the range with the
"Specification Required" policy. The requested values are as
follows:
+-----------+---------------+
| Type Code | Description |
+-----------+---------------+
| TBA2 | Latency Range |
+-----------+---------------+
Table 2: Requested Data Item Values
Cheng & Berger Expires May 23, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DLEP Latency Range Extension November 2019
6. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8175] Ratliff, S., Jury, S., Satterwhite, D., Taylor, R., and B.
Berry, "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)", RFC 8175,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8175, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8175>.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments
Helpful comments were received from members of the MANET working
grouping, including Ronald in 't Velt, Henning Rogge, and Victoria
Pritchard.
Authors' Addresses
Bow-Nan Cheng
MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
244 Wood Street
Lexington, MA 02421-6426
Email: bcheng@ll.mit.edu
Lou Berger (editor)
LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Email: lberger@labn.net
Cheng & Berger Expires May 23, 2020 [Page 5]
