[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits] [IPR]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording

     CCAMP Working Group                                       Zafar Ali
     Internet Draft                                       George Swallow
     Intended status: Standard Track                   Clarence Filsfils
     Expires: September 04, 2012                           Cisco Systems
                                                         March 05, 2012
     
     
          Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
           extension for recording TE Metric of a Label Switched Path
                   draft-ali-ccamp-te-metric-recording-00.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 September 04, 2012.
     
     Copyright Notice
     
     
     Copyright (c) 2012 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
     
     
     
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires September 2012
     [Page 1]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ali-ccamp-te-metric-recording-00.txt
     
     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, 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 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
     
     
     Copyright Notice..................................................1
     1. Introduction...................................................3
     2. RSVP-TE Requirement............................................3
     2.1. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Collection Indication....3
     2.2. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Collection...............4
     2.3. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Update...................4
     3. RSVP-TE signaling extensions...................................4
     3.1. Cost Collection Flag.........................................4
     3.2. Latency Collection Flag......................................4
     3.3. Latency Variation Collection Flag............................5
     3.4. Cost subobject...............................................5
     3.5. Latency subobject............................................6
     3.6. Latency Variation subobject..................................6
     3.7. Signaling Procedures.........................................7
     4. Security Considerations........................................9
     5. IANA Considerations............................................9
     5.1. RSVP Attribute Bit Flags.....................................9
     5.2. New RSVP error sub-code.....................................10
     6. Acknowledgments...............................................10
     7. References....................................................10
     7.1. Normative References........................................10
     7.2. Informative References......................................11
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires September 2012     [Page 2]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ali-ccamp-te-metric-recording-00.txt
     
     
     1. Introduction
     
        There are many 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 get the cost, latency and latency variation properties of
        the LSP's route. Similarly, in Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
        Switching (GMPLS) networks signaling bidirectional Label
        Switched Path (LSP), the egress node cannot get the cost,
        latency and latency variation properties of the LSP route.  A
        multi-domain or multi-layer network is an example of such
        networks. Similarly, a GMPLS User-Network Interface (UNI)
        [RFC4208] is also an example of such networks.
     
        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 an FA or an
        RA LSP is not available to the ingress or egress node, it cannot
        be advertised as an attribute of the FA or RA. 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 case 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.
     
     2. RSVP-TE Requirement
     
        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 and egress nodes of the LSP must be capable of
        indicating whether the cost, latency and latency variation
     
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires September 2012     [Page 3]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ali-ccamp-te-metric-recording-00.txt
     
        attributes of the LSP should be collected during the signaling
        procedure of setting up the LSP.
     
     2.2. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Collection
     
           The endpoints of the LSP may collect the cost, latency and
        latency variation information and use it for routing, flooding,
        and TE link configuration purposes.
     
     2.3. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Update
     
           When the cost, latency and latency variation property of a TE
        link along the LSP route changes, e.g., if the administrator
        changes cost of a TE link, the endpoints of the LSP need to be
        capable of updating the cost, latency and latency variation
        information of the path. Similarly, if a path segment of the LSP
        is rerouted, the endpoints of the LSP need to be capable of
        updating the cost, latency and latency variation information of
        the path. In summary, the signaling should be capable of
        updating the new cost, latency and latency variation information
        to the endpoints.
     
     3. RSVP-TE signaling extensions
     
     3.1. Cost Collection Flag
     
           In order to indicate that cost collection is desired, a new
        flag in the Attribute Flags TLV which can be carried in an
        LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object is required:
     
        Cost Collection flag (to be assigned by IANA, recommended bit
        position 9)
     
           The Cost Collection flag is meaningful in a Path message. If
        the Cost Collection flag is set to 1, the transit nodes SHOULD
        report the cost information to the ingress and egress nodes in
        the Path Record Route Object (RRO) and the Resv RRO.
     
        The rules of the processing of the Attribute Flags TLV follows
        [RFC5420].
     
     3.2. Latency Collection Flag
     
           In order to indicate that latency collection is desired, a
        new flag in the Attribute Flags TLV which can be carried in an
        LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object is required:
     
        Latency Collection flag (to be assigned by IANA, recommended bit
        position 10)
     
           The Latency Collection flag is meaningful on a Path message.
        If the Latency Collection flag is set to 1, the transit nodes
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires September 2012     [Page 4]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ali-ccamp-te-metric-recording-00.txt
     
        SHOULD report the latency information to the ingress and egress
        nodes in the Path RRO and the Resv RRO.
     
        The rules of the processing of the Attribute Flags TLV follows
        [RFC5420].
     
     3.3. Latency Variation Collection Flag
     
           In order to indicate that latency variation collection is
        desired, a new flag in the Attribute Flags TLV which can be
        carried in an LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object is required:
     
        Latency Variation Collection flag (to be assigned by IANA,
        recommended bit position 11)
     
           The Latency Variation Collection flag is meaningful on a Path
        message. If the Latency Variation Collection flag is set to 1,
        the transit nodes SHOULD report the latency variation
        information to the ingress and egress nodes in the Path RRO and
        the Resv RRO.
     
        The rules of the processing of the Attribute Flags TLV follows
        [RFC5420].
     
     3.4. Cost subobject
     
           A new cost subobject is defined for the RRO to record the
        cost information of the LSP. Its format is similar to the 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)    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                         COST Value                            |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     
           Type: The type of the subobject, to be assigned by IANA
           (recommended value 35).
     
           Length: The Length value is set to 8.
     
           Reserved: This field is reserved for future use. It MUST be
           set to 0 when sent and MUST be ignored when received.
     
           Cost Value: Cost of the link along the route of the LSP.
           Based on the policy at the recording node, the cost value can
           be set to the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) metric or TE
           metric of the link in question. This approach has been taken
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires September 2012     [Page 5]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ali-ccamp-te-metric-recording-00.txt
     
           to avoid defining a flag for each cost type in
           LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES subobject. It is assumed that, based
           on policy, all nodes reports the same cost-type and that the
           ingress and egress nodes know the cost type reported in the
           RRO.
     
           The rules of the processing of the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES
           Object and RRO are not changed.
     
     3.5. Latency subobject
     
        A new Latency subobject is defined for RRO to record the latency
        information of the LSP. Its format is similar the 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   |                      Delay                    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     
     
           Type: The type of the subobject, to be assigned by IANA
           (recommended value 36).
     
           Length: The Length value is set to 8.
     
           A-bit: This field represents the Anomalous (A) bit, 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.
     
           Delay Value: This 24-bit field carries the average link delay
           over a configurable interval in micro-seconds, encoded as an
           integer value. When set to 0, it has not been measured. When
           set to the maximum value 16,777,215 (16.777215 sec), then the
           delay is at least that value and may be larger.
     
           The rules of the processing of the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES
           Object and RRO are not changed.
     
     3.6. Latency Variation subobject
     
           A new Latency Variation subobject is defined for RRO to
        record the Latency information of the LSP. Its format is similar
        to the RRO subobjects defined in [RFC3209].
     
        0                   1                   2                   3
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires September 2012     [Page 6]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ali-ccamp-te-metric-recording-00.txt
     
        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 subobject, to be assigned by IANA
           (recommended value 37).
     
           Length: The Length value is set to 8.
     
           A-bit: This field represents the Anomalous (A) bit, as
           defined in [DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC].
     
           Reserved: These fields are reserved for future use. It MUST
           be set to 0 when sent and MUST be ignored when received.
     
           Delay Variation Value: This 24-bit field carries the average
           link delay variation over a configurable interval in micro-
           seconds, encoded as an integer value. When set to 0, it has
           not been measured. When set to the maximum value 16,777,215
           (16.777215 sec), then the delay is at least that value and
           may be larger.
     
           The rules of the processing of the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES
           Object and RRO are not changed.
     
     3.7. Signaling Procedures
     
           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 or latency variation recording, it sets
        the Cost Collection flag, Latency Collection flag or Latency
        Variation Collection flag in the Attribute Flags TLV of
        LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object, respectively. None, all or any
        of the Cost Collection, Latency Collection or Latency Variation
        Collection flags may be set in the Attribute Flags TLV of
        LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object.
     
           When a node receives a Path message which carries an
        LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object and the Cost, Latency or/ and
        Latency Variation Collection Flag(s) is (are) set, if local
        policy disallows providing the requested information to the
        endpoints, the node SHOULD return a Path Error message with
        error code "Policy Control Failure (2)" and one of the following
        error subcodes:
     
        .  "Cost Recoding Rejected" (value to be assigned by IANA,
          suggest value 105) if Cost Collection Flag is set.
     
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires September 2012     [Page 7]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ali-ccamp-te-metric-recording-00.txt
     
        .  "Latency Recording Rejected" (value to be assigned by IANA,
          suggest value 106) if Latency Collection Flag is set.
     
        .  "Latency Variation Recording Rejected" (value to be assigned
          by IANA, suggest value 107) if Latency Variation Collection
          Flag is set.
     
        When a node receives a Path message which carries an
        LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object and the Cost, Latency or/ and
        Latency Variation Collection Flag(s) is (are) set, if local
        policy allows providing the requested information to the
        endpoints, the node MUST add the requested subobject(s) with the
        cost, latency or/ and latency variation metric value(s)
        associated with the local hop to the Path RRO. Then it forwards
        the Path message to the next node in the downstream direction.
     
           Following the steps described above, the intermediate nodes
        of the LSP provide the requested metric value(s) associated with
        the local hop in the Path RRO. When the Path message is received
        by the egress node, the egress node can calculate end-to-end the
        cost, latency or/ and latency variation properties of the LSP.
     
           Before the Resv message is sent to the upstream node, the
        egress node MUST add the requested subobject(s) with the cost,
        latency or/ and latency variation metric value(s) associated
        with the local hop to the Resv RRO. Similarly, the intermediate
        nodes of the LSP provide the requested metric value(s)
        associated with the local hop in the Resv RRO. When the Resv
        message is received by the Ingress node, the Ingress node can
        calculate end-to-end the cost, latency or/ and latency variation
        properties of the LSP.
     
        Typically, cost and latency are additive metrics, but latency
        variation is not an additive metric. How the ingress and egress
        nodes computes the end-to-end cost, latency or/ and latency
        variation metric from information recorded in the RRO is beyond
        the scope of this document.
     
        Based on the local policy, the ingress and egress nodes can
        advertise the end-to-end the cost, latency or/ and latency
        variation properties of the FA/ 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 the RRO to remove the route information (e.g.
        node, interface identifier information) before forwarding it and
        can summarize the cost, latency or/ and latency variation as a
        single number for the loose hop that is summarized by the edge
        node. How a transit node calculates the cost, latency or/ and
        latency variation metric for the segment summarized by the
        transit node is beyond the scope of this document.
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires September 2012     [Page 8]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ali-ccamp-te-metric-recording-00.txt
     
     4. Security Considerations
     
        This document does not introduce any additional security issues
        above those identified in [RFC5920], [RFC5420], [RFC2205],
        [RFC3209], and [RFC3473].
     
     5. IANA Considerations
     
     5.1. 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 9)
     
              - Defining RFC: this I-D
     
              - Name of bit: Cost Collection Flag
     
     
     
              - Bit number: TBD (recommended bit position 9)
     
              - Defining RFC: this I-D
     
              - Name of bit: Latency Collection Flag
     
     
     
              - Bit number: TBD (recommended bit position 9)
     
              - 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
     
                     ---------  ----------------------      ---------
     
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires September 2012     [Page 9]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ali-ccamp-te-metric-recording-00.txt
     
                     TBD (35)   Cost subobject              This I-D
     
                     TBD (36)   Latency subobject           This I-D
     
                     TBD (37)   Latency Variation subobject This I-D
     
     5.2. 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.
     
     6. Acknowledgments
     
        Authors would like to thanks Matt Hartley, Ori Gerstel, Gabriele
        Maria Galimberti, Luyuan Fang and Walid Wakim for their review
        comments.
     
     7. References
     
     7.1. 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.
     
     
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires September 2012     [Page 10]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ali-ccamp-te-metric-recording-00.txt
     
        [DRAFT-ISIS-TE-METRIC] S. Previdi, S. Giacalone, D. Ward, J.
                  Drake, A. Atlas, C. Filsfils, "IS-IS Traffic
                  Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions", draft-previdi-
                  isis-te-metric-extensions, work in progress.
     
        [DRAFT-SRLG-RECORDING] F. Zhang, D. Li, O. Gonzalez de Dios, C.
                  Margaria. C, "RSVP-TE Extensions for Configuration
                  SRLG of an FA", draft-zhang-ccamp-srlg-fa-
                  configuration.txt, work in progress.
     
     7.2. 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.
     
     
     
     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
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires September 2012     [Page 11]
     

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.123, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/