Performance-based Path Selection for Explicitly Routed LSPs using TE Metric Extensions
draft-ietf-teas-te-express-path-01

• Status
• IESG evaluation record
• IESG writeups
• Email expansions
• History

• Versions
• 00
• 01
• 02
• 03
• 04
• 05

TEAS Working Group                                              A. Atlas
Internet-Draft                                                  J. Drake
Intended status: Informational                          Juniper Networks
Expires: September 27, 2015                                 S. Giacalone
                                                         Thomson Reuters
                                                                 D. Ward
                                                              S. Previdi
                                                             C. Filsfils
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                          March 26, 2015

  Performance-based Path Selection for Explicitly Routed LSPs using TE
                           Metric Extensions
                   draft-ietf-teas-te-express-path-01

Abstract

   In certain networks, it is critical to consider network performance
   criteria when selecting the path for an explicitly routed RSVP-TE
   LSP.  Such performance criteria can include latency, jitter, and loss
   or other indications such as the conformance to link performance
   objectives and non-RSVP TE traffic load.  This specification uses
   network performance data, such as is advertised via the OSPF and ISIS
   TE metric extensions (defined outside the scope of this document) to
   perform such path selections.

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 27, 2015.

Atlas, et al.          Expires September 27, 2015               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft  Path Selection with TE Metric Extensions      March 2015

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Basic Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.2.  Oscillation and Stability Considerations  . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Using Performance Data Constraints  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.1.  End-to-End Constraints  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.2.  Link Constraints  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.3.  Links out of compliance with Link Performance Objectives    6
       2.3.1.  Use of Anomalous Links for New Paths  . . . . . . . .   7
       2.3.2.  Links entering the Anomalous State  . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.3.3.  Links leaving the Anomalous State . . . . . . . . . .   8
   3.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   In certain networks, such as financial information networks, network
   performance information is becoming as critical to data path
   selection as other existing metrics.  Network performance information
   can be obtained via either the TE Metric Extensions in OSPF [RFC7471]
   or ISIS [I-D.ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions] or via a management
   system.  As with other TE information flooded via OSPF or ISIS, the
   TE metric extensions have a flooding scope limited to the local area
   or level.  This document describes how a path computation function,
   whether in an ingress LSR or a PCE[RFC4655] , can use that
   information for path selection for explicitly routed LSPs.  The
   selected path may be signaled via RSVP-TE [RFC3209] or simply used by