Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) extension for recording TE Metric of a Label Switched Path
draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-03
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Zafar Ali , George Swallow , Clarence Filsfils , Matt Hartley , Kenji Kumaki , Ruediger Kunze | ||
| Last updated | 2016-02-08 | ||
| Replaces | draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | Vishnu Pavan Beeram | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-03
TEAS Working Group Zafar Ali
Internet Draft George Swallow
Intended status: Standard Track Clarence Filsfils
Expires: August 7, 2016 Matt Hartley
Cisco Systems
Kenji Kumaki
KDDI Corporation
Ruediger Kunze
Deutsche Telekom AG
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-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 August 7, 2016.
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils, et al Expires August 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording-03.txt
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 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
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires January 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft 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
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires January 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft 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.
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires January 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft 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
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires January 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires January 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft 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
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires January 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft 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
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires January 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft 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
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires January 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft 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.
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires January 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft 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:
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires January 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft 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
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires January 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft 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.
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires January 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft 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
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires January 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft 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
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires January 2016 [Page 15]