CCAMP Working Group Zafar Ali
Internet Draft George Swallow
Intended status: Standard Track Clarence Filsfils
Expires: August 11, 2013 Matt Hartley
Cisco Systems
Kenji Kumaki
KDDI Corporation
Ruediger Kunze
Deutsche Telekom AG
February 12, 2013
Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
extension for recording TE Metric of a Label Switched Path
draft-ietf-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 August 11, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils, et al Expires April 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-00.txt
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, 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
Copyright Notice...............................................1
1. Introduction................................................3
2. RSVP-TE Requirement.........................................3
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................................4
3.1. Cost Collection Flag.........................................4
3.2. Latency Collection Flag......................................5
3.3. Latency Variation Collection Flag............................5
3.4. Cost subobject...............................................5
3.5. Latency subobject............................................6
3.6. Latency Variation subobject..................................7
3.7. Signaling Procedures.........................................7
4. Security Considerations.....................................9
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires August 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-00.txt
5. IANA Considerations.........................................9
5.1. RSVP Attribute Bit Flags.....................................9
5.2. New RSVP error sub-code.....................................10
6. Acknowledgments............................................10
7. References.................................................11
7.1. Normative References........................................11
7.2. Informative References......................................11
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 determine the cost, latency and latency variation
properties of the LSP's route. Similarly, in Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) networks signaling
bidirectional LSP, the egress node cannot determine 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)
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires August 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-00.txt
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
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 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 route of a LSP for which that property was
collected changes, e.g., if the administrator changes cost of a
TE link, 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 must signal changes to these values to both
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_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Objects is required:
Cost Collection flag (to be assigned by IANA, recommended bit
position 11)
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 in the Path Record Route Object
(RRO) and the Resv RRO.
The procedure for processing the Attribute Flags TLV follows
[RFC5420].
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires August 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-00.txt
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_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object is required:
Latency Collection flag (to be assigned by IANA, recommended bit
position 12)
The Latency Collection flag is meaningful on a Path message.
If the Latency Collection flag is set to 1, the transit nodes
SHOULD report the latency information in the Path RRO and the
Resv RRO.
The procedure for the processing 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_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object
is required:
Latency Variation Collection flag (to be assigned by IANA,
recommended bit position 13)
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 in the Path RRO and the Resv RRO.
The procedure for the processing 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).
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires August 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-00.txt
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
to avoid defining a flag for each cost type in the Attribute-
Flags TLV. 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 for processing the LSP_ATTRIBUTES and
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Objects 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.
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires August 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-00.txt
The rules for processing the LSP_ATTRIBUTES and
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Objects and RRO are not changed.
3.6. Latency Variation subobject
A new Latency Variation subobject is defined for RRO to
record the Latency Variation 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) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|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 for processing the LSP_ATTRIBUTES and
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Objects 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 and/or latency variation recording, it
sets the appropriate flag(s) in the Attribute Flags TLV of the
LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES 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.
When a node receives a Path message which carries an
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object and the Cost, Latency and/or
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires August 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-00.txt
Latency Variation Collection Flag(s) is (are) set, 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 one of the following error
subcodes:
. "Cost Recoding Rejected" (value to be assigned by IANA,
suggest value 105) if Cost Collection Flag is set.
. "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_ATTRIBUTES Object and the Cost, Latency and/or Latency
Variation Collection Flag(s) is (are) set, if local policy
disallows providing the requested information to the endpoints,
the node MAY return a Path Error as described for the
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object.
If local policy permits the provision of the requested
information, the processing node SHOULD 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.
It then 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 the end-to-end
cost, latency and/or latency variation properties of the LSP.
Before the Resv message is sent to the upstream node, the
egress node adds the requested subobject(s) with the cost,
latency or/ and latency variation metric value(s) associated
with the local hop to the Resv RRO in a similar manner to that
specified above for the addition of Path RRO sub-objects by
midpoint nodes.
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,
it can calculate the end-to-end 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. The means by which the
ingress and egress nodes compute the end-to-end cost, latency
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires August 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-00.txt
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 calculated end-to-end cost, latency and/or 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 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 removed as a single
value for each for the loose hop that is summarized by the
transit 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.
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 11)
- Defining RFC: this I-D
- Name of bit: Cost Collection Flag
- Bit number: TBD (recommended bit position 12)
- Defining RFC: this I-D
- Name of bit: Latency Collection Flag
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires August 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-00.txt
- 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
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 thank Ori Gerstel, Gabriele Maria
Galimberti, Luyuan Fang and Walid Wakim for their review
comments.
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires August 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-00.txt
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.
[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,, "RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG
Information", draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-
collect, 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
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires August 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-00.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 August 2013 [Page 12]
