|RFC 8757||DLEP Latency Range Extension||March 2020|
|Cheng & Berger||Standards Track||[Page]|
- Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
- Standards Track
Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Latency Range Extension
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.¶
This is an Internet Standards Track document.¶
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.¶
Copyright (c) 2020 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.¶
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 Data Item, which provides a single, implementation-dependent latency value on a link. 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".¶
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.¶
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].¶
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:
- 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:
- A 64-bit unsigned integer, representing the shortest transmission delay, in microseconds, that a packet can encounter as it is transmitted over the link.¶
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.¶
IANA has assigned the following value in the "Extension Type Values" registry within the "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Parameters" registry. The new value is in the range with the "Specification Required" [RFC8126] policy:¶
IANA has assigned the following value in the "Data Item Type Values" registry within the "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Parameters" registry. The new value is in the range with the "Specification Required" [RFC8126] policy:¶
- Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
- Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
- Ratliff, S., Jury, S., Satterwhite, D., Taylor, R., and B. Berry, "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)", RFC 8175, DOI 10.17487/RFC8175, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8175>.
- Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
Helpful comments were received from members of the MANET working group, including Ronald in 't Velt, Henning Rogge, and Victoria Pritchard.¶