draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-05.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-06.txt 
MPLS Working Group G. Mirsky MPLS Working Group G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft S. Ruffini Internet-Draft S. Ruffini
Intended status: Standards Track E. Gray Intended status: Standards Track E. Gray
Expires: September 16, 2016 Ericsson Expires: September 19, 2016 Ericsson
J. Drake J. Drake
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
S. Bryant S. Bryant
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
A. Vainshtein A. Vainshtein
ECI Telecom ECI Telecom
March 15, 2016 March 18, 2016
Residence Time Measurement in MPLS network Residence Time Measurement in MPLS network
draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-05 draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-06
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies G-ACh based Residence Time Measurement and This document specifies G-ACh based Residence Time Measurement and
how it can be used by time synchronization protocols being how it can be used by time synchronization protocols being
transported over MPLS domain. transported over MPLS domain.
Residence time is the variable part of propagation delay of timing Residence time is the variable part of propagation delay of timing
and synchronization messages and knowing what this delay is for each and synchronization messages and knowing what this delay is for each
message allows for a more accurate determination of the delay to be message allows for a more accurate determination of the delay to be
skipping to change at page 1, line 45 skipping to change at page 1, line 45
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 16, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 19, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 12, line 34 skipping to change at page 12, line 34
The content of an RTM_SET TLV is a series of variable-length sub- The content of an RTM_SET TLV is a series of variable-length sub-
TLVs. Only a single RTM_SET can be present in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES TLVs. Only a single RTM_SET can be present in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES
object. The sub-TLVs are defined in Section 4.7.1 below. object. The sub-TLVs are defined in Section 4.7.1 below.
The following processing procedures apply to every RTM capable node The following processing procedures apply to every RTM capable node
along the LSP that in this paragraph is referred as node for sake of along the LSP that in this paragraph is referred as node for sake of
brevity. Each node MUST examine Resv message whether RTM_SET brevity. Each node MUST examine Resv message whether RTM_SET
Attribute Flag in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object is set. If the RTM_SET Attribute Flag in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object is set. If the RTM_SET
flag set, the node MUST inspect the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object for flag set, the node MUST inspect the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object for
presence of RTM_SET TLV. If more than one found, then the LSP setup presence of RTM_SET TLV. If more than one found, then the LSP setup
MUST fail with generation of the PathErr message with Error Code MUST fail with generation of the ResvErr message with Error Code
Duplicate TLV Section 8.9 and Error Value that contains Type value in Duplicate TLV Section 8.9 and Error Value that contains Type value in
its 8 least significant bits. If none RTM_SET TLV is found, then the its 8 least significant bits. If no RTM_SET TLV has been found, then
LSP setup MUST fail with generation of the PathErr message with Error the LSP setup MUST fail with generation of the ResvErr message with
Code RTM_SET TLV Absent Section 8.9. If one is found the node will Error Code RTM_SET TLV Absent Section 8.9. If one RTM_SET TLV has
use the ID of the first node in the RTM_SET in conjunction with the been found the node will use the ID of the first node in the RTM_SET
RRO to compute the hop count to its downstream node with reachable in conjunction with the RRO to compute the hop count to its
RTM capable interface. If the node cannot find matching ID in RRO, downstream node with reachable RTM capable interface. If the node
then it MUST try to use ID of the next node in the RTM_SET until it cannot find matching ID in RRO, then it MUST try to use ID of the
finds the match or reaches the end of RTM_SET TLV. If match have next node in the RTM_SET until it finds the match or reaches the end
been found, then the calculated value is used by the node as TTL of RTM_SET TLV. If match have been found, then the calculated value
value in outgoing label to reach the next RTM capable node on the is used by the node as TTL value in outgoing label to reach the next
LSP. Otherwise, the TTL value MUST be set to 255. The node MUST add RTM capable node on the LSP. Otherwise, the TTL value MUST be set to
RTM_SET sub-TLV with the same address it used in RRO sub-object at 255. The node MUST add RTM_SET sub-TLV with the same address it used
the beginning of the RTM_SET TLV in associated outgoing Resv message in RRO sub-object at the beginning of the RTM_SET TLV in associated
before forwarding it upstream. outgoing Resv message before forwarding it upstream.
There are scenarios when some information is removed from an RRO due
to policy processing (e.g., as may happen between providers) or RRO
is limited due to size constraints . Such changes affect the core
assumption of the method to control processing of RTM packets. RTM
SHOULD NOT be used if it is not guaranteed that RRO contains complete
information.
4.7.1. RTM_SET Sub-TLVs 4.7.1. RTM_SET Sub-TLVs
The RTM Set sub-object contains an ordered list, from egress node to The RTM Set sub-object contains an ordered list, from egress node to
ingress node, of the RTM capable nodes along the LSP's path. ingress node, of the RTM capable nodes along the LSP's path.
The contents of a RTM_SET sub-object are a series of variable-length The contents of a RTM_SET sub-object are a series of variable-length
sub-TLVs. Each sub-TLV has its own Length field. The Length sub-TLVs. Each sub-TLV has its own Length field. The Length
contains the total length of the sub-TLV in bytes, including the Type contains the total length of the sub-TLV in bytes, including the Type
and Length fields. The Length MUST always be a multiple of 4, and at and Length fields. The Length MUST always be a multiple of 4, and at
least 8 (smallest IPv4 sub-object). least 8 (smallest IPv4 sub-object).
Sub-TLVs are organized as a last-in-first-out stack. The first -out Sub-TLVs are organized as a last-in-first-out stack. The first -out
sub-TLV relative to the beginning of RTM_SET TLV is considered the sub-TLV relative to the beginning of RTM_SET TLV is considered the
top. The last-out sub-TLV is considered the bottom. When a new sub- top. The last-out sub-TLV is considered the bottom. When a new sub-
TLV is added, it is always added to the top. Only a single RTM_SET TLV is added, it is always added to the top. Only a single RTM_SET
sub-TLV with the given Value field MUST be present in the RTM_SET sub-TLV with the given Value field MUST be present in the RTM_SET
TLV. If more than one sub-TLV is found the LSP setup MUST fail with TLV. If more than one sub-TLV is found the LSP setup MUST fail with
the generation of a PathErr message with the Error Code "Duplicate the generation of a ResvErr message with the Error Code "Duplicate
sub-TLV" Section 8.9 and Error Value contains 16-bit value composed sub-TLV" Section 8.9 and Error Value contains 16-bit value composed
of (Type of TLV, Type of sub-TLV). of (Type of TLV, Type of sub-TLV).
Three kinds of sub-TLVs for RTM_SET are currently defined. Three kinds of sub-TLVs for RTM_SET are currently defined.
4.7.1.1. IPv4 Sub-TLV 4.7.1.1. IPv4 Sub-TLV
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 25, line 16 skipping to change at page 25, line 16
Davari, S., Oren, A., Bhatia, M., Roberts, P., and L. Davari, S., Oren, A., Bhatia, M., Roberts, P., and L.
Montini, "Transporting Timing messages over MPLS Montini, "Transporting Timing messages over MPLS
Networks", draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-07 (work in Networks", draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-07 (work in
progress), October 2015. progress), October 2015.
[RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing Extensions [RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing Extensions
in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4202, DOI 10.17487/RFC4202, October 2005, (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, DOI 10.17487/RFC4202, October 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4202>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4202>.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay [RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374, Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6374, September 2011, DOI 10.17487/RFC6374, September 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6374>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6374>.
 End of changes. 8 change blocks. 
25 lines changed or deleted 27 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.44. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/