< draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-13.txt		draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-14.txt >
	MPLS Working Group G. Mirsky		MPLS Working Group G. Mirsky
	Internet-Draft ZTE Corp.		Internet-Draft ZTE Corp.
	Intended status: Standards Track S. Ruffini		Intended status: Standards Track S. Ruffini
	Expires: August 3, 2017 E. Gray		Expires: August 4, 2017 E. Gray
	Ericsson		Ericsson
	J. Drake		J. Drake
	Juniper Networks		Juniper Networks
	S. Bryant		S. Bryant
	Huawei		Huawei
	A. Vainshtein		A. Vainshtein
	ECI Telecom		ECI Telecom
	January 30, 2017		January 31, 2017
	Residence Time Measurement in MPLS network		Residence Time Measurement in MPLS network
	draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-13		draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-14
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document specifies a new Generic Associated Channel for		This document specifies a new Generic Associated Channel for
	Residence Time Measurement and describes how it can be used by time		Residence Time Measurement and describes how it can be used by time
	synchronization protocols within a MPLS domain.		synchronization protocols within a 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 46		skipping to change at page 1, line 46
	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 August 3, 2017.		This Internet-Draft will expire on August 4, 2017.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2017 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 2, line 43		skipping to change at page 2, line 43
	4.1. RTM Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		4.1. RTM Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	4.2. RTM Capability Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		4.2. RTM Capability Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	4.3. RTM Capability Advertisement in OSPFv2 . . . . . . . . . 11		4.3. RTM Capability Advertisement in OSPFv2 . . . . . . . . . 11
	4.4. RTM Capability Advertisement in OSPFv3 . . . . . . . . . 12		4.4. RTM Capability Advertisement in OSPFv3 . . . . . . . . . 12
	4.5. RTM Capability Advertisement in IS-IS . . . . . . . . . . 12		4.5. RTM Capability Advertisement in IS-IS . . . . . . . . . . 12
	4.6. RTM Capability Advertisement in BGP-LS . . . . . . . . . 13		4.6. RTM Capability Advertisement in BGP-LS . . . . . . . . . 13
	4.7. RSVP-TE Control Plane Operation to Support RTM . . . . . 13		4.7. RSVP-TE Control Plane Operation to Support RTM . . . . . 13
	4.8. RTM_SET TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		4.8. RTM_SET TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	4.8.1. RTM_SET Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		4.8.1. RTM_SET Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	5. Data Plane Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19		5. Data Plane Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	6. Applicable PTP Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19		6. Applicable PTP Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20		7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	7.1. New RTM G-ACh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20		7.1. New RTM G-ACh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	7.2. New RTM TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20		7.2. New RTM TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	7.3. New RTM Sub-TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21		7.3. New RTM Sub-TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
	7.4. RTM Capability sub-TLV in OSPFv2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 21		7.4. RTM Capability sub-TLV in OSPFv2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
	7.5. IS-IS RTM Capability sub-TLV for TLV 22 . . . . . . . . . 21		7.5. IS-IS RTM Capability sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
	7.6. RTM Capability TLV in BGP-LS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22		7.6. RTM Capability TLV in BGP-LS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
	7.7. RTM_SET Sub-object RSVP Type and sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . 22		7.7. RTM_SET Sub-object RSVP Type and sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . 22
	7.8. RTM_SET Attribute Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23		7.8. RTM_SET Attribute Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
	7.9. New Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23		7.9. New Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
	8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24		8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
	9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24		9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
	10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24		10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
	10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24		10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
	10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26		10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	Time synchronization protocols, e.g., Network Time Protocol version 4		Time synchronization protocols, e.g., Network Time Protocol version 4
	(NTPv4) [RFC5905] and Precision Time Protocol (PTP) Version 2		(NTPv4) [RFC5905] and Precision Time Protocol (PTP) Version 2
	[IEEE.1588.2008], define timing messages that can be used to		[IEEE.1588.2008], define timing messages that can be used to
	synchronize clocks across a network domain. Measurement of the		synchronize clocks across a network domain. Measurement of the
	cumulative time that one of these timing messages spends transiting		cumulative time that one of these timing messages spends transiting
	skipping to change at page 3, line 32		skipping to change at page 3, line 32
	the time of receipt at an ingress interface and the time of		the time of receipt at an ingress interface and the time of
	transmission from an egress interface for each node along the network		transmission from an egress interface for each node along the network
	path from an ingress node to an egress node.) This document defines		path from an ingress node to an egress node.) This document defines
	a new Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) value and an associated		a new Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) value and an associated
	residence time measurement (RTM) message that can be used in a Multi-		residence time measurement (RTM) message that can be used in a Multi-
	Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) network to measure residence time		Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) network to measure residence time
	over a Label Switched Path (LSP).		over a Label Switched Path (LSP).
	This document describes RTM over an LSP signaled using RSVP-TE		This document describes RTM over an LSP signaled using RSVP-TE
	[RFC3209]. Using RSVP-TE, the LSP's path can be either explicitly		[RFC3209]. Using RSVP-TE, the LSP's path can be either explicitly
	specified or determined during signaling. Althugh it is possible to		specified or determined during signaling. Although it is possible to
	use RTM over an LSP instantiated using LDP, that is outside the scope		use RTM over an LSP instantiated using LDP, that is outside the scope
	of this document.		of this document.
	Comparison with alternative proposed solutions such as		Comparison with alternative proposed solutions such as
	[I-D.ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls] is outside the scope of this document.		[I-D.ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls] is outside the scope of this document.
	1.1. Conventions used in this document		1.1. Conventions used in this document
	1.1.1. Terminology		1.1.1. Terminology
	skipping to change at page 12, line 34		skipping to change at page 12, line 34
	4.4. RTM Capability Advertisement in OSPFv3		4.4. RTM Capability Advertisement in OSPFv3
	The capability to support RTM on a particular link (interface) can be		The capability to support RTM on a particular link (interface) can be
	advertised in OSPFv3 using LSA extensions as described in		advertised in OSPFv3 using LSA extensions as described in
	[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend]. Exact use of OSPFv3 LSA		[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend]. Exact use of OSPFv3 LSA
	extensions is for further study.		extensions is for further study.
	4.5. RTM Capability Advertisement in IS-IS		4.5. RTM Capability Advertisement in IS-IS
			The capability to support RTM on a particular link (interface) is
			advertised in a new sub-TLV which may be included in TLVs advertising
			Intemediate System (IS) Reachability on a specific link (TLVs 22, 23,
			222, and 223).
	The format for the RTM Capabilities sub-TLV is presented in Figure 5		The format for the RTM Capabilities sub-TLV is presented in Figure 5
	0 1 2 3		0 1 2
	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 ...
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...
	| Type | Length | RTM | Reserved |		| Type | Length | RTM | ...
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...
	Figure 5: RTM Capability sub-TLV for the Extended IS Reachability TLV		Figure 5: RTM Capability sub-TLV
	o Type value (TBA3) will be assigned by IANA from the Sub-TLVs for		o Type value (TBA3) will be assigned by IANA from the Sub-TLVs for
	TLVs 22, 23, 141, 222, and 223 registry for IS-IS Section 7.5.		TLVs 22, 23, 141, 222, and 223 registry for IS-IS Section 7.5.
	o Length MUST be set to 2.		o Length value equals number of octets of the Value field.
	o RTM (capability) - as defined in Section 4.3.		o Value contains variable number of bit-map fields so that overall
			number of bits in the fields equals Length * 8.
	o Reserved field must be set to all zeroes on transmit and ignored		o Bits are defined/sent starting with Bit 0. Additional bit-map
	on receipt.		field definitions that may be defined in the future SHOULD be
			assigned in ascending bit order so as to minimize the number of
			bits that will need to be transmitted.
	The capability to support RTM on a particular link (interface) is		o Undefined bits MUST be transmitted as 0 and MUST be ignored on
	advertised in the Extended IS Reachability TLV described in [RFC5305]		receipt.
	via the RTM Capability sub-TLV.
			o Bits that are NOT transmitted MUST be treated as if they are set
			to 0 on receipt.
			o RTM (capability) - is a three-bit long bit-map field with values
			defined in Section 4.3.
	4.6. RTM Capability Advertisement in BGP-LS		4.6. RTM Capability Advertisement in BGP-LS
	The format for the RTM Capabilities TLV is as presented in Figure 4.		The format for the RTM Capabilities TLV is as presented in Figure 4.
	Type value TBA9 will be assigned by IANA from the BGP-LS Node		Type value TBA9 will be assigned by IANA from the BGP-LS Node
	Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs		Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs
	sub-registry Section 7.6.		sub-registry Section 7.6.
	Length, RTM, and Reserved fields as defined in Section 4.3.		Length, RTM, and Reserved fields as defined in Section 4.3.
	skipping to change at page 21, line 42		skipping to change at page 22, line 13
	from OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV Sub-TLVs registry as follows:		from OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV Sub-TLVs registry as follows:
	+-------+----------------+---------------+		+-------+----------------+---------------+
	| Value | Description | Reference |		| Value | Description | Reference |
	+-------+----------------+---------------+		+-------+----------------+---------------+
	| TBA2 | RTM Capability | This document |		| TBA2 | RTM Capability | This document |
	+-------+----------------+---------------+		+-------+----------------+---------------+
	Table 4: RTM Capability sub-TLV		Table 4: RTM Capability sub-TLV
	7.5. IS-IS RTM Capability sub-TLV for TLV 22		7.5. IS-IS RTM Capability sub-TLV
	IANA is requested to assign a new Type for RTM capability sub-TLV		IANA is requested to assign a new Type for RTM capability sub-TLV
	from the Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 23, 141, 222, and 223 registry as		from the Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 23, 141, 222, and 223 registry as
	follows:		follows:
	+------+-------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+---------------+		+------+----------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+---------------+
	| Type | Description | 22 | 23 | 141 | 222 | 223 | Reference |		| Type | Description | 22 | 23 | 141 | 222 | 223 | Reference |
	+------+-------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+---------------+		+------+----------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+---------------+
	| TBA3 | RTM | y | n | n | n | n | This document |		| TBA3 | RTM Capability | y | y | n | y | y | This document |
	+------+-------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+---------------+		+------+----------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+---------------+
	Table 5: IS-IS RTM Capability sub-TLV for TLV 22		Table 5: IS-IS RTM Capability sub-TLV Registry Description
	7.6. RTM Capability TLV in BGP-LS		7.6. RTM Capability TLV in BGP-LS
	IANA is requested to assign a new code point for RTM Capability TLV		IANA is requested to assign a new code point for RTM Capability TLV
	from BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and		from BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and
	Attribute TLVs sub-registry in its Border Gateway Protocol - Link		Attribute TLVs sub-registry in its Border Gateway Protocol - Link
	State (BGP-LS) Parameters registry as follows:		State (BGP-LS) Parameters registry as follows:
	+---------------+----------------+------------------+---------------+		+---------------+----------------+------------------+---------------+
	| TLV Code | Description | IS-IS TLV/Sub- | Reference |		| TLV Code | Description | IS-IS TLV/Sub- | Reference |
	skipping to change at page 25, line 30		skipping to change at page 26, line 5
	[RFC4385] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,		[RFC4385] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
	"Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for		"Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
	Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, DOI 10.17487/RFC4385,		Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, DOI 10.17487/RFC4385,
	February 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4385>.		February 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4385>.
	[RFC5085] Nadeau, T., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Pseudowire Virtual		[RFC5085] Nadeau, T., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Pseudowire Virtual
	Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control		Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control
	Channel for Pseudowires", RFC 5085, DOI 10.17487/RFC5085,		Channel for Pseudowires", RFC 5085, DOI 10.17487/RFC5085,
	December 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5085>.		December 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5085>.
	[RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
	Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October
	2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>.
	[RFC5420] Farrel, A., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and A.		[RFC5420] Farrel, A., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and A.
	Ayyangarps, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP		Ayyangarps, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP
	Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic		Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic
	Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, DOI 10.17487/RFC5420,		Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, DOI 10.17487/RFC5420,
	February 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5420>.		February 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5420>.
	[RFC5586] Bocci, M., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed., and S. Bryant, Ed.,		[RFC5586] Bocci, M., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed., and S. Bryant, Ed.,
	"MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586,		"MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC5586, June 2009,		DOI 10.17487/RFC5586, June 2009,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5586>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5586>.
End of changes. 20 change blocks.
	35 lines changed or deleted		44 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/