CCAMP Working Group Zafar Ali
Internet Draft George Swallow
Intended status: Standard Track Clarence Filsfils
Expires: January 14, 2014 Luyuan Fang
Cisco Systems
Kenji Kumaki
KDDI Corporation
Ruediger Kunze
Deutsche Telekom AG
Daniele Ceccarelli
Ericsson
July 15, 2013
Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
extension for signaling Objective Function and Metric Bound
draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-03.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 January 14, 2014.
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
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires January 2014 [Page 1]
ID draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-03.txt
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
In particular networks such as those used by financial
institutions, network performance criteria such as latency are
becoming as critical to data path selection. However cost is still
an important consideration. This leads to a situation where path
calculation involves multiple metrics and more complex objective
functions.
When using GMPLS control plane, there are many scenarios in which a
node may need to request a remote node to perform path computation
or expansion, like for example multi-domain LSP setup, Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) User-Network Interface (UNI)
or simply the utilization of a loose ERO in intra domain signaling.
In such cases, the node requesting for the setup of an LSP needs to
convey the required objective function to the remote node, to
enable it to perform route computation in the desired fashion.
Similarly, there are cases the ingress needs to indicate a TE
metric bound for a loose segment that is expanded by a remote node.
This document defines extensions to the RSVP-TE Protocol to allow
an ingress node to request the required objective function for the
route computation, as well as a metric bound to influence route
computation decisions at a remote node(s).
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].
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires January 2014 [Page 2]
ID draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-03.txt
Table of Contents
Copyright Notice.....................................................1
1. Introduction......................................................3
2. RSVP-TE signaling extensions......................................4
2.1. Objective Function (OF) Subobject.........................4
2.1.1. Minimum TE Metric Cost Path Objective Function.......6
2.1.2. Minimum IGP Metric Cost Path Objective Function......6
2.1.3. Minimum Latency Path Objective Function..............6
2.1.4. Minimum Latency Variation Path Objective Function....7
2.2. Metric subobject..........................................7
2.3. Processing Rules for the OF Subobjects....................8
2.4. Processing Rules for the Metric subobject.................9
3. Security Considerations..........................................11
4. IANA Considerations..............................................11
5. Acknowledgments..................................................12
6. References.......................................................12
6.1. Normative References.....................................12
6.2. Informative References...................................12
1. Introduction
As noted in [OSPF-TE-METRIC] and [ISIS-TE-METRIC], in certain
networks such as financial information networks (e.g. stock
market data providers), performance criteria such as latency are
becoming as critical to data path selection along with other
metrics. Such networks may require selection of a path that
minimizes end-to-end latency. Or a path may need to be found
that minimizes some other TE metric, but subject a latency
bound. Thus there is a requirement to be able to find end-to-end
paths with different optimization criteria.
When the entire route for an LSP is computed at the ingress
node, this requirement can be met by a local decision at that
node. However, there are scenarios where partial or full route
computations are performed by remote nodes. The scenarios
include (but are not limited to):
. LSPs with loose hops in the Explicit Route Object (ERO),
including intra-domain LSPs.
. GMPLS-UNI where route computation may be performed by the UNI-
Network (server) node [RFC 4208];
. Multi domain LSP setup with per domain path computation;
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires January 2014 [Page 3]
ID draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-03.txt
In these scenarios, there is a need for the ingress node to
convey the optimization criteria including the TE metrics (e.g.,
IGP metric, TE metric, hop counts, latency, etc.) to be used for
the path computation to the node performing route computation or
expansion. Similarly, there is a need for the ingress node to
indicate a TE metric bound for the loose segment being expanded
by a remote node.
[RFC5541] defines extensions to the Path Computation Element
communication Protocol (PCEP) to allow a Path Computation Client
(PCC) indicate in a path computation request the desired
objective function. [RFC5440] defines extension to the PCEP to
allow a PCC indicate in a path computation request a bound on
given TE metric(s). This draft defines similar mechanisms for
the RSVP-TE protocol allowing an ingress node to indicate in a
Path request the desired objective function along with any
associated TE metric bound(s). The nodes performing route
expansion use this information to find the ''best'' candidate
route.
2. RSVP-TE signaling extensions
This section defines RSVP-TE signaling extensions required to
address the above-mentioned requirements. Two new ERO subobject
types, Objective Function (OF) and Metric, are defined for this
purpose. Their purpose is as follows.
. OF subobject conveys a set of one or more specific
optimization criteria that needs be followed in expanding
route of a TE-LSP in MultiProtocol Label Switching (MPLS) and
GMPLS networks.
. Metric subobject indicates the bound on the path metric that
needs to be observed for the loose segment to be considered as
acceptable by the ingress node.
The scope of the Metric and OF subobjects is the node performing
the expansion for loose ERO and the subsequent ERO subobject
that identifies an abstract node. The following subsection
provides the details.
2.1. Objective Function (OF) Subobject
A new ERO subobject type Objective Function (OF) is defined in
order for the ingress node to indicate the required objective
function on a loose hop. The ERO subobject type OF is optional.
It MAY be carried within an ERO object of RSVP-TE Path message
and its scope is limited to previous ERO subobject that
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires January 2014 [Page 4]
ID draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-03.txt
identifies an abstract node. For more details please refer to
the Processing Rules for the OF Subobjects section.
The OF subobject has the following format:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | OF Code | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The fields of OF subobject are defined as follows:
L bit: The L bit MUST be set to represent a loose hop in the
explicit route.
Type: The Type is to be assigned by IANA (suggested value:
66).
Length: The Length contains the total length of the subobject
in bytes, including the Type field, the Length field and the
length of the optional TLV(s). When there is no optional TLV,
the Length is 4.
OF Code (1 byte): The identifier of the objective function.
The following OF code values are suggested. These values are to
be assigneyd by IANA.
* OF code value 0 is reserved.
* OF code value 1 (to be assigned by IANA) is for Minimum TE
Metric Cost Path (MTMCP) OF defined in this document. See
definition of MTCP OF in the following.
* OF code value 2 (to be assigned by IANA) is for Minimum Interior
Gateway Protocol (IGP) Metric Cost Path (MIMCP) OF defined in the
following.
* OF code value 3 (to be assigned by IANA) is for Minimum
Load Path (MLP) OF as defined in RFC5541.
* OF code value 4 (to be assigned by IANA) is for Maximum
Residual Bandwidth Path (MBP) OF as defined in RFC5541.
* OF code value 5 (to be assigned by IANA) is for Minimize
Aggregate Bandwidth Consumption (MBC) OF as defined in RFC5541.
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires January 2014 [Page 5]
ID draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-03.txt
* OF code value 6 (to be assigned by IANA) is for Minimize
the Load of the most loaded Link (MLL) OF as defined in RFC5541.
* OF code value 7 is skipped (to keep the objective function
code values consistent between [RFC5541] and this draft.
* OF code value 8 (to be assigned by IANA) is for Minimum
Latency Path (MLP) OF defined in this document. See definition
of MLP OF in the following.
* OF code value 9 (to be assigned by IANA) is for Minimum
Latency Variation Path (MLVP) OF defined in this document. See
definition of MLVP OF in the following.
Other objective functions may be defined in future.
Reserved (5 bytes): This field MUST be set to zero on
transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
2.1.1. Minimum TE Metric Cost Path Objective Function
Minimum TE Metric Cost Path (MTMCP) OF is defined as an
Objective Function where a path is computed such that the sum of
the TE metric of the links along the path is minimized. In the
context of loose hop expansion, the ERO expanding node MUST try
to find a route such that the sum of the TE metric of the links
along the route is minimized.
2.1.2. Minimum IGP Metric Cost Path Objective Function
Minimum IGP Metric Cost Path (MIMCP) OF is defined as an
Objective Function where a path is computed such that the sum of
the IGP metric of the links along the path is minimized. In the
context of loose hop expansion, the ERO expanding node MUST try
to find a route such that the sum of the IGP metric of the links
along the route is minimized.
2.1.3. Minimum Latency Path Objective Function
Minimum Latency Path (MLP) OF is defined as an Objective
Function where a path is computed such that latency of the path
is minimized. In the context of loose hop expansion, the ERO
expanding node MUST try to find a route such that overall
latency of the loose hop is minimized.
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires January 2014 [Page 6]
ID draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-03.txt
2.1.4. Minimum Latency Variation Path Objective Function
Minimum Latency Variation Path (MLVP) OF is defined as an
Objective Function where a path is computed such that latency
variation in the path is minimized. In the context of loose hop
expansion, the ERO expanding node MUST try to find a route such
that overall latency variation of the loose hop is minimized.
2.2. Metric Bound subobject
The ERO subobject type Metric Bound (MB) is optional. It MAY be
carried within an ERO object of RSVP-TE Path message and its
scope is limited to previous ERO subobject that identifies an
abstract node. It is possible to identify different Metric Bound
subobjects for different hops of the ERO to be expanded. For
more details please refer to the Processing Rules for the Metric
Bound Subobjects section.
This subobject has the following format:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | metric-type |B| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| metric-bound |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The fields of the Metric subobject are defined as follows:
L bit: The L bit is set if the subobject represents a loose
hop in the explicit route. If the bit is not set, the
subobject represents a strict hop in the explicit route.
Please note that use of MB subobject is also applicable to
strict hops, e.g., in selecting a component link within a
heterogeneous bundled TE link.
Type: The Type is to be assigned by IANA (suggested value:
67).
Length: The Length is 8.
Metric-type (8 bits): Specifies the metric type associated
with the partial route expended by the node processing the
loose ERO. The following values are currently defined:
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires January 2014 [Page 7]
ID draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-03.txt
* T=1: cumulative IGP cost
* T=2: cumulative TE cost
* T=3: Hop Counts
* T=4: Cumulative Latency
* T=5: Cumulative Latency Variation
B bit: Best-effort bit. When the best-effort (B) bit is set,
it means that the ingress allows for the set up of an LSP
that does not meeting the MB requirement. When the best-
effort (B) bit is not set, it means that the MB needs to be
observed.
Reserved: This field MUST be set to zero on transmission and
MUST be ignored on receipt.
Metric-bound (32 bits): The metric-bound indicates an upper
bound for the path metric that MUST NOT be exceeded for the
ERO expending node to consider the computed path as
acceptable. The metric bound is encoded in 32 bits using IEEE
floating point format as defined in [IEEE.754.1985]). When it
indicates a time value (i.e. Latency or Latency Variation) it
is expressed in milliseconds.
2.3. General Processing rules
A single OF subobjects SHOULD be used for each ERO object.
Multiple Metric Bound subobjects MAY be indicated for each hop
to be expanded and MUST be placed after each abstract node
subobject. Different Metric Bounds MAY be identified for each
hop expansion.
2.3.1. Processing Rules for the OF Subobjects
The basic processing rules of an ERO are not altered. Please
refer to [RFC3209] for details.
The scope of the OF subobject is the previous ERO subobject that
identifies an abstract node, and the subsequent ERO subobject
that identifies an abstract node. Multiple OF subobjects may be
present between any pair of abstract nodes. However, only first
OF subobject is analyzed and others are ignored.
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires January 2014 [Page 8]
ID draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-03.txt
The following conditions SHOULD result in Path Error with error
code ''Routing Problem'' and error subcode "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE
object":
. If the first OF subobject is not preceded by an ERO subobject
identifying the next hop.
. If the OF subobject follows an ERO subobject identifying the
next hop that does not have the L-bit set.
If the processing node does not understand the OF subobject, it
SHOULD sends a PathErr with the error code "Routing Error" and
error value of "Bad Explicit Route Object" toward the sender
[RFC3209].
If the processing node understands the OF subobject and the ERO
passes the above mentioned sanity check and any other sanity
checks associated with other ERO subobjects local to the node,
the node takes the following actions:
. If the node supports the requested OF, the node expands the
loose hop using the requested OF as optimization criterion for
computing the route to the next abstract node. After
processing, the OF subobjects are removed from the ERO. The
rest of the steps for the loose ERO processing follow
procedures outlined in [RFC3209].
. If the node understands the OF subobject but does not support
the requested OF, it SHOULD send a Path Error with error code
''Routing Problem'' and a new error subcode ''Unsupported
Objective Function''. The error subcode ''Unsupported Objective
Function'' for Path Error code ''Routing Problem'' is to be
assigned by IANA.
. If the OF is supported but policy does not permit applying it,
the processing node SHOULD send a Path Error with error code
"Policy control failure" (value 2) and subcode ''objective
function not allowed". The error subcode ''objective function
not allowed'' for Path Error code ''Policy control failure'' is
to be assigned by IANA.
2.3.2. Processing Rules for the MB subobject
The basic processing rules of an ERO are not altered. Please
refer to [RFC3209] for details.
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires January 2014 [Page 9]
ID draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-03.txt
The scope of the MB subobject is between the previous ERO
subobject that identifies an abstract node, and the subsequent
ERO subobject that identifies an abstract node. Multiple MB
subobjects may be present between any pair of abstract nodes.
If the processing node does not understand the MB subobject, it
SHOULD sends a PathErr with the error code "Routing Error" and
error value of "Bad Explicit Route Object" toward the sender
[RFC3209].
If the processing node understands the MB subobject and the ERO
passes the above mentioned sanity check and any other sanity
checks associated with other ERO subobjects local to the node,
the node takes the following actions:
. For all the MB subobject(s), the node expands the ERO such
that the requested metric bound(s) are met for the route
between the two abstract nodes in the ERO. After processing,
the Metric subobjects are removed from the ERO. The rest of
the steps for the ERO processing follow procedure outlined in
[RFC3209].
. If the node understands the MB subobject but cannot find a
route to the next abstract node such that the requested metric
bound(s) can be satisfied and the best-effort (B) bit is not
set, it SHOULD send a Path Error with error code ''Routing
Problem'' and a new error subcode ''No route available toward
destination with the requested metric bounds''. The error
subcode ''No route available toward destination with the
requested metric bounds'' for Path Error code ''Routing Problem''
is to be assigned by IANA (See IANA section for details).
. If the node understands the Metric subobject but cannot find a
route to the next abstract node such that the requested metric
bound(s) can be satisfied and the best-effort (B) bit is set,
it SHOULD send a Path Error message with error code "Notify
Error" and a new error subcode "Route not matching the
requested metric bounds" is to be assigned by IANA (See IANA
section for details).
. The ERO expanding node SHOULD respect the Metric Bound
constraints in realizing any segment recovery procedure to
change the route of the segment expanded by the said node. If
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires January 2014 [Page 10]
ID draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-03.txt
best-effort (B) bit is set and the new recovery segment
violates the Metric Bound constraints, the ERO expanding
SHOULD send a Path Error message with error code "Notify
Error" and a new error subcode "Route not matching the
requested metric bounds" is to be assigned by IANA (See IANA
section for details).
3. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any additional security issues
above those identified in [RFC5920], [RFC2205], [RFC3209], and
[RFC3473].
4. IANA Considerations
4.1. ERO Subobject
This document adds the following two new subobject of the
existing entry for ERO (20, EXPLICIT_ROUTE):
Value Description
----- ------------
TBA (suggest value: 66) Objective Function (OF)
subobject
TBA (suggest value: 67) Metric subobject
These subobject may be present in the Explicit Route Object, but
not in the Route Record Object.
OF Code values carried in OF subobject requires an IANA entry
with suggested values as defined in section 2.1.
4.2. New RSVP error sub-code
For Error Code = 24 ''Routing Problem" (see [RFC2205]) the
following sub-code is defined.
Sub-code Value
-------- -----
No route available toward destination To be assigned by IANA.
with the requested metric bounds Suggested Value: TBA.
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires January 2014 [Page 11]
ID draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-03.txt
For Error Code = 25 ''Notify Error" (see [RFC2205]) the following
sub-code is defined.
Sub-code Value
-------- -----
Route not matching the requested To be assigned by IANA.
metric bounds Suggested Value: TBA.
5. Acknowledgments
Authors would like to thank Matt Hartley, Ori Gerstel, Gabriele
Maria Galimberti, Luyuan Fang and Walid Wakim for their review
comments.
6. References
6.1. 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.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions",
RFC 3473, January 2003.
[IEEE.754.1985] IEEE Standard 754, "Standard for Binary
Floating-Point Arithmetic", August 1985.
6.2. Informative References
[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 January 2014 [Page 12]
ID draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-03.txt
Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems.
Email: zali@cisco.com
George Swallow
Cisco Systems.
swallow@cisco.com
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems.
cfilsfil@cisco.com
Luyuan Fang
Cisco Systems.
lufang@cisco.com
Kenji Kumaki
KDDI Corporation
Email: ke-kumaki@kddi.com
Rudiger Kunze
Deutsche Telekom AG
Ruediger.Kunze@telekom.de
Daniele Ceccarelli
Ericsson
Email: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com
Ali, Swallow, Filsfils Expires January 2014 [Page 13]