| Rfc | 8169 |
|---|
| Title | Residence Time Measurement in MPLS Networks |
|---|
| Author | G. Mirsky, S. Ruffini,
E. Gray, J. Drake, S. Bryant, A. Vainshtein |
|---|
| Date | May 2017 |
|---|
| Format: | TXT,
HTML |
|---|
| Status: | PROPOSED STANDARD |
|---|
|
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) G. Mirsky
Request for Comments: 8169 ZTE Corp.
Category: Standards Track S. Ruffini
ISSN: 2070-1721 E. Gray
Ericsson
J. Drake
Juniper Networks
S. Bryant
Huawei
A. Vainshtein
ECI Telecom
May 2017
Residence Time Measurement in MPLS Networks
Abstract
This document specifies a new Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) for
Residence Time Measurement (RTM) and describes how it can be used by
time synchronization protocols within an MPLS domain.
Residence time is the variable part of the propagation delay of
timing and synchronization messages; knowing this delay for each
message allows for a more accurate determination of the delay to be
taken into account when applying the value included in a Precision
Time Protocol event message.
Status of This Memo
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.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8169.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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 Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Residence Time Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. One-Step Clock and Two-Step Clock Modes . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.1. RTM with Two-Step Upstream PTP Clock . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.2. Two-Step RTM with One-Step Upstream PTP Clock . . . . 8
3. G-ACh for Residence Time Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1. PTP Packet Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2. PTP Associated Value Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Control-Plane Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1. RTM Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. RTM Capability Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3. RTM Capability Advertisement in Routing Protocols . . . . 13
4.3.1. RTM Capability Advertisement in OSPFv2 . . . . . . . 13
4.3.2. RTM Capability Advertisement in OSPFv3 . . . . . . . 14
4.3.3. RTM Capability Advertisement in IS-IS . . . . . . . . 14
4.3.4. RTM Capability Advertisement in BGP-LS . . . . . . . 14
4.4. RSVP-TE Control-Plane Operation to Support RTM . . . . . 15
4.4.1. RTM_SET TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5. Data-Plane Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6. Applicable PTP Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7.1. New RTM G-ACh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7.2. New MPLS RTM TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7.3. New MPLS RTM Sub-TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.4. RTM Capability Sub-TLV in OSPFv2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.5. RTM Capability Sub-TLV in IS-IS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.6. RTM Capability TLV in BGP-LS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.7. RTM_SET Sub-object RSVP Type and Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . 25
7.8. RTM_SET Attribute Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
7.9. New Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1. Introduction
Time synchronization protocols, e.g., the Network Time Protocol
version 4 (NTPv4) [RFC5905] and the Precision Time Protocol version 2
(PTPv2) [IEEE.1588], define timing messages that can be used to
synchronize clocks across a network domain. Measurement of the
cumulative time that one of these timing messages spends transiting
the nodes on the path from ingress node to egress node is termed
"residence time" and is used to improve the accuracy of clock
synchronization. Residence time is the sum of the difference between
the time of receipt at an ingress interface and the time of
transmission from an egress interface for each node along the network
path from an ingress node to an egress node. This document defines a
new Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) value and an associated
Residence Time Measurement (RTM) message that can be used in a
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) network to measure residence
time over a Label Switched Path (LSP).
This document describes RTM over an LSP signaled using RSVP-TE
[RFC3209]. Using RSVP-TE, the LSP's path can be either explicitly
specified or determined during signaling. Although it is possible to
use RTM over an LSP instantiated using the Label Distribution
Protocol [RFC5036], that is outside the scope of this document.
Comparison with alternative proposed solutions such as
[TIMING-OVER-MPLS] is outside the scope of this document.
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
1.1.1. Terminology
MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching
ACH: Associated Channel Header
TTL: Time to Live
G-ACh: Generic Associated Channel
GAL: Generic Associated Channel Label
NTP: Network Time Protocol
ppm: parts per million
PTP: Precision Time Protocol
BC: boundary clock
LSP: Label Switched Path
OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
RRO: Record Route Object
RTM: Residence Time Measurement
IGP: Internal Gateway Protocol
BGP-LS: Border Gateway Protocol - Link State
1.1.2. Requirements Language
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.
2. Residence Time Measurement
"Packet Loss and Delay Measurement for MPLS Networks" [RFC6374] can
be used to measure one-way or two-way end-to-end propagation delay
over an LSP or a pseudowire (PW). But these measurements are
insufficient for use in some applications, for example, time
synchronization across a network as defined in the PTP. In PTPv2
[IEEE.1588], the residence time is accumulated in the correctionField
of the PTP event message, which is defined in [IEEE.1588] and
referred to as using a one-step clock, or in the associated follow-up
message (or Delay_Resp message associated with the Delay_Req
message), which is referred to as using a two-step clock (see the
detailed discussion in Section 2.1).
IEEE 1588 uses this residence time to correct for the transit times
of nodes on an LSP, effectively making the transit nodes transparent.
This document proposes a mechanism that can be used as one type of
on-path support for a clock synchronization protocol or can be used
to perform one-way measurement of residence time. The proposed
mechanism accumulates residence time from all nodes that support this
extension along the path of a particular LSP in the Scratch Pad field
of an RTM message (Figure 1). This value can then be used by the
egress node to update, for example, the correctionField of the PTP
event packet carried within the RTM message prior to performing its
PTP processing.
2.1. One-Step Clock and Two-Step Clock Modes
One-step mode refers to the mode of operation where an egress
interface updates the correctionField value of an original event
message. Two-step mode refers to the mode of operation where this
update is made in a subsequent follow-up message.
Processing of the follow-up message, if present, requires the
downstream endpoint to wait for the arrival of the follow-up message
in order to combine correctionField values from both the original
(event) message and the subsequent (follow-up) message. In a similar
fashion, each two-step node needs to wait for the related follow-up
message, if there is one, in order to update that follow-up message
(as opposed to creating a new one). Hence, the first node that uses
two-step mode MUST do two things:
1. Mark the original event message to indicate that a follow-up
message will be forthcoming. This is necessary in order to
* Let any subsequent two-step node know that there is already a
follow-up message, and
* Let the endpoint know to wait for a follow-up message.
2. Create a follow-up message in which to put the RTM determined as
an initial correctionField value.
IEEE 1588v2 [IEEE.1588] defines this behavior for PTP messages.
Thus, for example, with reference to the PTP protocol, the PTPType
field identifies whether the message is a Sync message, Follow_up
message, Delay_Req message, or Delay_Resp message. The 10-octet-long
Port ID field contains the identity of the source port [IEEE.1588],
that is, the specific PTP port of the boundary clock (BC) connected
to the MPLS network. The Sequence ID is the sequence ID of the PTP
message carried in the Value field of the message.
PTP messages also include a bit that indicates whether or not a
follow-up message will be coming. This bit MAY be set by a two-step
mode PTP device. The value MUST NOT be unset until the original and
follow-up messages are combined by an endpoint (such as a BC).
For compatibility with PTP, RTM (when used for PTP packets) must
behave in a similar fashion. It should be noted that the handling of
Sync event messages and of Delay_Req/Delay_Resp event messages that
cross a two-step RTM node is different. The following outlines the
handling of a PTP Sync event message by the two-step RTM node. The
details of handling Delay_Resp/Delay_Req PTP event messages by the
two-step RTM node are discussed in Section 2.1.1. As a summary, a
two-step RTM-capable egress interface will need to examine the S bit
in the Flags field of the PTP sub-TLV (for RTM messages that indicate
they are for PTP), and -- if it is clear (set to zero) -- it MUST set
the S bit and create a follow-up PTP Type RTM message. If the S bit
is already set, then the RTM-capable node MUST wait for the RTM
message with the PTP type of follow-up and matching originator and
sequence number to make the corresponding residence time update to
the Scratch Pad field. The wait period MUST be reasonably bounded.
Thus, an RTM packet, containing residence time information relating
to an earlier packet, also contains information identifying that
earlier packet.
In practice, an RTM node operating in two-step mode behaves like a
two-step transparent clock.
A one-step-capable RTM node MAY elect to operate in either one-step
mode (by making an update to the Scratch Pad field of the RTM message
containing the PTP event message) or two-step mode (by making an
update to the Scratch Pad of a follow-up message when presence of a
follow-up is indicated), but it MUST NOT do both.
Two main subcases identified for an RTM node operating as a two-step
clock are described in the following sub-sections.
2.1.1. RTM with Two-Step Upstream PTP Clock
If any of the previous RTM-capable nodes or the previous PTP clock
(e.g., the BC connected to the first node) is a two-step clock and if
the local RTM-capable node is also operating a two-tep clock, the
residence time is added to the RTM packet that has been created to
include the second PTP packet (i.e., the follow-up message in the
downstream direction). This RTM packet carries the related
accumulated residence time, the appropriate values of the Sequence ID
and Port ID (the same identifiers carried in the original packet),
and the two-step flag set to 1.
Note that the fact that an upstream RTM-capable node operating in
two-step mode has created a follow-up message does not require any
subsequent RTM-capable node to also operate in two-step mode, as long
as that RTM-capable node forwards the follow-up message on the same
LSP on which it forwards the corresponding previous message.
A one-step-capable RTM node MAY elect to update the RTM follow-up
message as if it were operating in two-step mode; however, it MUST
NOT update both messages.
A PTP Sync packet is carried in the RTM packet in order to indicate
to the RTM node that RTM must be performed on that specific packet.
To handle the residence time of the Delay_Req message in the upstream
direction, an RTM packet must be created to carry the residence time
in the associated downstream Delay_Resp message.
The last RTM node of the MPLS network, in addition to updating the
correctionField of the associated PTP packet, must also react
properly to the two-step flag of the PTP packets.
2.1.2. Two-Step RTM with One-Step Upstream PTP Clock
When the PTP network connected to the MPLS operates in one-step clock
mode and an RTM node operates in two-step mode, the follow-up RTM
packet must be created by the RTM node itself. The RTM packet
carrying the PTP event packet needs now to indicate that a follow-up
message will be coming.
The egress RTM-capable node of the LSP will remove RTM encapsulation
and, in case of two-step clock mode being indicated, will generate
PTP messages to include the follow-up correction as appropriate
(according to [IEEE.1588]). In this case, the common header of the
PTP packet carrying the synchronization message would have to be
modified by setting the twoStepFlag field indicating that there is
now a follow-up message associated to the current message.
3. G-ACh for Residence Time Measurement
[RFC5586] and [RFC6423] define the G-ACh to extend the applicability
of the Pseudowire Associated Channel Header (ACH) [RFC5085] to LSPs.
G-ACh provides a mechanism to transport OAM and other control
messages over an LSP. Processing of these messages by selected
transit nodes is controlled by the use of the Time-to-Live (TTL)
value in the MPLS header of these messages.
The message format for RTM is presented in Figure 1.
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 0 0 1|Version| Reserved | RTM G-ACh |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Scratch Pad |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value (optional) |
~ ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: RTM G-ACh Message Format for Residence Time Measurement
o The first four octets are defined as a G-ACh header in [RFC5586].
o The Version field is set to 0, as defined in [RFC4385].
o The Reserved field MUST be set to 0 on transmit and ignored on
receipt.
o The RTM G-ACh field (value 0x000F; see Section 7.1) identifies the
packet as such.
o The Scratch Pad field is 8 octets in length. It is used to
accumulate the residence time spent in each RTM-capable node
transited by the packet on its path from ingress node to egress
node. The first RTM-capable node MUST initialize the Scratch Pad
field with its RTM. Its format is a 64-bit signed integer, and it
indicates the value of the residence time measured in nanoseconds
and multiplied by 2^16. Note that depending on whether the timing
procedure is a one-step or two-step operation (Section 2.1), the
residence time is either for the timing packet carried in the
Value field of this RTM message or for an associated timing packet
carried in the Value field of another RTM message.
o The Type field identifies the type and encapsulation of a timing
packet carried in the Value field, e.g., NTP [RFC5905] or PTP
[IEEE.1588]. Per this document, IANA has created a sub-registry
called the "MPLS RTM TLV Registry" in the "Generic Associated
Channel (G-ACh) Parameters" registry (see Section 7.2).
o The Length field contains the length, in octets, of any Value
field defined for the Type given in the Type field.
o The TLV MUST be included in the RTM message, even if the length of
the Value field is zero.
3.1. PTP Packet Sub-TLV
Figure 2 presents the format of a PTP sub-TLV that MUST be included
in the Value field of an RTM message preceding the carried timing
packet when the timing packet is PTP.
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags |PTPType|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Port ID |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Sequence ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: PTP Sub-TLV Format
where the Flags field has the following format:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Flags Field Format of PTP Packet Sub-TLV
o The Type field identifies the PTP packet sub-TLV and is set to 1
according to Section 7.3.
o The Length field of the PTP sub-TLV contains the number of octets
of the Value part of the TLV and MUST be 20.
o The Flags field currently defines one bit, the S bit, that defines
whether the current message has been processed by a two-step node,
where the flag is cleared if the message has been handled
exclusively by one-step nodes and there is no follow-up message
and is set if there has been at least one two-step node and a
follow-up message is forthcoming.
o The PTPType field indicates the type of PTP packet to which this
PTP sub-TLV applies. PTPType is the messageType field of a PTPv2
packet with possible values defined in Table 19 of [IEEE.1588].
o The 10-octet-long Port ID field contains the identity of the
source port.
o The Sequence ID is the sequence ID of the PTP message to which
this PTP sub-TLV applies.
A tuple of PTPType, Port ID, and Sequence ID uniquely identifies the
PTP timing message included in an RTM message and is used in two-step
RTM mode; see Section 2.1.1.
3.2. PTP Associated Value Field
The Value field (see Figure 1) -- in addition to the PTP sub-TLV --
MAY carry a packet of the PTP Time synchronization protocol (as was
identified by the Type field). It is important to note that the
timing message packet may be authenticated or encrypted and carried
over this LSP unchanged (and inaccessible to intermediate RTM capable
LSRs) while the residence time is accumulated in the Scratch Pad
field.
The LSP ingress RTM-capable LSR populates the identifying tuple
information of the PTP sub-TLV (see section 3.1) prior to including
the (possibly authenticated/encrypted) PTP message packet after the
PTP sub-TLV in the Value field of the RTM message for an RTM message
of the PTP Type (Type 1; see Section 7.3).
4. Control-Plane Theory of Operation
The operation of RTM depends upon TTL expiry to deliver an RTM packet
from one RTM-capable interface to the next along the path from
ingress node to egress node. This means that a node with RTM-capable
interfaces MUST be able to compute a TTL, which will cause the expiry
of an RTM packet at the next node with RTM-capable interfaces.
4.1. RTM Capability
Note that the RTM capability of a node is with respect to the pair of
interfaces that will be used to forward an RTM packet. In general,
the ingress interface of this pair must be able to capture the
arrival time of the packet and encode it in some way such that this
information will be available to the egress interface of a node.
The supported mode (one-step or two-step) of any pair of interfaces
is determined by the capability of the egress interface. For both
modes, the egress interface implementation MUST be able to determine
the precise departure time of the same packet and determine from
this, and the arrival time information from the corresponding ingress
interface, the difference representing the residence time for the
packet.
An interface with the ability to do this and update the associated
Scratch Pad in real time (i.e., while the packet is being forwarded)
is said to be one-step capable.
Hence, while both ingress and egress interfaces are required to
support RTM for the pair to be RTM capable, it is the egress
interface that determines whether or not the node is one-step or two-
step capable with respect to the interface pair.
The RTM capability used in the sub-TLV shown in Figures 4 and 5 is
thus a non-routing-related capability associated with the interface
being advertised based on its egress capability. The ability of any
pair of interfaces on a node that includes this egress interface to
support any mode of RTM depends on the ability of the ingress
interface of a node to record packet arrival time and convey it to
the egress interface on the node.
When a node uses an IGP to support the RTM capability advertisement,
the IGP sub-TLV MUST reflect the RTM capability (one-step or two-
step) associated with the advertised interface. Changes of RTM
capability are unlikely to be frequent and would result, for example,
from the operator's decision to include or exclude a particular port
from RTM processing or switch between RTM modes.
4.2. RTM Capability Sub-TLV
[RFC4202] explains that the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor
describes the switching capability of an interface. For
bidirectional links, the switching capabilities of an interface are
defined to be the same in either direction, that is, for data
entering the node through that interface and for data leaving the
node through that interface. That principle SHOULD be applied when a
node advertises RTM capability.
A node that supports RTM MUST be able to act in two-step mode and MAY
also support one-step RTM mode. A detailed discussion of one-step
and two-step RTM modes is contained in Section 2.1.
4.3. RTM Capability Advertisement in Routing Protocols
4.3.1. RTM Capability Advertisement in OSPFv2
The format for the RTM Capability sub-TLV in OSPF is presented in
Figure 4.
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RTM | Value ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- ...
Figure 4: RTM Capability Sub-TLV in OSPFv2
o Type value (5) has been assigned by IANA in the "OSPFv2 Extended
Link TLV Sub-TLVs" registry (see Section 7.4).
o Length value equals the number of octets of the Value field.
o Value contains a variable number of bitmap fields so that the
overall number of bits in the fields equals Length * 8.
o Bits are defined/sent starting with Bit 0. Additional bitmap
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.
o Undefined bits MUST be transmitted as 0 and MUST be ignored on
receipt.
o Bits that are NOT transmitted MUST be treated as if they are set
to 0 on receipt.
o RTM (capability) is a 3-bit-long bitmap field with values defined
as follows:
* 0b001 - one-step RTM supported
* 0b010 - two-step RTM supported
* 0b100 - reserved
The capability to support RTM on a particular link (interface) is
advertised in the OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSA as described in
Section 3 of [RFC7684] via the RTM Capability sub-TLV.
4.3.2. RTM Capability Advertisement in OSPFv3
The capability to support RTM on a particular link (interface) can be
advertised in OSPFv3 using LSA extensions as described in
[OSPFV3-EXTENDED-LSA]. The sub-TLV SHOULD use the same format as in
Section 4.3.1. The type allocation and full details of exact use of
OSPFv3 LSA extensions is for further study.
4.3.3. RTM Capability Advertisement in IS-IS
The capability to support RTM on a particular link (interface) is
advertised in a new sub-TLV that may be included in TLVs advertising
Intermediate System (IS) Reachability on a specific link (TLVs 22,
23, 222, and 223).
The format for the RTM Capability sub-TLV is presented in Figure 5.
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 ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...
| Type | Length | RTM | Value ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...
Figure 5: RTM Capability Sub-TLV
o Type value (40) has been assigned by IANA in the "Sub-TLVs for
TLVs 22, 23, 141, 222, and 223" registry for IS-IS (see
Section 7.5).
o Definitions, rules of handling, and values for the Length and
Value fields are as defined in Section 4.3.1.
o RTM (capability) is a 3-bit-long bitmap field with values defined
in Section 4.3.1.
4.3.4. RTM Capability Advertisement in BGP-LS
The format for the RTM Capability TLV is presented in Figure 4.
Type value (1105) has been assigned by IANA in the "BGP-LS Node
Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs"
sub-registry (see Section 7.6).
Definitions, rules of handling, and values for fields Length, Value,
and RTM are as defined in Section 4.3.1.
The RTM capability will be advertised in BGP-LS as a Link Attribute
TLV associated with the Link NLRI as described in Section 3.3.2 of
[RFC7752].
4.4. RSVP-TE Control-Plane Operation to Support RTM
Throughout this document, we refer to a node as an RTM-capable node
when at least one of its interfaces is RTM capable. Figure 6
provides an example of roles a node may have with respect to RTM
capability:
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
| A |-----| B |-----| C |-----| D |-----| E |-----| F |-----| G |
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Figure 6: RTM-Capable Roles
o A is a boundary clock with its egress port in Master state. Node
A transmits IP-encapsulated timing packets whose destination IP
address is G.
o B is the ingress Label Edge Router (LER) for the MPLS LSP and is
the first RTM-capable node. It creates RTM packets, and in each
it places a timing packet, possibly encrypted, in the Value field
and initializes the Scratch Pad field with its RTM.
o C is a transit node that is not RTM capable. It forwards RTM
packets without modification.
o D is an RTM-capable transit node. It updates the Scratch Pad
field of the RTM packet without updating the timing packet.
o E is a transit node that is not RTM capable. It forwards RTM
packets without modification.
o F is the egress LER and the last RTM-capable node. It removes the
RTM ACH encapsulation and processes the timing packet carried in
the Value field using the value in the Scratch Pad field. In
particular, the value in the Scratch Pad field of the RTM ACH is
used in updating the Correction field of the PTP message(s). The
LER should also include its own residence time before creating the
outgoing PTP packets. The details of this process depend on
whether or not the node F is itself operating as a one-step or
two-step clock.
o G is a boundary clock with its ingress port in Slave state. Node
G receives PTP messages.
An ingress node that is configured to perform RTM along a path
through an MPLS network to an egress node MUST verify that the
selected egress node has an interface that supports RTM via the
egress node's advertisement of the RTM Capability sub-TLV, as covered
in Section 4.3. In the Path message that the ingress node uses to
instantiate the LSP to that egress node, it places an LSP_ATTRIBUTES
object [RFC5420] with an RTM_SET Attribute Flag set, as described in
Section 7.8, which indicates to the egress node that RTM is requested
for this LSP. The RTM_SET Attribute Flag SHOULD NOT be set in the
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object [RFC5420], unless it is known that all
nodes recognize the RTM attribute (but need not necessarily implement
it), because a node that does not recognize the RTM_SET Attribute
Flag would reject the Path message.
If an egress node receives a Path message with the RTM_SET Attribute
Flag in an LSP_ATTRIBUTES object, the egress node MUST include an
initialized RRO [RFC3209] and LSP_ATTRIBUTES object where the RTM_SET
Attribute Flag is set and the RTM_SET TLV (Section 4.4.1) is
initialized. When the Resv message is received by the ingress node,
the RTM_SET TLV will contain an ordered list, from egress node to
ingress node, of the RTM-capable nodes along the LSP's path.
After the ingress node receives the Resv, it MAY begin sending RTM
packets on the LSP's path. Each RTM packet has its Scratch Pad field
initialized and its TTL set to expire on the closest downstream RTM-
capable node.
It should be noted that RTM can also be used for LSPs instantiated
using [RFC3209] in an environment in which all interfaces in an IGP
support RTM. In this case, the RTM_SET TLV and LSP_ATTRIBUTES object
MAY be omitted.
4.4.1. RTM_SET TLV
RTM-capable interfaces can be recorded via the RTM_SET TLV. The
RTM_SET sub-object format is a generic TLV format, presented in
Figure 7.
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 |I| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Value ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: RTM_SET TLV Format
Type value (5) has been assigned by IANA in the RSVP-TE "Attributes
TLV Space" sub-registry (see Section 7.7).
The Length contains the total length of the sub-object in bytes,
including the Type and Length fields.
The I bit indicates whether the downstream RTM-capable node along the
LSP is present in the RRO.
The Reserved field must be zeroed on initiation and ignored on
receipt.
The content of an RTM_SET TLV is a series of variable-length
sub-TLVs. Only a single RTM_SET can be present in a given
LSP_ATTRIBUTES object. The sub-TLVs are defined in Section 4.4.1.1.
The following processing procedures apply to every RTM-capable node
along the LSP. In this paragraph, an RTM-capable node is referred to
as a node for sake of brevity. Each node MUST examine the Resv
message for whether the RTM_SET Attribute Flag in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES
object is set. If the RTM_SET flag is set, the node MUST inspect the
LSP_ATTRIBUTES object for presence of an RTM_SET TLV. If more than
one is found, then the LSP setup MUST fail with generation of the
ResvErr message with Error Code "Duplicate TLV" (Section 7.9) and
Error Value that contains the Type value in its 8 least significant
bits. If no RTM_SET TLV is found, then the LSP setup MUST fail with
generation of the ResvErr message with Error Code "RTM_SET TLV
Absent" (Section 7.9). If one RTM_SET TLV has been found, the node
will use the ID of the first node in the RTM_SET in conjunction with
the RRO to compute the hop count to its downstream node with a
reachable RTM-capable interface. If the node cannot find a matching
ID in the RRO, then it MUST try to use the ID of the next node in the
RTM_SET until it finds the match or reaches the end of the RTM_SET
TLV. If a match has been found, the calculated value is used by the
node as the TTL value in the outgoing label to reach the next RTM-
capable node on the LSP. Otherwise, the TTL value MUST be set to
255. The node MUST add an RTM_SET sub-TLV with the same address it
used in the RRO sub-object at the beginning of the RTM_SET TLV in the
associated outgoing Resv message before forwarding it upstream. If
the calculated TTL value has been set to 255, as described above,
then the I flag in the node's RTM_SET TLV MUST be set to 1 before the
Resv message is forwarded upstream. Otherwise, the I flag MUST be
cleared (0).
The ingress node MAY inspect the I bit received in each RTM_SET TLV
contained in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object of a received Resv message.
The presence of the RTM_SET TLV with the I bit set to 1 indicates
that some RTM nodes along the LSP could not be included in the
calculation of the residence time. An ingress node MAY choose to
resignal the LSP to include all RTM nodes or simply notify the user
via a management interface.
There are scenarios when some information is removed from an RRO due
to policy processing (e.g., as may happen between providers) or the
RRO is limited due to size constraints. Such changes affect the core
assumption of this method and the processing of RTM packets. RTM
SHOULD NOT be used if it is not guaranteed that the RRO contains
complete information.
4.4.1.1. RTM_SET Sub-TLVs
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.
The contents of an RTM_SET sub-object are a series of variable-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
and Length fields. The Length MUST always be a multiple of 4, and at
least 8 (smallest IPv4 sub-object).
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
top. The last-out sub-TLV is considered the bottom. When a new
sub-TLV is added, it is always added to the top.
The RTM_SET TLV is intended to include the subset of the RRO sub-TLVs
that represent those egress interfaces on the LSP that are RTM
capable. After a node chooses an egress interface to use in the RRO
sub-TLV, that same egress interface, if RTM capable, SHOULD be placed
into the RTM_SET TLV using one of the following: IPv4 sub-TLV, IPv6
sub-TLV, or Unnumbered Interface sub-TLV. The address family chosen
SHOULD match that of the RESV message and that used in the RRO; the
unnumbered interface sub-TLV is used when the egress interface has no
assigned IP address. A node MUST NOT place more sub-TLVs in the
RTM_SET TLV than the number of RTM-capable egress interfaces the LSP
traverses that are under that node's control. Only a single RTM_SET
sub-TLV with the given Value field MUST be present in the RTM_SET
TLV. If more than one sub-TLV with the same value (e.g., a
duplicated address) is found, the LSP setup MUST fail with the
generation of a ResvErr message with the Error Code "Duplicate
sub-TLV" (Section 7.9) and the Error Value containing a 16-bit value
composed of (Type of TLV, Type of sub-TLV).
Three kinds of sub-TLVs for RTM_SET are currently defined.
4.4.1.1.1. IPv4 Sub-TLV
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8: IPv4 Sub-TLV Format
Type
0x01 IPv4 address.
Length
The Length contains the total length of the sub-TLV in bytes,
including the Type and Length fields. The Length is always 8.
IPv4 address
A 32-bit unicast host address.
Reserved
Zeroed on initiation and ignored on receipt.
4.4.1.1.2. IPv6 Sub-TLV
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| IPv6 address |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 9: IPv6 Sub-TLV Format
Type
0x02 IPv6 address.
Length
The Length contains the total length of the sub-TLV in bytes,
including the Type and Length fields. The Length is always 20.
IPv6 address
A 128-bit unicast host address.
Reserved
Zeroed on initiation and ignored on receipt.
4.4.1.1.3. Unnumbered Interface Sub-TLV
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Node ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 10: IPv4 Sub-TLV Format
Type
0x03 Unnumbered interface.
Length
The Length contains the total length of the sub-TLV in bytes,
including the Type and Length fields. The Length is always 12.
Node ID
The Node ID interpreted as the Router ID as discussed in Section 2
of [RFC3477].
Interface ID
The identifier assigned to the link by the node specified by the
Node ID.
Reserved
Zeroed on initiation and ignored on receipt.
5. Data-Plane Theory of Operation
After instantiating an LSP for a path using RSVP-TE [RFC3209] as
described in Section 4.4, the ingress node MAY begin sending RTM
packets to the first downstream RTM-capable node on that path. Each
RTM packet has its Scratch Pad field initialized and its TTL set to
expire on the next downstream RTM-capable node. Each RTM-capable
node on the explicit path receives an RTM packet and records the time
at which it receives that packet at its ingress interface as well as
the time at which it transmits that packet from its egress interface.
These actions should be done as close to the physical layer as
possible at the same point of packet processing, striving to avoid
introducing the appearance of jitter in propagation delay whereas it
should be accounted as residence time. The RTM-capable node
determines the difference between those two times; for one-step
operation, this difference is determined just prior to or while
sending the packet, and the RTM-capable egress interface adds it to
the value in the Scratch Pad field of the message in progress. Note,
for the purpose of calculating a residence time, a common free
running clock synchronizing all the involved interfaces may be
sufficient, as, for example, 4.6 ppm accuracy leads to a 4.6
nanosecond error for residence time on the order of 1 millisecond.
This may be acceptable for applications where the target accuracy is
in the order of hundreds of nanoseconds. As an example, several
applications being considered in the area of wireless applications
are satisfied with an accuracy of 1.5 microseconds [ITU-T.G.8271].
For two-step operation, the difference between packet arrival time
(at an ingress interface) and subsequent departure time (from an
egress interface) is determined at some later time prior to sending a
subsequent follow-up message, so that this value can be used to
update the correctionField in the follow-up message.
See Section 2.1 for further details on the difference between one-
step and two-step operation.
The last RTM-capable node on the LSP MAY then use the value in the
Scratch Pad field to perform time correction, if there is no
follow-up message. For example, the egress node may be a PTP
boundary clock synchronized to a Master Clock and will use the value
in the Scratch Pad field to update PTP's correctionField.
6. Applicable PTP Scenarios
This approach can be directly integrated in a PTP network based on
the IEEE 1588 delay request-response mechanism. The RTM-capable
nodes act as end-to-end transparent clocks, and boundary clocks, at
the edges of the MPLS network, typically use the value in the Scratch
Pad field to update the correctionField of the corresponding PTP
event packet prior to performing the usual PTP processing.
7. IANA Considerations
7.1. New RTM G-ACh
IANA has assigned a new G-ACh as follows:
+--------+----------------------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+--------+----------------------------+---------------+
| 0x000F | Residence Time Measurement | This document |
+--------+----------------------------+---------------+
Table 1: New Residence Time Measurement
7.2. New MPLS RTM TLV Registry
IANA has created a sub-registry in the "Generic Associated Channel
(G-ACh) Parameters" registry called the "MPLS RTM TLV Registry". All
codepoints in the range 0 through 127 in this registry shall be
allocated according to the "IETF Review" procedure as specified in
[RFC5226]. Codepoints in the range 128 through 191 in this registry
shall be allocated according to the "First Come First Served"
procedure as specified in [RFC5226]. This document defines the
following new RTM TLV types:
+---------+-------------------------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+---------+-------------------------------+---------------+
| 0 | Reserved | This document |
| 1 | No payload | This document |
| 2 | PTPv2, Ethernet encapsulation | This document |
| 3 | PTPv2, IPv4 encapsulation | This document |
| 4 | PTPv2, IPv6 encapsulation | This document |
| 5 | NTP | This document |
| 6-191 | Unassigned | |
| 192-254 | Reserved for Private Use | This document |
| 255 | Reserved | This document |
+---------+-------------------------------+---------------+
Table 2: RTM TLV Types
7.3. New MPLS RTM Sub-TLV Registry
IANA has created a sub-registry in the "MPLS RTM TLV Registry" (see
Section 7.2) called the "MPLS RTM Sub-TLV Registry". All codepoints
in the range 0 through 127 in this registry shall be allocated
according to the "IETF Review" procedure as specified in [RFC5226].
Codepoints in the range 128 through 191 in this registry shall be
allocated according to the "First Come First Served" procedure as
specified in [RFC5226]. This document defines the following new RTM
sub-TLV types:
+---------+--------------------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+---------+--------------------------+---------------+
| 0 | Reserved | This document |
| 1 | PTP | This document |
| 2-191 | Unassigned | |
| 192-254 | Reserved for Private Use | This document |
| 255 | Reserved | This document |
+---------+--------------------------+---------------+
Table 3: RTM Sub-TLV Type
7.4. RTM Capability Sub-TLV in OSPFv2
IANA has assigned a new type for the RTM Capability sub-TLV in the
"OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV Sub-TLVs" registry as follows:
+-------+----------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+----------------+---------------+
| 5 | RTM Capability | This document |
+-------+----------------+---------------+
Table 4: RTM Capability Sub-TLV
7.5. RTM Capability Sub-TLV in IS-IS
IANA has assigned a new type for the RTM Capability sub-TLV from the
"Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 23, 141, 222, and 223" registry as follows:
+------+----------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+---------------+
| Type | Description | 22 | 23 | 141 | 222 | 223 | Reference |
+------+----------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+---------------+
| 40 | RTM Capability | y | y | n | y | y | This document |
+------+----------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+---------------+
Table 5: IS-IS RTM Capability Sub-TLV Registry Description
7.6. RTM Capability TLV in BGP-LS
IANA has assigned a new codepoint for the RTM Capability TLV from the
"BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and
Attribute TLVs" sub-registry in the "Border Gateway Protocol - Link
State (BGP-LS) Parameters" registry as follows:
+---------------+----------------+------------------+---------------+
| TLV Code | Description | IS-IS TLV/Sub- | Reference |
| Point | | TLV | |
+---------------+----------------+------------------+---------------+
| 1105 | RTM Capability | 22/40 | This document |
+---------------+----------------+------------------+---------------+
Table 6: RTM Capability TLV in BGP-LS
7.7. RTM_SET Sub-object RSVP Type and Sub-TLVs
IANA has assigned a new type for the RTM_SET sub-object from the
RSVP-TE "Attributes TLV Space" sub-registry as follows:
+------+------------+-----------+---------------+-----------+----------+
| Type | Name | Allowed | Allowed on | Allowed | Reference|
| | | on LSP_ | LSP_REQUIRED_ | on LSP | |
| | | ATTRIBUTES| ATTRIBUTES | Hop | |
| | | | | Attributes| |
+------+------------+-----------+---------------+-----------+----------+
| 5 | RTM_SET | Yes | No | No | This |
| | sub-object | | | | document |
+------+------------+-----------+---------------+-----------+----------+
Table 7: RTM_SET Sub-object Type
IANA has created a new sub-registry for sub-TLV types of the RTM_SET
sub-object called the "RTM_SET Object Sub-Object Types" registry.
All codepoints in the range 0 through 127 in this registry shall be
allocated according to the "IETF Review" procedure as specified in
[RFC5226]. Codepoints in the range 128 through 191 in this registry
shall be allocated according to the "First Come First Served"
procedure as specified in [RFC5226]. This document defines the
following new values of RTM_SET object sub-object types:
+---------+--------------------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+---------+--------------------------+---------------+
| 0 | Reserved | This document |
| 1 | IPv4 address | This document |
| 2 | IPv6 address | This document |
| 3 | Unnumbered interface | This document |
| 4-191 | Unassigned | |
| 192-254 | Reserved for Private Use | This document |
| 255 | Reserved | This document |
+---------+--------------------------+---------------+
Table 8: RTM_SET Object Sub-object Types
7.8. RTM_SET Attribute Flag
IANA has assigned a new flag in the RSVP-TE "Attribute Flags"
registry.
+-----+---------+-----------+-----------+-----+-----+---------------+
| Bit | Name | Attribute | Attribute | RRO | ERO | Reference |
| No | | Flags | Flags | | | |
| | | Path | Resv | | | |
+-----+---------+-----------+-----------+-----+-----+---------------+
| 15 | RTM_SET | Yes | Yes | No | No | This document |
+-----+---------+-----------+-----------+-----+-----+---------------+
Table 9: RTM_SET Attribute Flag
7.9. New Error Codes
IANA has assigned the following new error codes in the RSVP "Error
Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes" registry.
+------------+--------------------+---------------+
| Error Code | Meaning | Reference |
+------------+--------------------+---------------+
| 41 | Duplicate TLV | This document |
| 42 | Duplicate sub-TLV | This document |
| 43 | RTM_SET TLV Absent | This document |
+------------+--------------------+---------------+
Table 10: New Error Codes
8. Security Considerations
Routers that support RTM are subject to the same security
considerations as defined in [RFC4385] and [RFC5085].
In addition -- particularly as applied to use related to PTP -- there
is a presumed trust model that depends on the existence of a trusted
relationship of at least all PTP-aware nodes on the path traversed by
PTP messages. This is necessary as these nodes are expected to
correctly modify specific content of the data in PTP messages, and
proper operation of the protocol depends on this ability. In
practice, this means that those portions of messages cannot be
covered by either confidentiality or integrity protection. Though
there are methods that make it possible in theory to provide either
or both such protections and still allow for intermediate nodes to
make detectable but authenticated modifications, such methods do not
seem practical at present, particularly for timing protocols that are
sensitive to latency and/or jitter.
The ability to potentially authenticate and/or encrypt RTM and PTP
data for scenarios both with and without participation of
intermediate RTM-/PTP-capable nodes is left for further study.
While it is possible for a supposed compromised node to intercept and
modify the G-ACh content, this is an issue that exists for nodes in
general -- for any and all data that may be carried over an LSP --
and is therefore the basis for an additional presumed trust model
associated with existing LSPs and nodes.
Security requirements of time protocols are provided in RFC 7384
[RFC7384].
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[IEEE.1588]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for a Precision Clock Synchronization
Protocol for Networked Measurement and Control Systems",
IEEE Std 1588-2008, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2008.4579760.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC3477] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links
in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, DOI 10.17487/RFC3477, January 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3477>.
[RFC4385] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
"Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, DOI 10.17487/RFC4385,
February 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4385>.
[RFC5085] Nadeau, T., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Pseudowire Virtual
Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control
Channel for Pseudowires", RFC 5085, DOI 10.17487/RFC5085,
December 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5085>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC5420,
February 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5420>.
[RFC5586] Bocci, M., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed., and S. Bryant, Ed.,
"MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5586, June 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5586>.
[RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch,
"Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>.
[RFC6423] Li, H., Martini, L., He, J., and F. Huang, "Using the
Generic Associated Channel Label for Pseudowire in the
MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)", RFC 6423,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6423, November 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6423>.
[RFC7684] Psenak, P., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W.,
Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute
Advertisement", RFC 7684, DOI 10.17487/RFC7684, November
2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7684>.
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
9.2. Informative References
[ITU-T.G.8271]
ITU-T, "Time and phase synchronization aspects of packet
networks", ITU-T Recomendation G.8271/Y.1366, July 2016.
[OSPFV3-EXTENDED-LSA]
Lindem, A., Roy, A., Goethals, D., Vallem, V., and F.
Baker, "OSPFv3 LSA Extendibility", Work in Progress,
draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend-14, April 2017.
[RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing Extensions
in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4202, DOI 10.17487/RFC4202, October 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4202>.
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed.,
"LDP Specification", RFC 5036, DOI 10.17487/RFC5036,
October 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5036>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6374, September 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6374>.
[RFC7384] Mizrahi, T., "Security Requirements of Time Protocols in
Packet Switched Networks", RFC 7384, DOI 10.17487/RFC7384,
October 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7384>.
[TIMING-OVER-MPLS]
Davari, S., Oren, A., Bhatia, M., Roberts, P., and L.
Montini, "Transporting Timing messages over MPLS
Networks", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-tictoc-
1588overmpls-07, October 2015.
Acknowledgments
The authors want to thank Loa Andersson, Lou Berger, Acee Lindem, Les
Ginsberg, and Uma Chunduri for their thorough reviews, thoughtful
comments, and, most of all, patience.
Authors' Addresses
Greg Mirsky
ZTE Corp.
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Stefano Ruffini
Ericsson
Email: stefano.ruffini@ericsson.com
Eric Gray
Ericsson
Email: eric.gray@ericsson.com
John Drake
Juniper Networks
Email: jdrake@juniper.net
Stewart Bryant
Huawei
Email: stewart.bryant@gmail.com
Alexander Vainshtein
ECI Telecom
Email: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com
Vainshtein.alex@gmail.com