1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
|
<pre>Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Ginsberg, Ed.
Request for Comments: 8570 Cisco Systems, Inc.
Obsoletes: <a href="./rfc7810">7810</a> S. Previdi, Ed.
Category: Standards Track Huawei
ISSN: 2070-1721 S. Giacalone
Microsoft
D. Ward
Cisco Systems, Inc.
J. Drake
Juniper Networks
Q. Wu
Huawei
March 2019
<span class="h1">IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions</span>
Abstract
In certain networks, such as, but not limited to, financial
information networks (e.g., stock market data providers), network-
performance criteria (e.g., latency) are becoming as critical to
data-path selection as other metrics.
This document describes extensions to IS-IS Traffic Engineering
Extensions (<a href="./rfc5305">RFC 5305</a>). These extensions provide a way to distribute
and collect network-performance information in a scalable fashion.
The information distributed using IS-IS TE Metric Extensions can then
be used to make path-selection decisions based on network
performance.
Note that this document only covers the mechanisms with which
network-performance information is distributed. The mechanisms for
measuring network performance or acting on that information, once
distributed, are outside the scope of this document.
This document obsoletes <a href="./rfc7810">RFC 7810</a>.
<span class="grey">Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8570">RFC 8570</a> IS-IS TE Metric Extensions March 2019</span>
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 <a href="./rfc7841#section-2">Section 2 of RFC 7841</a>.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8570">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8570</a>.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a> and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(<a href="https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info">https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info</a>) 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.
<span class="grey">Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8570">RFC 8570</a> IS-IS TE Metric Extensions March 2019</span>
Table of Contents
<a href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction ....................................................<a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>. Requirements Language ......................................<a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-2">2</a>. TE Metric Extensions to IS-IS ...................................<a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-3">3</a>. Interface and Neighbor Addresses ................................<a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-4">4</a>. Sub-TLV Details .................................................<a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>. Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV ..........................<a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>. Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV ..................<a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-4.3">4.3</a>. Unidirectional Delay Variation Sub-TLV .....................<a href="#page-9">9</a>
<a href="#section-4.4">4.4</a>. Unidirectional Link Loss Sub-TLV ..........................<a href="#page-10">10</a>
<a href="#section-4.5">4.5</a>. Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth Sub-TLV .................<a href="#page-11">11</a>
<a href="#section-4.6">4.6</a>. Unidirectional Available Bandwidth Sub-TLV ................<a href="#page-12">12</a>
<a href="#section-4.7">4.7</a>. Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth Sub-TLV .................<a href="#page-13">13</a>
<a href="#section-5">5</a>. Announcement Thresholds and Filters ............................<a href="#page-13">13</a>
<a href="#section-6">6</a>. Announcement Suppression .......................................<a href="#page-14">14</a>
<a href="#section-7">7</a>. Network Stability and Announcement Periodicity .................<a href="#page-15">15</a>
<a href="#section-8">8</a>. Enabling and Disabling Sub-TLVs ................................<a href="#page-15">15</a>
<a href="#section-9">9</a>. Static Metric Override .........................................<a href="#page-15">15</a>
<a href="#section-10">10</a>. Compatibility .................................................<a href="#page-15">15</a>
<a href="#section-11">11</a>. Security Considerations .......................................<a href="#page-15">15</a>
<a href="#section-12">12</a>. IANA Considerations ...........................................<a href="#page-16">16</a>
<a href="#section-13">13</a>. References ....................................................<a href="#page-17">17</a>
<a href="#section-13.1">13.1</a>. Normative References .....................................<a href="#page-17">17</a>
<a href="#section-13.2">13.2</a>. Informative References ...................................<a href="#page-18">18</a>
<a href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>. Changes from <a href="./rfc7810">RFC 7810</a> .................................<a href="#page-19">19</a>
Acknowledgements ..................................................<a href="#page-20">20</a>
Contributors ......................................................<a href="#page-20">20</a>
Authors' Addresses ................................................<a href="#page-21">21</a>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>
In certain networks, such as, but not limited to, financial
information networks (e.g., stock market data providers), network-
performance information (e.g., latency) is becoming as critical to
data-path selection as other metrics.
In these networks, extremely large amounts of money rest on the
ability to access market data in "real time" and to predictably make
trades faster than the competition. Because of this, using metrics
such as hop count or cost as routing metrics is becoming only
tangentially important. Rather, it would be beneficial to be able to
make path-selection decisions based on performance data (such as
latency) in a cost-effective and scalable way.
<span class="grey">Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8570">RFC 8570</a> IS-IS TE Metric Extensions March 2019</span>
This document describes extensions (hereafter called "IS-IS TE Metric
Extensions") to the Extended IS Reachability TLV defined in
[<a href="./rfc5305" title=""IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering"">RFC5305</a>]; these extensions can be used to distribute network-
performance information (such as link delay, delay variation, packet
loss, residual bandwidth, and available bandwidth).
The data distributed by the IS-IS TE Metric Extensions described in
this document is meant to be used as part of the operation of the
routing protocol (e.g., by replacing cost with latency or considering
bandwidth as well as cost), to enhance Constrained Shortest Path
First (CSPF), or for other uses such as supplementing the data used
by an Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) server [<a href="./rfc7285" title=""Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Protocol"">RFC7285</a>].
With respect to CSPF, the data distributed by IS-IS TE Metric
Extensions can be used to set up, fail over, and fail back data paths
using protocols such as RSVP-TE [<a href="./rfc3209" title=""RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels"">RFC3209</a>].
Note that the mechanisms described in this document only disseminate
performance information. The methods for initially gathering that
performance information (such as the methods described in [<a href="./rfc6375" title=""A Packet Loss and Delay Measurement Profile for MPLS-Based Transport Networks"">RFC6375</a>])
or how to act on the information once it is distributed are outside
the scope of this document. Example mechanisms to measure latency,
delay variation, and loss in an MPLS network are given in [<a href="./rfc6374" title=""Packet Loss and Delay Measurement for MPLS Networks"">RFC6374</a>].
While this document does not specify how the performance information
should be obtained, the measurement of delay SHOULD NOT vary
significantly based upon the offered traffic load. Thus, queuing
delays SHOULD NOT be included in the delay measurement. For links
such as forwarding adjacencies [<a href="./rfc4206" title=""Label Switched Paths (LSP) Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)"">RFC4206</a>], care must be taken that
measurement of the associated delay avoids significant queuing
delays; that could be accomplished in a variety of ways, including
either (1) measuring with a traffic class that experiences minimal
queuing or (2) summing the measured link delays of the components of
the link's path.
This document obsoletes [<a href="./rfc7810" title=""IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions"">RFC7810</a>].
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-1.1" href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>. Requirements Language</span>
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
<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a> [<a href="./rfc2119" title=""Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels"">RFC2119</a>] [<a href="./rfc8174" title=""Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words"">RFC8174</a>] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
<span class="grey">Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8570">RFC 8570</a> IS-IS TE Metric Extensions March 2019</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>. TE Metric Extensions to IS-IS</span>
This document registers new IS-IS TE sub-TLVs in the "Sub-TLVs for
TLVs 22, 23, 141, 222, and 223" registry. These new sub-TLVs provide
ways to distribute network-performance information. The extensions
in this document build on the extensions provided in IS-IS TE
[<a href="./rfc5305" title=""IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering"">RFC5305</a>] and GMPLS [<a href="./rfc4203" title=""OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)"">RFC4203</a>].
The Extended IS Reachability TLV (type 22) (defined in [<a href="./rfc5305" title=""IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering"">RFC5305</a>]),
Inter-AS Reachability TLV (also called "inter-AS reachability
information TLV") (type 141) (defined in [<a href="./rfc5316" title=""ISIS Extensions in Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering"">RFC5316</a>]), and MT-ISN TLV
(type 222) (defined in [<a href="./rfc5120" title=""M-ISIS: Multi Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)"">RFC5120</a>]) have nested sub-TLVs that permit
the TLVs to be readily extended. This document registers several
sub-TLVs:
Type Description
----------------------------------------------------
33 Unidirectional Link Delay
34 Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay
35 Unidirectional Delay Variation
36 Unidirectional Link Loss
37 Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth
38 Unidirectional Available Bandwidth
39 Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth
As can be seen in the list above, the sub-TLVs described in this
document carry different types of network-performance information.
The new sub-TLVs include a bit called the Anomalous (or "A") bit.
When the A bit is clear (or when the sub-TLV does not include an
A bit), the sub-TLV describes steady-state link performance. This
information could conceivably be used to construct a steady-state
performance topology for initial tunnel-path computation or to verify
alternative failover paths.
When network performance violates configurable link-local thresholds,
a sub-TLV with the A bit set is advertised. That sub-TLV could be
used by the receiving node to determine whether to (1) fail traffic
to a backup path or (2) calculate an entirely new path. From an MPLS
perspective, the intent of the A bit is to permit label switched path
ingress nodes to determine whether the link referenced in the sub-TLV
affects any of the label switched paths for which it is ingress. If
<span class="grey">Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8570">RFC 8570</a> IS-IS TE Metric Extensions March 2019</span>
they are affected, then they can determine whether those label
switched paths still meet end-to-end performance objectives. If not,
then the node could conceivably move affected traffic to a
pre-established protection label switched path or establish a new
label switched path and place the traffic in it.
If link performance then improves beyond a configurable minimum value
(reuse threshold), that sub-TLV can be re-advertised with the A bit
cleared. In this case, a receiving node can conceivably do whatever
re-optimization (or failback) it wishes to do (including nothing).
Note that when a sub-TLV does not include the A bit, that sub-TLV
cannot be used for failover purposes. The A bit was intentionally
omitted from some sub-TLVs to help mitigate oscillations. See
<a href="#section-5">Section 5</a> for more information.
Consistent with the existing IS-IS TE specification [<a href="./rfc5305" title=""IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering"">RFC5305</a>], the
bandwidth advertisements defined in this document MUST be encoded as
IEEE floating-point values [<a href="#ref-IEEE754" title=""IEEE Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic"">IEEE754</a>]. The delay and delay-variation
advertisements defined in this document MUST be encoded as integer
values. Delay values MUST be quantified in units of microseconds,
packet loss MUST be quantified as a percentage of packets sent, and
bandwidth MUST be sent as bytes per second. All values (except
residual bandwidth) MUST be calculated as rolling averages, where the
averaging period MUST be a configurable period of time. See
<a href="#section-5">Section 5</a> for more information.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. Interface and Neighbor Addresses</span>
The use of IS-IS TE Metric Extensions sub-TLVs is not confined to the
TE context. In other words, IS-IS TE Metric Extensions sub-TLVs
defined in this document can also be used for computing paths in the
absence of a TE subsystem.
However, as for the TE case, Interface Address and Neighbor Address
sub-TLVs (IPv4 or IPv6) MUST be present. The encoding is defined in
[<a href="./rfc5305" title=""IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering"">RFC5305</a>] for IPv4 and in [<a href="./rfc6119" title=""IPv6 Traffic Engineering in IS-IS"">RFC6119</a>] for IPv6.
<span class="grey">Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8570">RFC 8570</a> IS-IS TE Metric Extensions March 2019</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. Sub-TLV Details</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.1" href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>. Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV</span>
This sub-TLV advertises the average link delay between two directly
connected IS-IS neighbors. The delay advertised by this sub-TLV MUST
be the delay from the local neighbor to the remote neighbor (i.e.,
the forward-path latency). The format of this sub-TLV is shown in
the following diagram:
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A| RESERVED | Delay |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1
where:
Type: 33
Length: 4
A bit: This field represents the Anomalous (A) bit. The A bit is
set when the measured value of this parameter exceeds its
configured maximum threshold. The A bit is cleared when the
measured value falls below its configured reuse threshold. If the
A bit is cleared, the sub-TLV represents steady-state link
performance.
RESERVED: This field is reserved for future use. It MUST be set
to 0 when sent and MUST be ignored when received.
Delay: This 24-bit field carries the average link delay over a
configurable interval in microseconds, encoded as an integer
value. When set to the maximum value 16,777,215
(16.777215 seconds), then the delay is at least that value and may
be larger.
<span class="grey">Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8570">RFC 8570</a> IS-IS TE Metric Extensions March 2019</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2" href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>. Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV</span>
This sub-TLV advertises the minimum and maximum delay values between
two directly connected IS-IS neighbors. The delay advertised by this
sub-TLV MUST be the delay from the local neighbor to the remote
neighbor (i.e., the forward-path latency). The format of this
sub-TLV is shown in the following diagram:
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A| RESERVED | Min Delay |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RESERVED | Max Delay |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2
where:
Type: 34
Length: 8
A bit: This field represents the Anomalous (A) bit. The A bit is
set when one or more measured values exceed a configured maximum
threshold. The A bit is cleared when the measured value falls
below its configured reuse threshold. If the A bit is cleared,
the sub-TLV represents steady-state link performance.
RESERVED: This field is reserved for future use. It MUST be set
to 0 when sent and MUST be ignored when received.
Min Delay: This 24-bit field carries the minimum measured link delay
value (in microseconds) over a configurable interval, encoded as
an integer value.
Max Delay: This 24-bit field carries the maximum measured link delay
value (in microseconds) over a configurable interval, encoded as
an integer value.
Implementations MAY also permit the configuration of an offset value
(in microseconds) to be added to the measured delay value, to
facilitate the communication of operator-specific delay constraints.
<span class="grey">Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-9" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8570">RFC 8570</a> IS-IS TE Metric Extensions March 2019</span>
It is possible for Min Delay and Max Delay to be the same value.
When the delay value (Min Delay or Max Delay) is set to the maximum
value 16,777,215 (16.777215 seconds), then the delay is at least that
value and may be larger.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.3" href="#section-4.3">4.3</a>. Unidirectional Delay Variation Sub-TLV</span>
This sub-TLV advertises the average link delay variation between two
directly connected IS-IS neighbors. The delay variation advertised
by this sub-TLV MUST be the delay from the local neighbor to the
remote neighbor (i.e., the forward-path latency). The format of this
sub-TLV is shown in the following diagram:
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 | Delay Variation |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3
where:
Type: 35
Length: 4
RESERVED: This field is reserved for future use. It MUST be set
to 0 when sent and MUST be ignored when received.
Delay Variation: This 24-bit field carries the average link delay
variation over a configurable interval in microseconds, encoded as
an integer value. When set to 0, it has not been measured. When
set to the maximum value 16,777,215 (16.777215 seconds), then the
delay is at least that value and may be larger.
<span class="grey">Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-10" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8570">RFC 8570</a> IS-IS TE Metric Extensions March 2019</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.4" href="#section-4.4">4.4</a>. Unidirectional Link Loss Sub-TLV</span>
This sub-TLV advertises the loss (as a packet percentage) between two
directly connected IS-IS neighbors. The link loss advertised by this
sub-TLV MUST be the packet loss from the local neighbor to the remote
neighbor (i.e., the forward-path loss). The format of this sub-TLV
is shown in the following diagram:
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A| RESERVED | Link Loss |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4
where:
Type: 36
Length: 4
A bit: This field represents the Anomalous (A) bit. The A bit is
set when the measured value of this parameter exceeds its
configured maximum threshold. The A bit is cleared when the
measured value falls below its configured reuse threshold. If the
A bit is cleared, the sub-TLV represents steady-state link
performance.
RESERVED: This field is reserved for future use. It MUST be set
to 0 when sent and MUST be ignored when received.
Link Loss: This 24-bit field carries link packet loss as a
percentage of the total traffic sent over a configurable interval.
The basic unit is 0.000003%, where (2^24 - 2) is 50.331642%. This
value is the highest packet-loss percentage that can be expressed
(the assumptions being that (1) precision is more important on
high-speed links than the ability to advertise loss rates greater
than this and (2) high-speed links with over 50% loss are
unusable). Therefore, measured values that are larger than the
field maximum SHOULD be encoded as the maximum value.
<span class="grey">Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-11" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8570">RFC 8570</a> IS-IS TE Metric Extensions March 2019</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.5" href="#section-4.5">4.5</a>. Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth Sub-TLV</span>
This sub-TLV advertises the residual bandwidth between two directly
connected IS-IS neighbors. The residual bandwidth advertised by this
sub-TLV MUST be the residual bandwidth from the system originating
the Link State Advertisement (LSA) to its neighbor.
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Residual Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5
where:
Type: 37
Length: 4
Residual Bandwidth: This field carries the residual bandwidth on a
link, forwarding adjacency [<a href="./rfc4206" title=""Label Switched Paths (LSP) Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)"">RFC4206</a>], or bundled link in IEEE
floating-point format with units of bytes per second. For a link
or forwarding adjacency, residual bandwidth is defined to be the
maximum bandwidth [<a href="./rfc5305" title=""IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering"">RFC5305</a>] minus the bandwidth currently
allocated to RSVP-TE label switched paths. For a bundled link,
residual bandwidth is defined to be the sum of the component link
residual bandwidths.
The calculation of residual bandwidth is different than that of
unreserved bandwidth [<a href="./rfc5305" title=""IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering"">RFC5305</a>]. This calculation subtracts tunnel
reservations from maximum bandwidth (i.e., the link capacity)
[<a href="./rfc5305" title=""IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering"">RFC5305</a>] and provides an aggregated remainder across priorities.
Unreserved bandwidth, on the other hand, is subtracted from the
maximum reservable bandwidth (the bandwidth that can theoretically
be reserved) and provides per-priority remainders. Residual
bandwidth and unreserved bandwidth [<a href="./rfc5305" title=""IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering"">RFC5305</a>] can be used
concurrently, and each has a separate use case (e.g., the former
can be used for applications like Weighted ECMP, while the latter
can be used for call admission control).
<span class="grey">Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-12" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8570">RFC 8570</a> IS-IS TE Metric Extensions March 2019</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.6" href="#section-4.6">4.6</a>. Unidirectional Available Bandwidth Sub-TLV</span>
This sub-TLV advertises the available bandwidth between two directly
connected IS-IS neighbors. The available bandwidth advertised by
this sub-TLV MUST be the available bandwidth from the system
originating this sub-TLV. The format of this sub-TLV is shown in the
following diagram:
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Available Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6
where:
Type: 38
Length: 4
Available Bandwidth: This field carries the available bandwidth on a
link, forwarding adjacency, or bundled link in IEEE floating-point
format with units of bytes per second. For a link or forwarding
adjacency, available bandwidth is defined to be residual bandwidth
(see <a href="#section-4.5">Section 4.5</a>) minus the measured bandwidth used for the actual
forwarding of non-RSVP-TE label switched path packets. For a
bundled link, available bandwidth is defined to be the sum of the
component link available bandwidths.
<span class="grey">Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-13" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8570">RFC 8570</a> IS-IS TE Metric Extensions March 2019</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.7" href="#section-4.7">4.7</a>. Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth Sub-TLV</span>
This sub-TLV advertises the bandwidth utilization between two
directly connected IS-IS neighbors. The bandwidth utilization
advertised by this sub-TLV MUST be the bandwidth from the system
originating this sub-TLV. The format of this sub-TLV is shown in the
following diagram:
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Utilized Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7
where:
Type: 39
Length: 4
Utilized Bandwidth: This field carries the bandwidth utilization on
a link, forwarding adjacency, or bundled link in IEEE
floating-point format with units of bytes per second. For a link
or forwarding adjacency, bandwidth utilization represents the
actual utilization of the link (i.e., as measured by the
advertising node). For a bundled link, bandwidth utilization is
defined to be the sum of the component link bandwidth
utilizations.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. Announcement Thresholds and Filters</span>
The values advertised in all sub-TLVs (except minimum/maximum delay
and residual bandwidth) MUST represent an average over a period of
time or be obtained by a filter that is reasonably representative of
an average. For example, a rolling average is one such filter.
Minimum and maximum delay MUST each be derived in one of the
following ways: by taking the lowest and/or highest measured value
over a measurement interval or by making use of a filter or other
technique to obtain a reasonable representation of a minimum value
and a maximum value representative of the interval, with compensation
for outliers.
<span class="grey">Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-14" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8570">RFC 8570</a> IS-IS TE Metric Extensions March 2019</span>
The measurement interval, any filter coefficients, and any
advertisement intervals MUST be configurable per sub-TLV.
In addition to the measurement intervals governing re-advertisement,
implementations SHOULD provide configurable accelerated advertisement
thresholds per sub-TLV, such that:
1. If the measured parameter falls outside a configured upper bound
for all but the minimum delay metric (or lower bound for the
minimum delay metric only) and the advertised sub-TLV is not
already outside that bound, or
2. If the difference between the last advertised value and current
measured value exceeds a configured threshold, then
3. The advertisement is made immediately.
4. For sub-TLVs that include an A bit, an additional threshold
SHOULD be included corresponding to the threshold for which the
performance is considered anomalous (and sub-TLVs with the A bit
are sent). The A bit is cleared when the sub-TLV's performance
has been below (or re-crosses) this threshold for one or more
advertisement intervals to permit failback.
To prevent oscillations, only the high threshold or the low threshold
(but not both) may be used to trigger any given sub-TLV that
supports both.
Additionally, once outside the bounds of the threshold, any
re-advertisement of a measurement within the bounds would remain
governed solely by the measurement interval for that sub-TLV.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>. Announcement Suppression</span>
When link-performance values change by small amounts that fall under
thresholds that would cause the announcement of a sub-TLV,
implementations SHOULD suppress sub-TLV re-advertisement and/or
lengthen the period within which the sub-TLVs are refreshed.
Only the accelerated advertisement threshold mechanism described in
<a href="#section-5">Section 5</a> may shorten the re-advertisement interval. All suppression
and re-advertisement interval backoff timer features SHOULD be
configurable.
<span class="grey">Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-15" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8570">RFC 8570</a> IS-IS TE Metric Extensions March 2019</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-7" href="#section-7">7</a>. Network Stability and Announcement Periodicity</span>
Sections <a href="#section-5">5</a> and <a href="#section-6">6</a> provide configurable mechanisms to bound the number
of re-advertisements. Instability might occur in very large networks
if measurement intervals are set low enough to overwhelm the
processing of flooded information at some of the routers in the
topology. Therefore, care should be taken in setting these values.
Additionally, the default measurement interval for all sub-TLVs
SHOULD be 30 seconds.
Announcements MUST also be able to be throttled using configurable
inter-update throttle timers. The minimum announcement periodicity
is one announcement per second. The default value SHOULD be set to
120 seconds.
Implementations SHOULD NOT permit the inter-update timer to be lower
than the measurement interval.
Furthermore, it is RECOMMENDED that any underlying performance-
measurement mechanisms not include any significant buffer delay, any
significant buffer-induced delay variation, or any significant loss
due to buffer overflow or due to active queue management.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-8" href="#section-8">8</a>. Enabling and Disabling Sub-TLVs</span>
Implementations MUST make it possible to individually enable or
disable each sub-TLV based on configuration.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-9" href="#section-9">9</a>. Static Metric Override</span>
Implementations SHOULD permit static configuration and/or manual
override of dynamic measurements for each sub-TLV in order to
simplify migration and to mitigate scenarios where dynamic
measurements are not possible.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-10" href="#section-10">10</a>. Compatibility</span>
As per [<a href="./rfc5305" title=""IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering"">RFC5305</a>], unrecognized sub-TLVs should be silently ignored.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-11" href="#section-11">11</a>. Security Considerations</span>
The sub-TLVs introduced in this document allow an operator to
advertise state information of links (bandwidth, delay) that could be
sensitive and that an operator may not want to disclose.
<a href="#section-7">Section 7</a> describes a mechanism to ensure network stability when the
new sub-TLVs defined in this document are advertised.
<span class="grey">Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-16" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8570">RFC 8570</a> IS-IS TE Metric Extensions March 2019</span>
Implementations SHOULD follow the described guidelines to mitigate
the risk of instability.
[<a id="ref-RFC5304">RFC5304</a>] describes an authentication method for IS-IS Link State
PDUs that allows cryptographic authentication of IS-IS Link State
PDUs.
It is anticipated that in most deployments, the IS-IS protocol is
used within an infrastructure entirely under the control of the same
operator. However, it is worth considering that the effect of
sending IS-IS Traffic Engineering sub-TLVs over insecure links could
include a man-in-the-middle attacker delaying real-time data to a
given site or destination; this could negatively affect the value of
the data for that site or destination. The use of Link State PDU
cryptographic authentication allows mitigation of the risk of
man-in-the-middle attacks.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-12" href="#section-12">12</a>. IANA Considerations</span>
IANA maintains the registry for the sub-TLVs. IANA has registered
the following sub-TLVs in the "Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 23, 141, 222,
and 223" registry:
Type Description
----------------------------------------------------
33 Unidirectional Link Delay
34 Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay
35 Unidirectional Delay Variation
36 Unidirectional Link Loss
37 Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth
38 Unidirectional Available Bandwidth
39 Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth
<span class="grey">Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-17" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8570">RFC 8570</a> IS-IS TE Metric Extensions March 2019</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-13" href="#section-13">13</a>. References</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-13.1" href="#section-13.1">13.1</a>. Normative References</span>
[<a id="ref-IEEE754">IEEE754</a>] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "IEEE
Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic", IEEE
Std 754-2008.
[<a id="ref-RFC2119">RFC2119</a>] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC4206">RFC4206</a>] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", <a href="./rfc4206">RFC 4206</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4206, October 2005,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4206">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4206</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC5120">RFC5120</a>] Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi
Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to
Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", <a href="./rfc5120">RFC 5120</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5120, February 2008,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5120">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5120</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC5304">RFC5304</a>] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic
Authentication", <a href="./rfc5304">RFC 5304</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC5304,
October 2008, <<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5304">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5304</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC5305">RFC5305</a>] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", <a href="./rfc5305">RFC 5305</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305,
October 2008, <<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC5316">RFC5316</a>] Chen, M., Zhang, R., and X. Duan, "ISIS Extensions in
Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS
Traffic Engineering", <a href="./rfc5316">RFC 5316</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC5316,
December 2008, <<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5316">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5316</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC6119">RFC6119</a>] Harrison, J., Berger, J., and M. Bartlett, "IPv6 Traffic
Engineering in IS-IS", <a href="./rfc6119">RFC 6119</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC6119,
February 2011, <<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6119">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6119</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC7471">RFC7471</a>] Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., Atlas, A., and S.
Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Extensions", <a href="./rfc7471">RFC 7471</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC7471, March 2015,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7471">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7471</a>>.
<span class="grey">Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-18" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8570">RFC 8570</a> IS-IS TE Metric Extensions March 2019</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC7810">RFC7810</a>] Previdi, S., Ed., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., and
Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions",
<a href="./rfc7810">RFC 7810</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC7810, May 2016,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7810">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7810</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC8174">RFC8174</a>] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in
<a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a> Key Words", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc8174">RFC 8174</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174</a>>.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-13.2" href="#section-13.2">13.2</a>. Informative References</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC3209">RFC3209</a>] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", <a href="./rfc3209">RFC 3209</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC4203">RFC4203</a>] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", <a href="./rfc4203">RFC 4203</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC4203, October 2005,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4203">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4203</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC6374">RFC6374</a>] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
Measurement for MPLS Networks", <a href="./rfc6374">RFC 6374</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6374, September 2011,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6374">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6374</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC6375">RFC6375</a>] Frost, D., Ed. and S. Bryant, Ed., "A Packet Loss and
Delay Measurement Profile for MPLS-Based Transport
Networks", <a href="./rfc6375">RFC 6375</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC6375, September 2011,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6375">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6375</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC7285">RFC7285</a>] Alimi, R., Ed., Penno, R., Ed., Yang, Y., Ed., Kiesel, S.,
Previdi, S., Roome, W., Shalunov, S., and R. Woundy,
"Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Protocol",
<a href="./rfc7285">RFC 7285</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC7285, September 2014,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7285">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7285</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC8571">RFC8571</a>] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Previdi, S., Wu, Q., Tantsura, J., and
C. Filsfils, "BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) Advertisement of
IGP Traffic Engineering Performance Metric Extensions",
<a href="./rfc8571">RFC 8571</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC8571, March 2019,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8571">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8571</a>>.
<span class="grey">Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-19" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8570">RFC 8570</a> IS-IS TE Metric Extensions March 2019</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-A" href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>. Changes from <a href="./rfc7810">RFC 7810</a></span>
Errata ID 5293 (<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5293">https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5293</a>) correctly
identified that in [<a href="./rfc7810" title=""IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions"">RFC7810</a>] the length associated with the following
sub-TLVs did not match the figures associated with each:
37 Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth
38 Unidirectional Available Bandwidth
39 Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth
The length specified was 4, which did not include the RESERVED field
shown in the figures. Subsequent investigation revealed that some
implementations had used the specified length (4) and omitted the
RESERVED field while other implementations included the specified
RESERVED field and used a length of 5.
Because these different implementation choices are not interoperable,
it was decided that a bis version should be generated to resolve this
ambiguity.
The choice made here is to omit the unused RESERVED field from these
sub-TLVs and use the length of 4. This matches the corresponding
advertisements specified in the equivalent OSPF TE specification
[<a href="./rfc7471" title=""OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions"">RFC7471</a>] and the corresponding BGP - Link State (BGP-LS)
specification [<a href="./rfc8571" title=""BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) Advertisement of IGP Traffic Engineering Performance Metric Extensions"">RFC8571</a>].
Some minor editorial corrections have also been made.
Errata ID 5486 (<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5486">https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5486</a>) identified
that in <a href="./rfc7810#section-4.6">Section 4.6 of [RFC7810]</a> the definition of available
bandwidth on bundled links used a circular definition, i.e., it used
"sum of the component link available bandwidths" when it should have
used "sum of the component link residual bandwidths". This has been
corrected and clarified.
<span class="grey">Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-20" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8570">RFC 8570</a> IS-IS TE Metric Extensions March 2019</span>
Acknowledgements
In [<a href="./rfc7810" title=""IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions"">RFC7810</a>], the authors recognized Ayman Soliman, Nabil Bitar,
David McDysan, Edward Crabbe, Don Fedyk, Hannes Gredler, Uma
Chunduri, Alvaro Retana, Brian Weis, and Barry Leiba for their
contributions and reviews of this document.
The authors also recognized Curtis Villamizar for significant
comments and direct content collaboration.
For this document, the authors thank Jeff Haas for identifying and
reporting the incorrect encoding of the bandwidth-related sub-TLVs.
Contributors
The following people contributed substantially to the content of this
document and should be considered coauthors:
Alia Atlas
Juniper Networks
United States of America
Email: akatlas@juniper.net
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Belgium
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
<span class="grey">Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-21" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8570">RFC 8570</a> IS-IS TE Metric Extensions March 2019</span>
Authors' Addresses
Les Ginsberg (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: ginsberg@cisco.com
Stefano Previdi (editor)
Huawei
Email: stefano@previdi.net
Spencer Giacalone
Microsoft
Email: spencer.giacalone@gmail.com
Dave Ward
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: wardd@cisco.com
John Drake
Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
United States of America
Email: jdrake@juniper.net
Qin Wu
Huawei
101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
China
Email: bill.wu@huawei.com
Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 21]
</pre>
|
