draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03.txt   draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-04.txt 
Link State Routing L. Ginsberg, Ed. Link State Routing L. Ginsberg, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Obsoletes: 7810 (if approved) S. Previdi, Ed. Obsoletes: 7810 (if approved) S. Previdi, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Intended status: Standards Track Huawei
Expires: June 2, 2019 S. Giacolone Expires: June 21, 2019 S. Giacolone
Microsoft Microsoft
D. Ward D. Ward
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
J. Drake J. Drake
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
Q. Wu Q. Wu
Huawei Huawei
November 29, 2018 December 18, 2018
IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03 draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-04
Abstract Abstract
In certain networks, such as, but not limited to, financial In certain networks, such as, but not limited to, financial
information networks (e.g., stock market data providers), network- information networks (e.g., stock market data providers), network-
performance criteria (e.g., latency) are becoming as critical to performance criteria (e.g., latency) are becoming as critical to
data-path selection as other metrics. data-path selection as other metrics.
This document describes extensions to IS-IS Traffic Engineering This document describes extensions to IS-IS Traffic Engineering
Extensions (RFC 5305) such that network-performance information can Extensions (RFC 5305) such that network-performance information can
skipping to change at page 2, line 20 skipping to change at page 2, line 20
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 2, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 21, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 5, line 32 skipping to change at page 5, line 32
cleared. In this case, a receiving node can conceivably do whatever cleared. In this case, a receiving node can conceivably do whatever
re-optimization (or failback) it wishes to do (including nothing). 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 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 cannot be used for failover purposes. The A bit was intentionally
omitted from some sub-TLVs to help mitigate oscillations. See omitted from some sub-TLVs to help mitigate oscillations. See
Section 5 for more information. Section 5 for more information.
Consistent with existing IS-IS TE specification [RFC5305], the Consistent with existing IS-IS TE specification [RFC5305], the
bandwidth advertisements defined in this document MUST be encoded as bandwidth advertisements defined in this document MUST be encoded as
IEEE floating-point values. The delay and delay-variation IEEE floating-point values [IEEE754]. The delay and delay-variation
advertisements defined in this document MUST be encoded as integer advertisements defined in this document MUST be encoded as integer
values. Delay values MUST be quantified in units of microseconds, values. Delay values MUST be quantified in units of microseconds,
packet loss MUST be quantified as a percentage of packets sent, and packet loss MUST be quantified as a percentage of packets sent, and
bandwidth MUST be sent as bytes per second. All values (except bandwidth MUST be sent as bytes per second. All values (except
residual bandwidth) MUST be calculated as rolling averages where the residual bandwidth) MUST be calculated as rolling averages where the
averaging period MUST be a configurable period of time. See averaging period MUST be a configurable period of time. See
Section 5 for more information. Section 5 for more information.
3. Interface and Neighbor Addresses 3. Interface and Neighbor Addresses
skipping to change at page 15, line 23 skipping to change at page 15, line 23
36 Unidirectional Link Loss 36 Unidirectional Link Loss
37 Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth 37 Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth
38 Unidirectional Available Bandwidth 38 Unidirectional Available Bandwidth
39 Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth 39 Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth
13. Acknowledgements 13. Acknowledgements
For the original version of this document the authors recognized In [RFC7810] the authors recognized Ayman Soliman, Nabil Bitar, David
Ayman Soliman, Nabil Bitar, David McDysan, Edward Crabbe, Don Fedyk, McDysan, Edward Crabbe, Don Fedyk, Hannes Gredler, Uma Chunduri,
Hannes Gredler, Uma Chunduri, Alvaro Retana, Brian Weis, and Barry Alvaro Retana, Brian Weis, and Barry Leiba for their contribution and
Leiba for their contribution and review of this document. review of this document.
The authors also recognized Curtis Villamizar for significant The authors also recognized Curtis Villamizar for significant
comments and direct content collaboration. comments and direct content collaboration.
For the second version of this document the authors thank Jeff Haas For this document the authors thank Jeff Haas for identifying and
for identifying and reporting the incorrect encoding of the bandwidth reporting the incorrect encoding of the bandwidth related sub-TLVs.
related sub-TLVs.
14. Contributors 14. Contributors
The following people contributed substantially to the content of this The following people contributed substantially to the content of this
document and should be considered co-authors: document and should be considered co-authors:
Alia Atlas Alia Atlas
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
United States United States
skipping to change at page 16, line 9 skipping to change at page 16, line 9
Clarence Filsfils Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems Inc. Cisco Systems Inc.
Belgium Belgium
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
15. References 15. References
15.1. Normative References 15.1. Normative References
[IEEE754] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Computer
Society, "IEEE Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic.
IEEE Std 754-2008", IEEESTD 2008.4610935, Aug 2008.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4206] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP) [RFC4206] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206, (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4206, October 2005, DOI 10.17487/RFC4206, October 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4206>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4206>.
skipping to change at page 17, line 15 skipping to change at page 17, line 20
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
15.2. Informative References 15.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp] [I-D.ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp]
Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., Wu, Q., Tantsura, J., and C. Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., Wu, Q., Tantsura, J., and C.
Filsfils, "BGP-LS Advertisement of IGP Traffic Engineering Filsfils, "BGP-LS Advertisement of IGP Traffic Engineering
Performance Metric Extensions", draft-ietf-idr-te-pm- Performance Metric Extensions", draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-
bgp-14 (work in progress), October 2018. bgp-17 (work in progress), December 2018.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001, Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in [RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC4203, October 2005, (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC4203, October 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4203>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4203>.
 End of changes. 9 change blocks. 
13 lines changed or deleted 16 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/