draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension-00.txt   draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension-01.txt 
Network Working Group B. Cheng Network Working Group B. Cheng
Internet-Draft Lincoln Laboratory Internet-Draft Lincoln Laboratory
Intended status: Standards Track L. Berger, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track L. Berger, Ed.
Expires: August 13, 2017 LabN Consulting, L.L.C. Expires: May 3, 2018 LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
February 9, 2017 October 30, 2017
DLEP Lantency Range Extension DLEP Lantency Range Extension
draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension-00 draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension-01
Abstract Abstract
This document defines an extension to the DLEP protocol to provide This document defines an extension to the DLEP protocol to provide
the range of latency that may be experienced on a link. the range of latency that may be experienced on a link.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at 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 August 13, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 3, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
skipping to change at page 2, line 20 skipping to change at page 2, line 20
3. Latency Range Data Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Latency Range Data Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.1. Extension Type Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5.1. Extension Type Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.2. Data Item Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5.2. Data Item Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Dynamic Link Event Protocol (DLEP) is defined in The Dynamic Link Event Protocol (DLEP) is defined in [RFC8175]. It
[I-D.ietf-manet-dlep]. It provides the exchange of link related provides the exchange of link related control information between
control information between DLEP peers. DLEP peers are comprised of DLEP peers. DLEP peers are comprised of a modem and a router. DLEP
a modem and a router. DLEP defines a base set of mechanisms as well defines a base set of mechanisms as well as support for possible
as support for possible extensions. This document defines one such extensions. This document defines one such extension.
extension.
The base DLEP specification includes the Latency metric which The base DLEP specification includes the Latency metric which
provides an average latency on a link. This document adds the provides an average latency on a link. This document adds the
ability to relay the minimum and maximum latency range seen on a ability to relay the minimum and maximum latency range seen on a
link. The extension defined in this document is referred to as link. The extension defined in this document is referred to as
"Latency Range". "Latency Range".
This document defines a new DLEP Extension Type Value in Section 2 This document defines a new DLEP Extension Type Value in Section 2
which is used to indicate the use of the extension, and one new DLEP which is used to indicate the use of the extension, and one new DLEP
Data Items in Section 3. Data Items in Section 3.
1.1. Key Words 1.1. Key Words
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14, RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Extension Usage and Identification 2. Extension Usage and Identification
The use of the Latency Range Extension SHOULD be configurable. To The use of the Latency Range Extension SHOULD be configurable. To
indicate that the Latency Range Extension is to be used, an indicate that the Latency Range Extension is to be used, an
implementation MUST include the Latency Range Extension Type Value in implementation MUST include the Latency Range Extension Type Value in
the Extensions Supported Data Item. The Extensions Supported Data the Extensions Supported Data Item. The Extensions Supported Data
Item is sent and processed according to [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep]. Item is sent and processed according to [RFC8175].
The Latency Range Extension Type Value is TBA1, see Section 5. The Latency Range Extension Type Value is TBA1, see Section 5.
3. Latency Range Data Items 3. Latency Range Data Items
The Latency Range Data Item serves much the same purpose as the The Latency Range Data Item serves much the same purpose as the
Latency Data Item defined in [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep] with the addition Latency Data Item defined in [RFC8175] with the addition of being
of being able to communicate the latency range that may be able to communicate the latency range that may be experienced by
experienced by traffic on a link. The Latency Range Item MAY be traffic on a link. The Latency Range Item MAY be carried in the same
carried in the same messages and MUST be processed according to the messages and MUST be processed according to the same rules as the
same rules as the Latency Range Data Item defined in Latency Range Data Item defined in [RFC8175].
[I-D.ietf-manet-dlep].
The format of the Latency Range Data Item is: The format of the Latency Range Data Item is:
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data Item Type | Length | | Data Item Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Maximum Latency : | Maximum Latency :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 3, line 49 skipping to change at page 3, line 48
transmitted over the link. transmitted over the link.
Minimum Latency: Minimum Latency:
A 64-bit unsigned integer, representing the transmission shortest A 64-bit unsigned integer, representing the transmission shortest
delay, in microseconds, that a packet encounters as it is delay, in microseconds, that a packet encounters as it is
transmitted over the link. transmitted over the link.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
The extension introduces a new mechanism for flow control between a The extension introduces a new Data Item for the DLEP protocol. The
router and modem using the DLEP protocol. The extension does not extension does not inherently introduce any additional threats above
inherently introduce any additional threats above those documented in those documented in [RFC8175]. The approach taken to Security in
[I-D.ietf-manet-dlep]. The approach taken to Security in that that document applies equally when running the extension defined in
document applies equally when running the extension defined in this this document.
document.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
This document requests the assignment of 2 values by IANA. All This document requests the assignment of 2 values by IANA. All
assignments are to registries defined by [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep]. assignments are to registries defined by [RFC8175].
5.1. Extension Type Value 5.1. Extension Type Value
This document requests one new assignment to the DLEP Extensions This document requests one new assignment to the DLEP Extensions
Registry named "Extension Tyoe Values" in the range with the Registry named "Extension Type Values" in the range with the
"Specification Required" policy. The requested value is as follows: "Specification Required" policy. The requested value is as follows:
+------+---------------+ +------+---------------+
| Code | Description | | Code | Description |
+------+---------------+ +------+---------------+
| TBA1 | Latency Range | | TBA1 | Latency Range |
+------+---------------+ +------+---------------+
Table 1: Requested Extension Type Value Table 1: Requested Extension Type Value
skipping to change at page 4, line 43 skipping to change at page 4, line 41
+-----------+---------------+ +-----------+---------------+
| Type Code | Description | | Type Code | Description |
+-----------+---------------+ +-----------+---------------+
| TBA2 | Latency Range | | TBA2 | Latency Range |
+-----------+---------------+ +-----------+---------------+
Table 2: Requested Data Item Values Table 2: Requested Data Item Values
6. Normative References 6. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-manet-dlep]
Ratliff, S., Jury, S., Satterwhite, D., Taylor, R., and (.
(Unknown), "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)", draft-
ietf-manet-dlep-24 (work in progress), July 2016.
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8175] Ratliff, S., Jury, S., Satterwhite, D., Taylor, R., and B.
Berry, "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)", RFC 8175,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8175, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8175>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Bow-Nan Cheng Bow-Nan Cheng
Lincoln Laboratory Lincoln Laboratory
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Massachusetts Institute of Technology
244 Wood Street 244 Wood Street
Lexington, MA 02420-9108 Lexington, MA 02421-6426
Email: bcheng@ll.mit.edu Email: bcheng@ll.mit.edu
Lou Berger (editor) Lou Berger (editor)
LabN Consulting, L.L.C. LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Email: lberger@labn.net Email: lberger@labn.net
 End of changes. 15 change blocks. 
35 lines changed or deleted 37 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/