draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension-05.txt   rfc8757.txt 
Network Working Group B. Cheng Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) B. Cheng
Internet-Draft MIT Lincoln Laboratory Request for Comments: 8757 MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Intended status: Standards Track L. Berger, Ed. Category: Standards Track L. Berger, Ed.
Expires: May 23, 2020 LabN Consulting, L.L.C. ISSN: 2070-1721 LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
November 20, 2019 March 2020
Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Latency Range Extension Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Latency Range Extension
draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension-05
Abstract Abstract
This document defines an extension to the Dynamic Link Exchange This document defines an extension to the Dynamic Link Exchange
Protocol (DLEP) to provide the range of latency that can be Protocol (DLEP) to provide the range of latency that can be
experienced on a link. experienced on a link.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This is an Internet Standards Track document.
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 23, 2020. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8757.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 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
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
1.1. Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Key Words
2. Extension Usage and Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Extension Usage and Identification
3. Latency Range Data Item . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Latency Range Data Item
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Security Considerations
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. IANA Considerations
5.1. Extension Type Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5.1. Extension Type Value
5.2. Data Item Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5.2. Data Item Value
6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. References
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.1. Normative References
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.2. Informative References
Acknowledgments
Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) is defined in [RFC8175]. The Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) is defined in [RFC8175].
It provides the exchange of link related control information between It provides the exchange of link-related control information between
DLEP peers. DLEP peers are comprised of a modem and a router. DLEP DLEP peers. DLEP peers are comprised of a modem and a router. DLEP
defines a base set of mechanisms as well as support for possible defines a base set of mechanisms as well as support for possible
extensions. This document defines one such extension. extensions. This document defines one such extension.
The base DLEP specification includes the Latency metric which The base DLEP specification includes the Latency Data Item, which
provides a single latency value on a link, which is implementation provides a single, implementation-dependent latency value on a link.
dependent. This document adds the ability to relay the minimum and This document adds the ability to relay the minimum and maximum
maximum latency range seen on a link. The extension defined in this latency range seen on a link. The extension defined in this document
document is referred to as "Latency Range". is referred to as "Latency Range".
This document defines a new DLEP Extension Type Value in Section 2 This document defines a new DLEP Extension Type Value that is used to
which is used to indicate the use of the extension, and one new DLEP indicate the use of the extension; see Section 2. A new DLEP Data
Data Item in Section 3. Item is defined 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
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. 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 [RFC8175]. Item is sent and processed according to [RFC8175].
Note: the usage of the extension defined in this document does not Note: The usage of the extension defined in this document does not
impact processing associated with the Latency Data Item defined in impact processing associated with the Latency Data Item defined in
[RFC8175]. [RFC8175].
The Latency Range Extension Type Value is TBA1, see Section 5. The Latency Range Extension Type Value is 4; see Section 5.
3. Latency Range Data Item 3. Latency Range Data Item
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 [RFC8175] with the addition of being Latency Data Item defined in [RFC8175] with the addition of being
able to communicate the latency range that can be experienced by able to communicate the latency range that can be experienced by
traffic on a link. The Latency Range Data Item MUST be included in traffic on a link. The Latency Range Data Item MUST be included in
the Session Initialization Response Message, with default values to the Session Initialization Response Message, with default values to
be used on a session-wide basis. The Latency Range Data Item also be used on a session-wide basis. The Latency Range Data Item also
MAY be carried in any message where the Latency Data Item [RFC8175] MAY be carried in any message where the Latency Data Item [RFC8175]
is allowed and is carried as an additional data item. When present, is allowed and is carried as an additional data item. When present,
the Latency Range Data Item MUST be processed according to the same the Latency Range Data Item MUST be processed according to the same
rules as the Latency Data Item defined in [RFC8175]. rules as the Latency Data Item defined in [RFC8175].
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 :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: Maximum Latency | : Maximum Latency |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Minimum Latency : | Minimum Latency :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: Minimum Latency | : Minimum Latency |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Data Item Type: TBA2 Data Item Type:
28
Length: 16 Length:
16
Maximum Latency: Maximum Latency:
A 64-bit unsigned integer, representing the longest transmission A 64-bit unsigned integer, representing the longest transmission
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.
Minimum Latency: Minimum Latency:
A 64-bit unsigned integer, representing the shortest transmission A 64-bit unsigned integer, representing the shortest transmission
delay, in microseconds, that a packet can encounter as it is delay, in microseconds, that a packet can encounter as it is
transmitted over the link. transmitted over the link.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
The extension introduces a new Data Item for DLEP. The extension The extension introduces a new Data Item for DLEP. The extension
does not inherently introduce any additional vulnerabilities above does not inherently introduce any additional vulnerabilities above
those documented in [RFC8175]. The approach taken to Security in those documented in [RFC8175]. The approach taken to security in
that document applies equally when running the extension defined in that document applies equally when running the extension defined in
this document. this document.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
This document requests the assignment of two values by IANA. All As described below, IANA has assigned two values per this document.
assignments are to registries defined by [RFC8175]. Both 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 IANA has assigned the following value in the "Extension Type Values"
Registry named "Extension Type Values" in the range with the registry within the "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)
"Specification Required" policy. The requested value is as follows: Parameters" registry. The new value is in the range with the
"Specification Required" [RFC8126] policy:
+------+---------------+ +------+---------------+
| Code | Description | | Code | Description |
+------+---------------+ +======+===============+
| TBA1 | Latency Range | | 4 | Latency Range |
+------+---------------+ +------+---------------+
Table 1: Requested Extension Type Value Table 1: New Extension
Type Value
5.2. Data Item Value 5.2. Data Item Value
This document requests one new assignment to the DLEP Data Item IANA has assigned the following value in the "Data Item Type Values"
Registry named "Data Item Type Values" in the range with the registry within the "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)
"Specification Required" policy. The requested values are as Parameters" registry. The new value is in the range with the
follows: "Specification Required" [RFC8126] policy:
+-----------+---------------+ +-----------+---------------+
| Type Code | Description | | Type Code | Description |
+-----------+---------------+ +===========+===============+
| TBA2 | Latency Range | | 28 | Latency Range |
+-----------+---------------+ +-----------+---------------+
Table 2: Requested Data Item Values Table 2: New Data Item Value
6. Normative References 6. References
6.1. Normative References
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC8175] Ratliff, S., Jury, S., Satterwhite, D., Taylor, R., and B. [RFC8175] Ratliff, S., Jury, S., Satterwhite, D., Taylor, R., and B.
Berry, "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)", RFC 8175, Berry, "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)", RFC 8175,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8175, June 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8175, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8175>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8175>.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments 6.2. Informative References
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
Acknowledgments
Helpful comments were received from members of the MANET working Helpful comments were received from members of the MANET working
grouping, including Ronald in 't Velt, Henning Rogge, and Victoria group, including Ronald in 't Velt, Henning Rogge, and Victoria
Pritchard. Pritchard.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Bow-Nan Cheng Bow-Nan Cheng
MIT Lincoln Laboratory MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Massachusetts Institute of Technology
244 Wood Street 244 Wood Street
Lexington, MA 02421-6426 Lexington, MA 02421-6426
United States of America
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. 30 change blocks. 
83 lines changed or deleted 93 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/