GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc8757



Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) B. Cheng Request for Comments: 8757 MIT Lincoln Laboratory Category: Standards Track L. Berger, Ed. ISSN: 2070-1721 LabN Consulting, L.L.C.

                                                            March 2020
   Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Latency Range Extension

Abstract

 This document defines an extension to the Dynamic Link Exchange
 Protocol (DLEP) to provide the range of latency that can be
 experienced on a link.

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
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8757.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2020 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
 (https://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
   1.1.  Key Words
 2.  Extension Usage and Identification
 3.  Latency Range Data Item
 4.  Security Considerations
 5.  IANA Considerations
   5.1.  Extension Type Value
   5.2.  Data Item Value
 6.  References
   6.1.  Normative References
   6.2.  Informative References
 Acknowledgments
 Authors' Addresses

1. Introduction

 The Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) is defined in [RFC8175].
 It provides the exchange of link-related control information between
 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
 extensions.  This document defines one such extension.
 The base DLEP specification includes the Latency Data Item, which
 provides a single, implementation-dependent latency value on a link.
 This document adds the ability to relay the minimum and maximum
 latency range seen on a link.  The extension defined in this document
 is referred to as "Latency Range".
 This document defines a new DLEP Extension Type Value that is used to
 indicate the use of the extension; see Section 2.  A new DLEP Data
 Item is defined in Section 3.

1.1. Key Words

 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. Extension Usage and Identification

 The use of the Latency Range Extension SHOULD be configurable.  To
 indicate that the Latency Range Extension is to be used, an
 implementation MUST include the Latency Range Extension Type Value in
 the Extensions Supported Data Item.  The Extensions Supported Data
 Item is sent and processed according to [RFC8175].
 Note: The usage of the extension defined in this document does not
 impact processing associated with the Latency Data Item defined in
 [RFC8175].
 The Latency Range Extension Type Value is 4; see Section 5.

3. Latency Range Data Item

 The Latency Range Data Item serves much the same purpose as the
 Latency Data Item defined in [RFC8175] with the addition of being
 able to communicate the latency range that can be experienced by
 traffic on a link.  The Latency Range Data Item MUST be included in
 the Session Initialization Response Message, with default values to
 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]
 is allowed and is carried as an additional data item.  When present,
 the Latency Range Data Item MUST be processed according to the same
 rules as the Latency Data Item defined in [RFC8175].
 The format of the Latency Range Data Item is:
 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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 | Data Item Type                | Length                        |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                        Maximum Latency                        :
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 :                        Maximum Latency                        |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                        Minimum Latency                        :
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 :                        Minimum Latency                        |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 Data Item Type:
    28
 Length:
    16
 Maximum Latency:
    A 64-bit unsigned integer, representing the longest transmission
    delay, in microseconds, that a packet encounters as it is
    transmitted over the link.
 Minimum Latency:
    A 64-bit unsigned integer, representing the shortest transmission
    delay, in microseconds, that a packet can encounter as it is
    transmitted over the link.

4. Security Considerations

 The extension introduces a new Data Item for DLEP.  The extension
 does not inherently introduce any additional vulnerabilities above
 those documented in [RFC8175].  The approach taken to security in
 that document applies equally when running the extension defined in
 this document.

5. IANA Considerations

 As described below, IANA has assigned two values per this document.
 Both assignments are to registries defined by [RFC8175].

5.1. Extension Type Value

 IANA has assigned the following value in the "Extension Type Values"
 registry within the "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)
 Parameters" registry.  The new value is in the range with the
 "Specification Required" [RFC8126] policy:
                        +------+---------------+
                        | Code | Description   |
                        +======+===============+
                        | 4    | Latency Range |
                        +------+---------------+
                         Table 1: New Extension
                               Type Value

5.2. Data Item Value

 IANA has assigned the following value in the "Data Item Type Values"
 registry within the "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)
 Parameters" registry.  The new value is in the range with the
 "Specification Required" [RFC8126] policy:
                     +-----------+---------------+
                     | Type Code | Description   |
                     +===========+===============+
                     | 28        | Latency Range |
                     +-----------+---------------+
                      Table 2: New Data Item Value

6. References

6.1. Normative References

 [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
            Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
            <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>.

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
 group, including Ronald in 't Velt, Henning Rogge, and Victoria
 Pritchard.

Authors' Addresses

 Bow-Nan Cheng
 MIT Lincoln Laboratory
 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
 244 Wood Street
 Lexington, MA 02421-6426
 United States of America
 Email: bcheng@ll.mit.edu
 Lou Berger (editor)
 LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
 Email: lberger@labn.net
/home/gen.uk/domains/wiki.gen.uk/public_html/data/pages/rfc/rfc8757.txt · Last modified: 2020/03/27 17:42 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki