GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc5814

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) W. Sun, Ed. Request for Comments: 5814 SJTU Category: Standards Track G. Zhang, Ed. ISSN: 2070-1721 CATR

                                                            March 2010
 Label Switched Path (LSP) Dynamic Provisioning Performance Metrics
                    in Generalized MPLS Networks

Abstract

 Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) is one of the most
 promising candidate technologies for a future data transmission
 network.  GMPLS has been developed to control and operate different
 kinds of network elements, such as conventional routers, switches,
 Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) systems, Add-Drop
 Multiplexers (ADMs), photonic cross-connects (PXCs), optical cross-
 connects (OXCs), etc.  These physically diverse devices differ
 drastically from one another in dynamic provisioning ability.  At the
 same time, the need for dynamically provisioned connections is
 increasing because optical networks are being deployed in metro
 areas.  As different applications have varied requirements in the
 provisioning performance of optical networks, it is imperative to
 define standardized metrics and procedures such that the performance
 of networks and application needs can be mapped to each other.
 This document provides a series of performance metrics to evaluate
 the dynamic Label Switched Path (LSP) provisioning performance in
 GMPLS networks, specifically the dynamic LSP setup/release
 performance.  These metrics can be used to characterize the features
 of GMPLS networks in LSP dynamic provisioning.

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 5741.
 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
 http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5814.

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2010 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
 (http://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.
 This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
 Contributions published or made publicly available before November
 10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
 material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
 modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
 Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
 the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
 outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
 not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
 it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
 than English.

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

Table of Contents

 1. Introduction ....................................................6
 2. Conventions Used in This Document ...............................6
 3. Overview of Performance Metrics .................................6
 4. A Singleton Definition for Single Unidirectional LSP
    Setup Delay .....................................................7
    4.1. Motivation .................................................7
    4.2. Metric Name ................................................7
    4.3. Metric Parameters ..........................................8
    4.4. Metric Units ...............................................8
    4.5. Definition .................................................8
    4.6. Discussion .................................................8
    4.7. Methodologies ..............................................9
    4.8. Metric Reporting ...........................................9
 5. A Singleton Definition for Multiple Unidirectional LSPs
    Setup Delay ....................................................10
    5.1. Motivation ................................................10
    5.2. Metric Name ...............................................10
    5.3. Metric Parameters .........................................10
    5.4. Metric Units ..............................................10
    5.5. Definition ................................................11
    5.6. Discussion ................................................11
    5.7. Methodologies .............................................12
    5.8. Metric Reporting ..........................................13
 6. A Singleton Definition for Single Bidirectional LSP
    Setup Delay ....................................................13
    6.1. Motivation ................................................13
    6.2. Metric Name ...............................................14
    6.3. Metric Parameters .........................................14
    6.4. Metric Units ..............................................14
    6.5. Definition ................................................14
    6.6. Discussion ................................................15
    6.7. Methodologies .............................................15
    6.8. Metric Reporting ..........................................16
 7. A Singleton Definition for Multiple Bidirectional LSPs
    Setup Delay ....................................................16
    7.1. Motivation ................................................16
    7.2. Metric Name ...............................................16
    7.3. Metric Parameters .........................................17
    7.4. Metric Units ..............................................17
    7.5. Definition ................................................17
    7.6. Discussion ................................................18
    7.7. Methodologies .............................................19
    7.8. Metric Reporting ..........................................19
 8. A Singleton Definition for LSP Graceful Release Delay ..........20
    8.1. Motivation ................................................20
    8.2. Metric Name ...............................................20

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 3] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

    8.3. Metric Parameters .........................................20
    8.4. Metric Units ..............................................20
    8.5. Definition ................................................20
    8.6. Discussion ................................................22
    8.7. Methodologies .............................................22
    8.8. Metric Reporting ..........................................23
 9. A Definition for Samples of Single Unidirectional LSP
    Setup Delay ....................................................24
    9.1. Metric Name ...............................................24
    9.2. Metric Parameters .........................................24
    9.3. Metric Units ..............................................24
    9.4. Definition ................................................24
    9.5. Discussion ................................................25
    9.6. Methodologies .............................................25
    9.7. Typical Testing Cases .....................................26
         9.7.1. With No LSP in the Network .........................26
         9.7.2. With a Number of LSPs in the Network ...............26
    9.8. Metric Reporting ..........................................26
 10. A Definition for Samples of Multiple Unidirectional
     LSPs Setup Delay ..............................................26
    10.1. Metric Name ..............................................27
    10.2. Metric Parameters ........................................27
    10.3. Metric Units .............................................27
    10.4. Definition ...............................................27
    10.5. Discussion ...............................................28
    10.6. Methodologies ............................................28
    10.7. Typical Testing Cases ....................................29
         10.7.1. With No LSP in the Network ........................29
         10.7.2. With a Number of LSPs in the Network ..............29
    10.8. Metric Reporting .........................................29
 11. A Definition for Samples of Single Bidirectional LSP
     Setup Delay ...................................................30
    11.1. Metric Name ..............................................30
    11.2. Metric Parameters ........................................30
    11.3. Metric Units .............................................30
    11.4. Definition ...............................................30
    11.5. Discussion ...............................................31
    11.6. Methodologies ............................................31
    11.7. Typical Testing Cases ....................................32
         11.7.1. With No LSP in the Network ........................32
         11.7.2. With a Number of LSPs in the Network ..............32
    11.8. Metric Reporting .........................................32
 12. A Definition for Samples of Multiple Bidirectional
     LSPs Setup Delay ..............................................32
    12.1. Metric Name ..............................................33
    12.2. Metric Parameters ........................................33
    12.3. Metric Units .............................................33
    12.4. Definition ...............................................33

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 4] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

    12.5. Discussion ...............................................34
    12.6. Methodologies ............................................34
    12.7. Typical Testing Cases ....................................35
         12.7.1. With No LSP in the Network ........................35
         12.7.2. With a Number of LSPs in the Network ..............35
    12.8. Metric Reporting .........................................35
 13. A Definition for Samples of LSP Graceful Release Delay ........35
    13.1. Metric Name ..............................................36
    13.2. Metric Parameters ........................................36
    13.3. Metric Units .............................................36
    13.4. Definition ...............................................36
    13.5. Discussion ...............................................36
    13.6. Methodologies ............................................37
    13.7. Metric Reporting .........................................37
 14. Some Statistics Definitions for Metrics to Report .............37
    14.1. The Minimum of Metric ....................................37
    14.2. The Median of Metric .....................................37
    14.3. The Maximum of Metric ....................................38
    14.4. The Percentile of Metric .................................38
    14.5. Failure Statistics of Metric .............................38
         14.5.1. Failure Count .....................................39
         14.5.2. Failure Ratio .....................................39
 15. Discussion ....................................................39
 16. Security Considerations .......................................40
 17. Acknowledgments ...............................................41
 18. References ....................................................41
    18.1. Normative References .....................................41
    18.2. Informative References ...................................42
 Appendix A.  Authors' Addresses ...................................43

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

1. Introduction

 Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) is one of the most
 promising control plane solutions for future transport and service
 network.  GMPLS has been developed to control and operate different
 kinds of network elements, such as conventional routers, switches,
 Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) systems, Add-Drop
 Multiplexors (ADMs), photonic cross-connects (PXCs), optical cross-
 connects (OXCs), etc.  These physically diverse devices differ
 drastically from one another in dynamic provisioning ability.
 The introduction of a control plane into optical circuit switching
 networks provides the basis for automating the provisioning of
 connections and drastically reduces connection provision delay.  As
 more and more services and applications are seeking to use GMPLS-
 controlled networks as their underlying transport network, and
 increasingly in a dynamic way, the need is growing for measuring and
 characterizing the performance of LSP provisioning in GMPLS networks,
 such that requirement from applications and the provisioning
 capability of the network can be mapped to each other.
 This document defines performance metrics and methodologies that can
 be used to characterize the dynamic LSP provisioning performance of
 GMPLS networks, more specifically, performance of the signaling
 protocol.  The metrics defined in this document can be used to
 characterize the average performance of GMPLS implementations.

2. Conventions Used in This Document

 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

3. Overview of Performance Metrics

 In this memo, to characterize the dynamic LSP provisioning
 performance of a GMPLS network, we define three performance metrics:
 unidirectional LSP setup delay, bidirectional LSP setup delay, and
 LSP graceful release delay.  The latency of the LSP setup/release
 signal is conceptually similar to the Round-trip Delay in IP
 networks.  This enables us to refer to the structures and notions
 introduced and discussed in the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)
 Framework documents, [RFC2330] [RFC2679] [RFC2681].  The reader is
 assumed to be familiar with the notions in those documents.

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 6] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

 Note that data-path-related metrics, for example, the time between
 the reception of a Resv message by the ingress node and when the
 forward data path becomes operational, are defined in another
 document [CCAMP-DPM].  It is desirable that both measurements are
 performed to complement each other.

4. A Singleton Definition for Single Unidirectional LSP Setup Delay

 This section defines a metric for single unidirectional Label
 Switched Path setup delay across a GMPLS network.

4.1. Motivation

 Single unidirectional Label Switched Path setup delay is useful for
 several reasons:
 o  Single LSP setup delay is an important metric that characterizes
    the provisioning performance of a GMPLS network.  Longer LSP setup
    delay will most likely incur higher overhead for the requesting
    application, especially when the LSP duration itself is comparable
    to the LSP setup delay.
 o  The minimum value of this metric provides an indication of the
    delay that will likely be experienced when the LSP traverses the
    shortest route at the lightest load in the control plane.  As the
    delay itself consists of several components, such as link
    propagation delay and nodal processing delay, this metric also
    reflects the status of the control plane.  For example, for LSPs
    traversing the same route, longer setup delays may suggest
    congestion in the control channel or high control element load.
    For this reason, this metric is useful for testing and diagnostic
    purposes.
 o  The observed variance in a sample of LSP setup delay metric values
    variance may serve as an early indicator on the feasibility of
    support of applications that have stringent setup delay
    requirements.
 The measurement of single unidirectional LSP setup delay instead of
 bidirectional LSP setup delay is motivated by the following factors:
 o  Some applications may use only unidirectional LSPs rather than
    bidirectional ones.  For example, content delivery services with
    multicasting may use only unidirectional LSPs.

4.2. Metric Name

 Single unidirectional LSP setup delay

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 7] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

4.3. Metric Parameters

 o  ID0, the ingress Label Switching Router (LSR) ID
 o  ID1, the egress LSR ID
 o  T, a time when the setup is attempted

4.4. Metric Units

 The value of single unidirectional LSP setup delay is either a real
 number of milliseconds or undefined.

4.5. Definition

 The single unidirectional LSP setup delay from ingress node ID0 to
 egress node ID1 [RFC3945] at T is dT means that ingress node ID0
 sends the first bit of a Path message packet to egress node ID1 at
 wire-time T, and that ingress node ID0 received the last bit of
 responding Resv message packet from egress node ID1 at wire-time
 T+dT.
 The single unidirectional LSP setup delay from ingress node ID0 to
 egress node ID1 at T is undefined means that ingress node ID0 sends
 the first bit of Path message packet to egress node ID1 at wire-time
 T and that ingress node ID0 does not receive the corresponding Resv
 message within a reasonable period of time.
 The undefined value of this metric indicates an event of Single
 Unidirectional LSP Setup Failure and would be used to report a count
 or a percentage of Single Unidirectional LSP Setup failures.  See
 Section 14.5 for definitions of LSP setup/release failures.

4.6. Discussion

 The following issues are likely to come up in practice:
 o  The accuracy of unidirectional LSP setup delay at time T depends
    on the clock resolution in the ingress node; but synchronization
    between the ingress node and egress node is not required since
    unidirectional LSP setup uses two-way signaling.
 o  A given methodology will have to include a way to determine
    whether a latency value is infinite or whether it is merely very
    large.  Simple upper bounds MAY be used, but GMPLS networks may
    accommodate many kinds of devices.  For example, some photonic
    cross-connects (PXCs) have to move micro mirrors.  This physical
    motion may take several milliseconds, but the common electronic

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 8] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

    switches can finish the nodal processing within several
    microseconds.  So the unidirectional LSP setup delay varies
    drastically from one network to another.  In practice, the upper
    bound SHOULD be chosen carefully.
 o  If the ingress node sends out the Path message to set up an LSP,
    but never receives the corresponding Resv message, the
    unidirectional LSP setup delay MUST be set to undefined.
 o  If the ingress node sends out the Path message to set up an LSP
    but receives a PathErr message, the unidirectional LSP setup delay
    MUST be set to undefined.  There are many possible reasons for
    this case; for example, the Path message has invalid parameters or
    the network does not have enough resources to set up the requested
    LSP, etc.

4.7. Methodologies

 Generally, the methodology would proceed as follows:
 o  Make sure that the network has enough resources to set up the
    requested LSP.
 o  At the ingress node, form the Path message according to the LSP
    requirements.  A timestamp (T1) may be stored locally on the
    ingress node when the Path message packet is sent towards the
    egress node.
 o  If the corresponding Resv message arrives within a reasonable
    period of time, take the timestamp (T2) as soon as possible upon
    receipt of the message.  By subtracting the two timestamps, an
    estimate of unidirectional LSP setup delay (T2-T1) can be
    computed.
 o  If the corresponding Resv message fails to arrive within a
    reasonable period of time, the unidirectional LSP setup delay is
    deemed to be undefined.  Note that the "reasonable" threshold is a
    parameter of the methodology.
 o  If the corresponding response is a PathErr message, the
    unidirectional LSP setup delay is deemed to be undefined.

4.8. Metric Reporting

 The metric result (either a real number or undefined) MUST be
 reported together with the selected upper bound.  The route that the
 LSP traverses MUST also be reported.  The route MAY be collected via

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 9] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

 use of the record route object, see [RFC3209], or via the management
 plane.  The collection of routes via the management plane is out of
 scope of this document.

5. A Singleton Definition for Multiple Unidirectional LSPs Setup Delay

 This section defines a metric for multiple unidirectional Label
 Switched Paths setup delay across a GMPLS network.

5.1. Motivation

 Multiple unidirectional Label Switched Paths setup delay is useful
 for several reasons:
 o  Carriers may require that a large number of LSPs be set up during
    a short time period.  This request may arise, e.g., as a
    consequence to interruptions on established LSPs or other network
    failures.
 o  The time needed to set up a large number of LSPs during a short
    time period cannot be deduced from single LSP setup delay.

5.2. Metric Name

 Multiple unidirectional LSPs setup delay

5.3. Metric Parameters

 o  ID0, the ingress LSR ID
 o  ID1, the egress LSR ID
 o  Lambda_m, a rate in reciprocal milliseconds
 o  X, the number of LSPs to set up
 o  T, a time when the first setup is attempted

5.4. Metric Units

 The value of multiple unidirectional LSPs setup delay is either a
 real number of milliseconds or undefined

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 10] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

5.5. Definition

 Given Lambda_m and X, the multiple unidirectional LSPs setup delay
 from the ingress node to the egress node [RFC3945] at T is dT means:
 o  ingress node ID0 sends the first bit of the first Path message
    packet to egress node ID1 at wire-time T;
 o  all subsequent (X-1) Path messages are sent according to the
    specified Poisson process with arrival rate Lambda_m;
 o  ingress node ID0 receives all corresponding Resv message packets
    from egress node ID1; and
 o  ingress node ID0 receives the last Resv message packet at wire-
    time T+dT.
 If the multiple unidirectional LSPs setup delay at T is "undefined",
 this means that:
 o  ingress node ID0 sends all the Path messages toward egress node
    ID1,
 o  the first bit of the first Path message packet is sent at wire-
    time T, and
 o  ingress node ID0 does not receive one or more of the corresponding
    Resv messages within a reasonable period of time.
 The undefined value of this metric indicates an event of Multiple
 Unidirectional LSP Setup Failure and would be used to report a count
 or a percentage of Multiple Unidirectional LSP Setup failures.  See
 Section 14.5 for definitions of LSP setup/release failures.

5.6. Discussion

 The following issues are likely to come up in practice:
 o  The accuracy of multiple unidirectional LSPs setup delay at time T
    depends on the clock resolution in the ingress node; but
    synchronization between the ingress node and egress node is not
    required since unidirectional LSP setup uses two-way signaling.
 o  A given methodology will have to include a way to determine
    whether a latency value is infinite or whether it is merely very
    large.  Simple upper bounds MAY be used, but GMPLS networks may
    accommodate many kinds of devices.  For example, some photonic
    cross-connects (PXCs) have to move micro mirrors.  This physical

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 11] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

    motion may take several milliseconds, but electronic switches can
    finish the nodal processing within several microseconds.  So the
    multiple unidirectional LSP setup delay varies drastically from
    one network to another.  In practice, the upper bound SHOULD be
    chosen carefully.
 o  If the ingress node sends out the multiple Path messages to set up
    the LSPs, but never receives one or more of the corresponding Resv
    messages, multiple unidirectional LSP setup delay MUST be set to
    undefined.
 o  If the ingress node sends out the Path messages to set up the LSPs
    but receives one or more PathErr messages, multiple unidirectional
    LSPs setup delay MUST be set to undefined.  There are many
    possible reasons for this case.  For example, one of the Path
    messages has invalid parameters or the network does not have
    enough resources to set up the requested LSPs, etc.
 o  The arrival rate of the Poisson process Lambda_m SHOULD be chosen
    carefully such that on the one hand, the control plane is not
    overburdened.  On the other hand, the arrival rate is large enough
    to meet the requirements of applications or services.
 o  It is important that all the LSPs MUST traverse the same route.
    If there are multiple routes between the ingress node ID0 and
    egress node ID1, Explicit Route Objects (EROs), or an alternate
    method, e.g., static configuration, MUST be used to ensure that
    all LSPs traverse the same route.

5.7. Methodologies

 Generally, the methodology would proceed as follows:
 o  Make sure that the network has enough resources to set up the
    requested LSPs.
 o  At the ingress node, form the Path messages according to the LSPs'
    requirements.
 o  At the ingress node, select the time for each of the Path messages
    according to the specified Poisson process.
 o  At the ingress node, send out the Path messages according to the
    selected time.
 o  Store a timestamp (T1) locally on the ingress node when the first
    Path message packet is sent towards the egress node.

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 12] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

 o  If all of the corresponding Resv messages arrive within a
    reasonable period of time, take the final timestamp (T2) as soon
    as possible upon the receipt of all the messages.  By subtracting
    the two timestamps, an estimate of multiple unidirectional LSPs
    setup delay (T2-T1) can be computed.
 o  If one or more of the corresponding Resv messages fail to arrive
    within a reasonable period of time, the multiple unidirectional
    LSPs setup delay is deemed to be undefined.  Note that the
    "reasonable" threshold is a parameter of the methodology.
 o  If one or more of the corresponding responses are PathErr
    messages, the multiple unidirectional LSPs setup delay is deemed
    to be undefined.

5.8. Metric Reporting

 The metric result (either a real number or undefined) MUST be
 reported together with the selected upper bound.  The route that the
 LSPs traverse MUST also be reported.  The route MAY be collected via
 use of the record route object, see [RFC3209], or via the management
 plane.  The collection of routes via the management plane is out of
 scope of this document.

6. A Singleton Definition for Single Bidirectional LSP Setup Delay

 GMPLS allows establishment of bidirectional symmetric LSPs (not of
 asymmetric LSPs).  This section defines a metric for single
 bidirectional LSP setup delay across a GMPLS network.

6.1. Motivation

 Single bidirectional Label Switched Path setup delay is useful for
 several reasons:
 o  LSP setup delay is an important metric that characterizes the
    provisioning performance of a GMPLS network.  Longer LSP setup
    delay will incur higher overhead for the requesting application,
    especially when the LSP duration is comparable to the LSP setup
    delay.  Thus, measuring the setup delay is important for
    application scheduling.
 o  The minimum value of this metric provides an indication of the
    delay that will likely be experienced when the LSP traverses the
    shortest route at the lightest load in the control plane.  As the
    delay itself consists of several components, such as link
    propagation delay and nodal processing delay, this metric also
    reflects the status of the control plane.  For example, for LSPs

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 13] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

    traversing the same route, longer setup delays may suggest
    congestion in the control channel or high control element load.
    For this reason, this metric is useful for testing and diagnostic
    purposes.
 o  LSP setup delay variance has a different impact on applications.
    Erratic variation in LSP setup delay makes it difficult to support
    applications that have stringent setup delay requirement.
 The measurement of single bidirectional LSP setup delay instead of
 unidirectional LSP setup delay is motivated by the following factors:
 o  Bidirectional LSPs are seen as a requirement for many GMPLS
    networks.  Its provisioning performance is important to
    applications that generate bidirectional traffic.

6.2. Metric Name

 Single bidirectional LSP setup delay

6.3. Metric Parameters

 o  ID0, the ingress LSR ID
 o  ID1, the egress LSR ID
 o  T, a time when the setup is attempted

6.4. Metric Units

 The value of single bidirectional LSP setup delay is either a real
 number of milliseconds or undefined

6.5. Definition

 For a real number dT, the single bidirectional LSP setup delay from
 ingress node ID0 to egress node ID1 at T is dT means that ingress
 node ID0 sends out the first bit of a Path message including an
 Upstream Label [RFC3473] heading for egress node ID1 at wire-time T,
 egress node ID1 receives that packet, then immediately sends a Resv
 message packet back to ingress node ID0, and that ingress node ID0
 receives the last bit of the Resv message packet at wire-time T+dT.
 If the single bidirectional LSP setup delay from ingress node ID0 to
 egress node ID1 at T is "undefined", this means that ingress node ID0
 sends the first bit of a Path message to egress node ID1 at wire-time
 T and that ingress node ID0 does not receive that response packet
 within a reasonable period of time.

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 14] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

 The undefined value of this metric indicates an event of Single
 Bidirectional LSP Setup Failure and would be used to report a count
 or a percentage of Single Bidirectional LSP Setup failures.  See
 Section 14.5 for definitions of LSP setup/release failures.

6.6. Discussion

 The following issues are likely to come up in practice:
 o  The accuracy of single bidirectional LSP setup delay depends on
    the clock resolution in the ingress node; but synchronization
    between the ingress node and egress node is not required since
    single bidirectional LSP setup uses two-way signaling.
 o  A given methodology will have to include a way to determine
    whether a latency value is infinite or whether it is merely very
    large.  Simple upper bounds MAY be used, but GMPLS networks may
    accommodate many kinds of devices.  For example, some photonic
    cross-connects (PXCs) have to move micro mirrors.  This physical
    motion may take several milliseconds, but electronic switches can
    finish the nodal processing within several microseconds.  So the
    bidirectional LSP setup delay varies drastically from one network
    to another.  In the process of bidirectional LSP setup, if the
    downstream node overrides the label suggested by the upstream
    node, the setup delay may also increase.  Thus, in practice, the
    upper bound SHOULD be chosen carefully.
 o  If the ingress node sends out the Path message to set up the LSP,
    but never receives the corresponding Resv message, single
    bidirectional LSP setup delay MUST be set to undefined.
 o  If the ingress node sends out the Path message to set up the LSP,
    but receives a PathErr message, single bidirectional LSP setup
    delay MUST be set to undefined.  There are many possible reasons
    for this case.  For example, the Path message has invalid
    parameters or the network does not have enough resources to set up
    the requested LSP.

6.7. Methodologies

 Generally, the methodology would proceed as follows:
 o  Make sure that the network has enough resources to set up the
    requested LSP.

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 15] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

 o  At the ingress node, form the Path message (including the Upstream
    Label or suggested label) according to the LSP requirements.  A
    timestamp (T1) may be stored locally on the ingress node when the
    Path message packet is sent towards the egress node.
 o  If the corresponding Resv message arrives within a reasonable
    period of time, take the final timestamp (T2) as soon as possible
    upon the receipt of the message.  By subtracting the two
    timestamps, an estimate of bidirectional LSP setup delay (T2-T1)
    can be computed.
 o  If the corresponding Resv message fails to arrive within a
    reasonable period of time, the single bidirectional LSP setup
    delay is deemed to be undefined.  Note that the "reasonable"
    threshold is a parameter of the methodology.
 o  If the corresponding response is a PathErr message, the single
    bidirectional LSP setup delay is deemed to be undefined.

6.8. Metric Reporting

 The metric result (either a real number or undefined) MUST be
 reported together with the selected upper bound.  The route that the
 LSP traverses MUST also be reported.  The route MAY be collected via
 use of the record route object, see [RFC3209], or via the management
 plane.  The collection of routes via the management plane is out of
 scope of this document.

7. A Singleton Definition for Multiple Bidirectional LSPs Setup Delay

 This section defines a metric for multiple bidirectional LSPs setup
 delay across a GMPLS network.

7.1. Motivation

 Multiple bidirectional LSPs setup delay is useful for several
 reasons:
 o  Upon traffic interruption caused by network failure or network
    upgrade, carriers may require a large number of LSPs be set up
    during a short time period.
 o  The time needed to set up a large number of LSPs during a short
    time period cannot be deduced by single LSP setup delay.

7.2. Metric Name

 Multiple bidirectional LSPs setup delay

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 16] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

7.3. Metric Parameters

 o  ID0, the ingress LSR ID
 o  ID1, the egress LSR ID
 o  Lambda_m, a rate in reciprocal milliseconds
 o  X, the number of LSPs to set up
 o  T, a time when the first setup is attempted

7.4. Metric Units

 The value of multiple bidirectional LSPs setup delay is either a real
 number of milliseconds or undefined

7.5. Definition

 Given Lambda_m and X, for a real number dT, the multiple
 bidirectional LSPs setup delay from ingress node to egress node at T
 is dT, means that:
 o  Ingress node ID0 sends the first bit of the first Path message
    heading for egress node ID1 at wire-time T;
 o  All subsequent (X-1) Path messages are sent according to the
    specified Poisson process with arrival rate Lambda_m;
 o  Ingress node ID1 receives all corresponding Resv message packets
    from egress node ID1; and
 o  Ingress node ID0 receives the last Resv message packet at wire-
    time T+dT.
 If the multiple bidirectional LSPs setup delay from ingress node to
 egress node at T is "undefined", this means that the ingress node
 sends all the Path messages to the egress node and that the ingress
 node fails to receive one or more of the response Resv messages
 within a reasonable period of time.
 The undefined value of this metric indicates an event of Multiple
 Bidirectional LSP Setup Failure and would be used to report a count
 or a percentage of Multiple Bidirectional LSP Setup failures.  See
 Section 14.5 for definitions of LSP setup/release failures.

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 17] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

7.6. Discussion

 The following issues are likely to come up in practice:
 o  The accuracy of multiple bidirectional LSPs setup delay depends on
    the clock resolution in the ingress node; but synchronization
    between the ingress node and egress node is not required since
    bidirectional LSP setup uses two-way signaling.
 o  A given methodology will have to include a way to determine
    whether a latency value is infinite or whether it is merely very
    large.  Simple upper bounds MAY be used, but GMPLS networks may
    accommodate many kinds of devices.  For example, some photonic
    cross-connects (PXCs) have to move micro mirrors.  This physical
    motion may take several milliseconds, but electronic switches can
    finish the nodal process within several microseconds.  So the
    multiple bidirectional LSPs setup delay varies drastically from a
    network to another.  In the process of multiple bidirectional LSPs
    setup, if the downstream node overrides the label suggested by the
    upstream node, the setup delay may also increase.  Thus, in
    practice, the upper bound SHOULD be chosen carefully.
 o  If the ingress node sends out the Path messages to set up the
    LSPs, but never receives all the corresponding Resv messages, the
    multiple bidirectional LSPs setup delay MUST be set to undefined.
 o  If the ingress node sends out the Path messages to set up the
    LSPs, but receives one or more responding PathErr messages, the
    multiple bidirectional LSPs setup delay MUST be set to undefined.
    There are many possible reasons for this case.  For example, one
    or more of the Path messages have invalid parameters or the
    network does not have enough resources to set up the requested
    LSPs.
 o  The arrival rate of the Poisson process Lambda_m SHOULD be
    carefully chosen such that on the one hand, the control plane is
    not overburdened.  On the other hand, the arrival rate is large
    enough to meet the requirements of applications or services.
 o  It is important that all the LSPs MUST traverse the same route.
    If there are multiple routes between the ingress node ID0 and
    egress node ID1, EROs, or an alternate method, e.g., static
    configuration, MUST be used to ensure that all LSPs traverse the
    same route.

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 18] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

7.7. Methodologies

 Generally, the methodology would proceed as follows:
 o  Make sure that the network has enough resources to set up the
    requested LSPs.
 o  At the ingress node, form the Path messages (including the
    Upstream Label or suggested label) according to the LSPs'
    requirements.
 o  At the ingress node, select the time for each of the Path messages
    according to the specified Poisson process.
 o  At the ingress node, send out the Path messages according to the
    selected time.
 o  Store a timestamp (T1) locally in the ingress node when the first
    Path message packet is sent towards the egress node.
 o  If all of the corresponding Resv messages arrive within a
    reasonable period of time, take the final timestamp (T2) as soon
    as possible upon the receipt of all the messages.  By subtracting
    the two timestamps, an estimate of multiple bidirectional LSPs
    setup delay (T2-T1) can be computed.
 o  If one or more of the corresponding Resv messages fail to arrive
    within a reasonable period of time, the multiple bidirectional
    LSPs setup delay is deemed to be undefined.  Note that the
    "reasonable" threshold is a parameter of the methodology.
 o  If one or more of the corresponding responses are PathErr
    messages, the multiple bidirectional LSPs setup delay is deemed to
    be undefined.

7.8. Metric Reporting

 The metric result (either a real number or undefined) MUST be
 reported together with the selected upper bound.  The route that the
 LSPs traverse MUST also be reported.  The route MAY be collected via
 use of the record route object, see [RFC3209], or via the management
 plane.  The collection of routes via the management plane is out of
 scope of this document.

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 19] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

8. A Singleton Definition for LSP Graceful Release Delay

 There are two different kinds of LSP release mechanisms in GMPLS
 networks: graceful release and forceful release.  This document does
 not take forceful LSP release procedure into account.

8.1. Motivation

 LSP graceful release delay is useful for several reasons:
 o  The LSP graceful release delay is part of the total cost of
    dynamic LSP provisioning.  For some short duration applications,
    the LSP release time cannot be ignored.
 o  The LSP graceful release procedure is more preferred in a GMPLS
    controlled network, particularly the optical networks.  Since it
    doesn't trigger restoration/protection, it is "alarm-free
    connection deletion" in [RFC4208].

8.2. Metric Name

 LSP graceful release delay

8.3. Metric Parameters

 o  ID0, the ingress LSR ID
 o  ID1, the egress LSR ID
 o  T, a time when the release is attempted

8.4. Metric Units

 The value of LSP graceful release delay is either a real number of
 milliseconds or undefined

8.5. Definition

 There are two different LSP graceful release procedures: one is
 initiated by the ingress node, and another is initiated by the egress
 node.  The two procedures are depicted in [RFC3473].  We define the
 graceful LSP release delay for these two procedures separately.
 For a real number dT, if the LSP graceful release delay from ingress
 node ID0 to egress node ID1 at T is dT, this means that ingress node
 ID0 sends the first bit of a Path message including an Admin Status
 Object with the Reflect (R) and Delete (D) bits set to the egress
 node at wire-time T, that egress node ID1 receives that packet, then

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 20] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

 immediately sends a Resv message including an Admin Status Object
 with the Delete (D) bit set back to the ingress node.  Ingress node
 ID0 sends the PathTear message downstream to remove the LSP, and
 egress node ID1 receives the last bit of PathTear packet at wire-time
 T+dT.
 Also, as an option, upon receipt of the Path message including an
 Admin Status Object with the Reflect (R) and Delete (D) bits set,
 egress node ID1 may respond with a PathErr message with the
 Path_State_Removed flag set.
 The LSP graceful release delay from ingress node ID0 to egress node
 ID1 at T is undefined means that ingress node ID0 sends the first bit
 of Path message to egress node ID1 at wire-time T and that (either
 the egress node does not receive the Path packet, the egress node
 does not send a corresponding Resv message packet in response, or the
 ingress node does not receive that Resv packet, and) egress node ID1
 does not receive the PathTear message within a reasonable period of
 time.
 If the LSP graceful release delay from egress node ID1 to ingress
 node ID0 at T is dT, this means that egress node ID1 sends the first
 bit of a Resv message including an Admin Status Object with the
 Reflect (R) and Delete (D) bits set to the ingress node at wire-time
 T.  Ingress node ID0 sends a PathTear message downstream to remove
 the LSP, and egress node ID1 receives the last bit of PathTear packet
 at wire-time T+dT.
 If the LSP graceful release delay from egress node ID1 to ingress
 node ID0 at T is "undefined", this means that egress node ID1 sends
 the first bit of Resv message including an Admin Status Object with
 the Reflect (R) and Delete (D) bits set to the ingress node ID0 at
 wire-time T and that (either the ingress node does not receive the
 Resv packet or the ingress node does not send PathTear message packet
 in response, and) egress node ID1 does not receive the PathTear
 message within a reasonable period of time.
 The undefined value of this metric indicates an event of LSP Graceful
 Release Failure and would be used to report a count or a percentage
 of LSP Graceful Release failures.  See Section 14.5 for definitions
 of LSP setup/release failures.

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 21] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

8.6. Discussion

 The following issues are likely to come up in practice:
 o  In the first (second) circumstance, the accuracy of LSP graceful
    release delay at time T depends on the clock resolution in the
    ingress (egress) node.  In the first circumstance, synchronization
    between the ingress node and egress node is required, but it is
    not in the second circumstance.
 o  A given methodology has to include a way to determine whether a
    latency value is infinite or whether it is merely very large.
    Simple upper bounds MAY be used, but the upper bound SHOULD be
    chosen carefully in practice.
 o  In the first circumstance, if the ingress node sends out Path
    message including an Admin Status Object with the Reflect (R) and
    Delete (D) bits set to initiate LSP graceful release, but the
    egress node never receives the corresponding PathTear message, LSP
    graceful release delay MUST be set to undefined.
 o  In the second circumstance, if the egress node sends out the Resv
    message including an Admin Status Object with the Reflect (R) and
    Delete (D) bits set to initiate LSP graceful release, but never
    receives the corresponding PathTear message, LSP graceful release
    delay MUST be set to undefined.

8.7. Methodologies

 In the first circumstance, the methodology may proceed as follows:
 o  Make sure the LSP to be deleted is set up;
 o  At the ingress node, form the Path message including an Admin
    Status Object with the Reflect (R) and Delete (D) bits set.  A
    timestamp (T1) may be stored locally on the ingress node when the
    Path message packet is sent towards the egress node.
 o  Upon receiving the Path message including an Admin Status Object
    with the Reflect (R) and Delete (D) bits set, the egress node
    sends a Resv message including an Admin Status Object with the
    Delete (D) and Reflect (R) bits set.  Alternatively, the egress
    node sends a PathErr message with the Path_State_Removed flag set
    upstream.
 o  When the ingress node receives the Resv message or the PathErr
    message, it sends a PathTear message to remove the LSP.

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 22] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

 o  The egress node takes a timestamp (T2) once it receives the last
    bit of the PathTear message.  The LSP graceful release delay is
    then (T2-T1).
 o  If the ingress node sends the Path message downstream, but the
    egress node fails to receive the PathTear message within a
    reasonable period of time, the LSP graceful release delay is
    deemed to be undefined.  Note that the "reasonable" threshold is a
    parameter of the methodology.
 In the second circumstance, the methodology would proceed as follows:
 o  Make sure the LSP to be deleted is set up;
 o  On the egress node, form the Resv message including an Admin
    Status Object with the Reflect (R) and Delete (D) bits set.  A
    timestamp may be stored locally on the egress node when the Resv
    message packet is sent towards the ingress node.
 o  Upon receiving the Admin Status Object with the Reflect (R) and
    Delete (D) bits set in the Resv message, the ingress node sends a
    PathTear message downstream to remove the LSP.
 o  The egress node takes a timestamp (T2) once it receives the last
    bit of the PathTear message.  The LSP graceful release delay is
    then (T2-T1).
 o  If the egress node sends the Resv message upstream, but it fails
    to receive the PathTear message within a reasonable period of
    time, the LSP graceful release delay is deemed to be undefined.
    Note that the "reasonable" threshold is a parameter of the
    methodology.

8.8. Metric Reporting

 The metric result (either a real number or undefined) MUST be
 reported together with the selected upper bound and the procedure
 used (e.g., either from the ingress node to the egress node or from
 the egress node to the ingress node; see Section 8.5 for more
 details).  The route that the LSP traverses MUST also be reported.
 The route MAY be collected via use of the record route object, see
 [RFC3209], or via the management plane.  The collection of routes via
 the management plane is out of scope of this document.

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 23] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

9. A Definition for Samples of Single Unidirectional LSP Setup Delay

 In Section 4, we defined the singleton metric of single
 unidirectional LSP setup delay.  Now we define how to get one
 particular sample of single unidirectional LSP setup delay.  Sampling
 means to take a number of distinct instances of a skeleton metric
 under a given set of parameters.  As in [RFC2330], we use Poisson
 sampling as an example.

9.1. Metric Name

 Single unidirectional LSP setup delay sample

9.2. Metric Parameters

 o  ID0, the ingress LSR ID
 o  ID1, the egress LSR ID
 o  T0, a time
 o  Tf, a time
 o  Lambda, a rate in the reciprocal milliseconds
 o  Th, LSP holding time
 o  Td, the maximum waiting time for successful setup

9.3. Metric Units

 A sequence of pairs; the elements of each pair are:
 o  T, a time when setup is attempted
 o  dT, either a real number of milliseconds or undefined

9.4. Definition

 Given T0, Tf, and Lambda, compute a pseudo-random Poisson process
 beginning at or before T0, with average arrival rate Lambda, and
 ending at or after Tf.  Those time values greater than or equal to T0
 and less than or equal to Tf are then selected.  At each of the times
 in this process, we obtain the value of unidirectional LSP setup
 delay sample.  The value of the sample is the sequence made up of the
 resulting <time, LSP setup delay> pairs.  If there are no such pairs,
 the sequence is of length zero and the sample is said to be empty.

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 24] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

9.5. Discussion

 The parameter Lambda should be carefully chosen.  If the rate is too
 high, too frequent LSP setup/release procedure will result in high
 overhead in the control plane.  In turn, the high overhead will
 increase unidirectional LSP setup delay.  On the other hand, if the
 rate is too low, the sample might not completely reflect the dynamic
 provisioning performance of the GMPLS network.  The appropriate
 Lambda value depends on the given network.
 The parameters Td should be carefully chosen.  Different switching
 technologies may vary significantly in performing a cross-connect
 operation.  At the same time, the time needed in setting up an LSP
 under different traffic may also vary significantly.
 In the case of active measurement, the parameters Th should be
 carefully chosen.  The combination of Lambda and Th reflects the load
 of the network.  The selection of Th should take into account that
 the network has sufficient resources to perform subsequent tests.
 The value of Th MAY be constant during one sampling process for
 simplicity considerations.
 Note that for online or passive measurements, the arrival rate and
 LSP holding time are determined by actual traffic; hence, in this
 case, Lambda and Th are not input parameters.
 It is important that, in obtaining a sample, all the LSPs MUST
 traverse the same route.  If there are multiple routes between the
 ingress node ID0 and egress node ID1, EROs, or an alternate method,
 e.g., static configuration, MUST be used to ensure that all LSPs
 traverse the same route.

9.6. Methodologies

 o  Select the times using the specified Poisson arrival process,
 o  Set up the LSP as the methodology for the singleton unidirectional
    LSP setup delay, and obtain the value of unidirectional LSP setup
    delay, and
 o  Release the LSP after Th, and wait for the next Poisson arrival
    event.
 Note: it is possible that before the previous LSP release procedure
 completes, the next Poisson arrival event arrives and the LSP setup
 procedure is initiated.  If there is resource contention between the
 two LSPs, the LSP setup may fail.  Ways to avoid such contention are
 outside the scope of this document.

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 25] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

9.7. Typical Testing Cases

9.7.1. With No LSP in the Network

9.7.1.1. Motivation

 Single unidirectional LSP setup delay with no LSP in the network is
 important because this reflects the inherent delay of a Resource
 Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) implementation.
 The minimum value provides an indication of the delay that will
 likely be experienced when an LSP traverses the shortest route with
 the lightest load in the control plane.

9.7.1.2. Methodologies

 Make sure that there is no LSP in the network and proceed with the
 methodologies described in Section 9.6

9.7.2. With a Number of LSPs in the Network

9.7.2.1. Motivation

 Single unidirectional LSP setup delay with a number of LSPs in the
 network is important because it reflects the performance of an
 operational network with considerable load.  This delay may vary
 significantly as the number of existing LSPs vary.  It can be used as
 a scalability metric of an RSVP-TE implementation.

9.7.2.2. Methodologies

 Set up the required number of LSPs, and wait until the network
 reaches a stable state; then, proceed with the methodologies
 described in Section 9.6.

9.8. Metric Reporting

 The metric results including both real and undefined values MUST be
 reported together with the total number of values.  The context under
 which the sample is obtained, including the selected parameters, the
 route traversed by the LSPs, and the testing case used, MUST also be
 reported.

10. A Definition for Samples of Multiple Unidirectional LSPs Setup

   Delay
 In Section 5, we defined the singleton metric of multiple
 unidirectional LSPs setup delay.  Now we define how to get one
 particular sample of multiple unidirectional LSPs setup delay.

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 26] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

 Sampling means to take a number of distinct instances of a skeleton
 metric under a given set of parameters.  As in [RFC2330], we use
 Poisson sampling as an example.

10.1. Metric Name

 Multiple unidirectional LSPs setup delay sample

10.2. Metric Parameters

 o  ID0, the ingress LSR ID
 o  ID1, the egress LSR ID
 o  T0, a time
 o  Tf, a time
 o  Lambda_m, a rate in the reciprocal milliseconds
 o  Lambda, a rate in the reciprocal milliseconds
 o  X, the number of LSPs to set up
 o  Th, LSP holding time
 o  Td, the maximum waiting time for successful multiple
    unidirectional LSPs setup

10.3. Metric Units

 A sequence of pairs; the elements of each pair are:
 o  T, a time when the first setup is attempted
 o  dT, either a real number of milliseconds or undefined

10.4. Definition

 Given T0, Tf, and Lambda, compute a pseudo-random Poisson process
 beginning at or before T0, with an average arrival rate Lambda and
 ending at or after Tf.  Those time values greater than or equal to T0
 and less than or equal to Tf are then selected.  At each of the times
 in this process, we obtain the value of multiple unidirectional LSP
 setup delay sample.  The value of the sample is the sequence made up
 of the resulting <time, setup delay> pairs.  If there are no such
 pairs, the sequence is of length zero and the sample is said to be
 empty.

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 27] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

10.5. Discussion

 The parameter Lambda is used as an arrival rate of "batch
 unidirectional LSPs setup" operation.  It regulates the interval in
 between each batch operation.  The parameter Lambda_m is used within
 each batch operation, as described in Section 5
 The parameters Lambda and Lambda_m should be carefully chosen.  If
 the rate is too high, overly frequent LSP setup/release procedure
 will result in high overhead in the control plane.  In turn, the high
 overhead will increase unidirectional LSP setup delay.  On the other
 hand, if the rate is too low, the sample might not completely reflect
 the dynamic provisioning performance of the GMPLS network.  The
 appropriate Lambda and Lambda_m value depends on the given network.
 The parameters Td should be carefully chosen.  Different switching
 technologies may vary significantly in performing a cross-connect
 operation.  At the same time, the time needed in setting up an LSP
 under different traffic may also vary significantly.
 It is important that, in obtaining a sample, all the LSPs MUST
 traverse the same route.  If there are multiple routes between the
 ingress node ID0 and egress node ID1, EROs, or an alternate method,
 e.g., static configuration, MUST be used to ensure that all LSPs
 traverse the same route.

10.6. Methodologies

 o  Select the times using the specified Poisson arrival process,
 o  Set up the LSP as the methodology for the singleton multiple
    unidirectional LSPs setup delay, and obtain the value of multiple
    unidirectional LSPs setup delay, and
 o  Release the LSP after Th, and wait for the next Poisson arrival
    event.
 Note: it is possible that before the previous LSP release procedure
 completes, the next Poisson arrival event arrives and the LSP setup
 procedure is initiated.  If there is resource contention between the
 two LSPs, the LSP setup may fail.  Ways to avoid such contention are
 outside the scope of this document.

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 28] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

10.7. Typical Testing Cases

10.7.1. With No LSP in the Network

10.7.1.1. Motivation

 Multiple unidirectional LSPs setup delay with no LSP in the network
 is important because this reflects the inherent delay of an RSVP-TE
 implementation.  The minimum value provides an indication of the
 delay that will likely be experienced when LSPs traverse the shortest
 route with the lightest load in the control plane.

10.7.1.2. Methodologies

 Make sure that there is no LSP in the network and proceed with the
 methodologies described in Section 10.6.

10.7.2. With a Number of LSPs in the Network

10.7.2.1. Motivation

 Multiple unidirectional LSPs setup delay with a number of LSPs in the
 network is important because it reflects the performance of an
 operational network with considerable load.  This delay can vary
 significantly as the number of existing LSPs vary.  It can be used as
 a scalability metric of an RSVP-TE implementation.

10.7.2.2. Methodologies

 Set up the required number of LSPs, and wait until the network
 reaches a stable state; then, proceed with the methodologies
 described in Section 10.6.

10.8. Metric Reporting

 The metric results including both real and undefined values MUST be
 reported together with the total number of values.  The context under
 which the sample is obtained, including the selected parameters, the
 route traversed by the LSPs, and the testing case used, MUST also be
 reported.

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 29] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

11. A Definition for Samples of Single Bidirectional LSP Setup Delay

 In Section 6, we defined the singleton metric of single bidirectional
 LSP setup delay.  Now we define how to get one particular sample of
 single bidirectional LSP setup delay.  Sampling means to take a
 number of distinct instances of a skeleton metric under a given set
 of parameters.  As in [RFC2330], we use Poisson sampling as an
 example.

11.1. Metric Name

 Single bidirectional LSP setup delay sample with no LSP in the
 network

11.2. Metric Parameters

 o  ID0, the ingress LSR ID
 o  ID1, the egress LSR ID
 o  T0, a time
 o  Tf, a time
 o  Lambda, a rate in the reciprocal milliseconds
 o  Th, LSP holding time
 o  Td, the maximum waiting time for successful setup

11.3. Metric Units

 A sequence of pairs; the elements of each pair are:
 o  T, a time when setup is attempted
 o  dT, either a real number of milliseconds or undefined

11.4. Definition

 Given T0, Tf, and Lambda, compute a pseudo-random Poisson process
 beginning at or before T0, with an average arrival rate Lambda, and
 ending at or after Tf.  Those time values greater than or equal to T0
 and less than or equal to Tf are then selected.  At each of the times
 in this process, we obtain the value of bidirectional LSP setup delay
 sample.  The value of the sample is the sequence made up of the
 resulting <time, LSP setup delay> pairs.  If there are no such pairs,
 the sequence is of length zero and the sample is said to be empty.

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 30] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

11.5. Discussion

 The parameters Lambda should be carefully chosen.  If the rate is too
 high, overly frequent LSP setup/release procedure will result in high
 overhead in the control plane.  In turn, the high overhead will
 increase bidirectional LSP setup delay.  On the other hand, if the
 rate is too low, the sample might not completely reflect the dynamic
 provisioning performance of the GMPLS network.  The appropriate
 Lambda value depends on the given network.
 The parameters Td should be carefully chosen.  Different switching
 technologies may vary significantly in performing a cross-connect
 operation.  At the same time, the time needed to set up an LSP under
 different traffic may also vary significantly.
 In the case of active measurement, the parameters Th should be
 carefully chosen.  The combination of Lambda and Th reflects the load
 of the network.  The selection of Th SHOULD take into account that
 the network has sufficient resources to perform subsequent tests.
 The value of Th MAY be constant during one sampling process for
 simplicity considerations.
 Note that for online or passive measurements, the arrival rate and
 the LSP holding time are determined by actual traffic; hence, in this
 case, Lambda and Th are not input parameters.
 It is important that, in obtaining a sample, all the LSPs MUST
 traverse the same route.  If there are multiple routes between the
 ingress node ID0 and egress node ID1, EROs, or an alternate method,
 e.g., static configuration, MUST be used to ensure that all LSPs
 traverse the same route.

11.6. Methodologies

 o  Select the times using the specified Poisson arrival process,
 o  Set up the LSP as the methodology for the singleton bidirectional
    LSP setup delay, and obtain the value of bidirectional LSP setup
    delay, and
 o  Release the LSP after Th, and wait for the next Poisson arrival
    event.
 Note: it is possible that before the previous LSP release procedure
 completes, the next Poisson arrival event arrives and the LSP setup
 procedure is initiated.  If there is resource contention between the
 two LSPs, the LSP setup may fail.  Ways to avoid such contention are
 outside the scope of this document.

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 31] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

11.7. Typical Testing Cases

11.7.1. With No LSP in the Network

11.7.1.1. Motivation

 Single bidirectional LSP setup delay with no LSP in the network is
 important because this reflects the inherent delay of an RSVP-TE
 implementation.  The minimum value provides an indication of the
 delay that will likely be experienced when an LSP traverses the
 shortest route with the lightest load in the control plane.

11.7.1.2. Methodologies

 Make sure that there is no LSP in the network and proceed with the
 methodologies described in Section 11.6.

11.7.2. With a Number of LSPs in the Network

11.7.2.1. Motivation

 Single bidirectional LSP setup delay with a number of LSPs in the
 network is important because it reflects the performance of an
 operational network with considerable load.  This delay can vary
 significantly as the number of existing LSPs varies.  It can be used
 as a scalability metric of an RSVP-TE implementation.

11.7.2.2. Methodologies

 Set up the required number of LSPs and wait until the network reaches
 a stable state; then, proceed with the methodologies described in
 Section 11.6.

11.8. Metric Reporting

 The metric results including both real and undefined values MUST be
 reported together with the total number of values.  The context under
 which the sample is obtained, including the selected parameters, the
 route traversed by the LSPs, and the testing case used, MUST also be
 reported.

12. A Definition for Samples of Multiple Bidirectional LSPs Setup Delay

 In Section 7, we defined the singleton metric of multiple
 bidirectional LSPs setup delay.  Now we define how to get one
 particular sample of multiple bidirectional LSP setup delay.

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 32] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

 Sampling means to take a number of distinct instances of a skeleton
 metric under a given set of parameters.  As in [RFC2330], we use
 Poisson sampling as an example.

12.1. Metric Name

 Multiple bidirectional LSPs setup delay sample

12.2. Metric Parameters

 o  ID0, the ingress LSR ID
 o  ID1, the egress LSR ID
 o  T0, a time
 o  Tf, a time
 o  Lambda_m, a rate in the reciprocal milliseconds
 o  Lambda, a rate in the reciprocal milliseconds
 o  X, the number of LSPs to set up
 o  Th, LSP holding time
 o  Td, the maximum waiting time for successful multiple
    unidirectional LSPs setup

12.3. Metric Units

 A sequence of pairs; the elements of each pair are:
 o  T, a time when the first setup is attempted
 o  dT, either a real number of milliseconds or undefined

12.4. Definition

 Given T0, Tf, and Lambda, compute a pseudo-random Poisson process
 beginning at or before T0, with an average arrival rate Lambda and
 ending at or after Tf.  Those time values greater than or equal to T0
 and less than or equal to Tf are then selected.  At each of the times
 in this process, we obtain the value of multiple unidirectional LSP
 setup delay sample.  The value of the sample is the sequence made up
 of the resulting <time, setup delay> pairs.  If there are no such
 pairs, the sequence is of length zero and the sample is said to be
 empty.

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 33] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

12.5. Discussion

 The parameter Lambda is used as an arrival rate of "batch
 bidirectional LSPs setup" operation.  It regulates the interval in
 between each batch operation.  The parameter Lambda_m is used within
 each batch operation, as described in Section 7.
 The parameters Lambda and Lambda_m should be carefully chosen.  If
 the rate is too high, overly frequent LSP setup/release procedure
 will result in high overhead in the control plane.  In turn, the high
 overhead will increase unidirectional LSP setup delay.  On the other
 hand, if the rate is too low, the sample might not completely reflect
 the dynamic provisioning performance of the GMPLS network.  The
 appropriate Lambda and Lambda_m values depend on the given network.
 The parameters Td should be carefully chosen.  Different switching
 technologies may vary significantly in performing a cross-connect
 operation.  At the same time, the time needed to set up an LSP under
 different traffic may also vary significantly.
 It is important that, in obtaining a sample, all the LSPs MUST
 traverse the same route.  If there are multiple routes between the
 ingress node ID0 and egress node ID1, EROs, or an alternate method,
 e.g., static configuration, MUST be used to ensure that all LSPs
 traverse the same route.

12.6. Methodologies

 o  Select the times using the specified Poisson arrival process,
 o  Set up the LSP as the methodology for the singleton multiple
    bidirectional LSPs setup delay, and obtain the value of multiple
    unidirectional LSPs setup delay, and
 o  Release the LSP after Th, and wait for the next Poisson arrival
    event.
 Note: it is possible that before the previous LSP release procedure
 completes, the next Poisson arrival event arrives and the LSP setup
 procedure is initiated.  If there is resource contention between the
 two LSPs, the LSP setup may fail.  Ways to avoid such contention are
 outside the scope of this document.

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 34] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

12.7. Typical Testing Cases

12.7.1. With No LSP in the Network

12.7.1.1. Motivation

 Multiple bidirectional LSPs setup delay with no LSP in the network is
 important because this reflects the inherent delay of an RSVP-TE
 implementation.  The minimum value provides an indication of the
 delay that will likely be experienced when an LSPs traverse the
 shortest route with the lightest load in the control plane.

12.7.1.2. Methodologies

 Make sure that there is no LSP in the network and proceed with the
 methodologies described in Section 10.6.

12.7.2. With a Number of LSPs in the Network

12.7.2.1. Motivation

 Multiple bidirectional LSPs setup delay with a number of LSPs in the
 network is important because it reflects the performance of an
 operational network with considerable load.  This delay may vary
 significantly as the number of existing LSPs vary.  It may be used as
 a scalability metric of an RSVP-TE implementation.

12.7.2.2. Methodologies

 Set up the required number of LSPs, and wait until the network
 reaches a stable state; then, proceed with the methodologies
 described in Section 12.6.

12.8. Metric Reporting

 The metric results including both real and undefined values MUST be
 reported together with the total number of values.  The context under
 which the sample is obtained, including the selected parameters, the
 route traversed by the LSPs, and the testing case used, MUST also be
 reported.

13. A Definition for Samples of LSP Graceful Release Delay

 In Section 8, we defined the singleton metric of LSP graceful release
 delay.  Now we define how to get one particular sample of LSP
 graceful release delay.  We also use Poisson sampling as an example.

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 35] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

13.1. Metric Name

 LSP graceful release delay sample

13.2. Metric Parameters

 o  ID0, the ingress LSR ID
 o  ID1, the egress LSR ID
 o  T0, a time
 o  Tf, a time
 o  Lambda, a rate in reciprocal milliseconds
 o  Td, the maximum waiting time for successful LSP release

13.3. Metric Units

 A sequence of pairs; the elements of each pair are:
 o  T, a time, and
 o  dT, either a real number of milliseconds or undefined

13.4. Definition

 Given T0, Tf, and Lambda, we compute a pseudo-random Poisson process
 beginning at or before T0, with an average arrival rate Lambda and
 ending at or after Tf.  Those time values greater than or equal to T0
 and less than or equal to Tf are then selected.  At each of the times
 in this process, we obtain the value of LSP graceful release delay
 sample.  The value of the sample is the sequence made up of the
 resulting <time, LSP graceful delay> pairs.  If there are no such
 pairs, the sequence is of length zero and the sample is said to be
 empty.

13.5. Discussion

 The parameter Lambda should be carefully chosen.  If the rate is too
 large, overly frequent LSP setup/release procedure will result in
 high overhead in the control plane.  In turn, the high overhead will
 increase unidirectional LSP setup delay.  On the other hand, if the
 rate is too small, the sample might not completely reflect the
 dynamic provisioning performance of the GMPLS network.  The
 appropriate Lambda value depends on the given network.

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 36] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

 It is important that, in obtaining a sample, all the LSPs MUST
 traverse the same route.  If there are multiple routes between the
 ingress node ID0 and egress node ID1, EROs, or an alternate method,
 e.g., static configuration, MUST be used to ensure that all LSPs
 traverse the same route.

13.6. Methodologies

 Generally, the methodology would proceed as follows:
 o  Set up the LSP to be deleted
 o  Select the times using the specified Poisson arrival process,
 o  Release the LSP as the methodology for the singleton LSP graceful
    release delay, and obtain the value of LSP graceful release delay,
    and
 o  Set up the LSP, and restart the Poisson arrival process, wait for
    the next Poisson arrival event.

13.7. Metric Reporting

 The metric results including both real and undefined values MUST be
 reported together with the total number of values.  The context under
 which the sample is obtained, including the selected parameters, and
 the route traversed by the LSPs MUST also be reported.

14. Some Statistics Definitions for Metrics to Report

 Given the samples of the performance metric, we now offer several
 statistics of these samples to report.  From these statistics, we can
 draw some useful conclusions of a GMPLS network.  The value of these
 metrics is either a real number of milliseconds or undefined.  In the
 following discussion, we only consider the finite values.

14.1. The Minimum of Metric

 The minimum of the metric is the minimum of all the dT values in the
 sample.  In computing this, undefined values SHOULD be treated as
 infinitely large.  Note that this means that the minimum could thus
 be undefined if all the dT values are undefined.  In addition, the
 metric minimum SHOULD be set to undefined if the sample is empty.

14.2. The Median of Metric

 Metric median is the median of the dT values in the given sample.  In
 computing the median, the undefined values MUST NOT be included.

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 37] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

14.3. The Maximum of Metric

 The maximum of the metric is the maximum of all the dT values in the
 sample.  In computing this, undefined values MUST NOT be included.
 Note that this means that measurements that exceed the upper bound
 are not reported in this statistic.  This is an important
 consideration when evaluating the maximum when the number of
 undefined measurements is non-zero.

14.4. The Percentile of Metric

 The "empirical distribution function" (EDF) of a set of scalar
 measurements is a function F(x), which, for any x, gives the
 fractional proportion of the total measurements that were <= x.
 Given a percentage X, the X-th percentile of the metric means the
 smallest value of x for which F(x) >= X.  In computing the
 percentile, undefined values MUST NOT be included.
 See [RFC2330] for further details.

14.5. Failure Statistics of Metric

 In the process of LSP setup/release, it may fail due to various
 reasons.  For example, setup/release may fail when the control plane
 is overburdened or when there is resource shortage in one of the
 intermediate nodes.  Since the setup/release failure may have
 significant impact on network operation, it is worthwhile to report
 each failure cases, so that appropriate operations can be performed
 to check the possible implementation, configuration or other
 deficiencies.
 Five types of failure events are defined in previous sections:
 o  Single Unidirectional LSP Setup Failure
 o  Multiple Unidirectional LSP Setup Failure
 o  Single Bidirectional LSP Setup Failure
 o  Multiple Bidirectional LSP Setup Failure
 o  LSP Graceful Release Failure
 Given the samples of the performance metric, we now offer two
 statistics of failure events of these samples to report.

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 38] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

14.5.1. Failure Count

 Failure Count is defined as the number of the undefined value of the
 corresponding performance metric (failure events) in a sample.  The
 value of Failure Count is an integer.

14.5.2. Failure Ratio

 Failure Ratio is the percentage of the number of failure events to
 the total number of requests in a sample.  The calculation for
 Failure Ratio is defined as follows:
 X type failure ratio = Number of X type failure events/(Number of
 valid X type metric values + Number of X type failure events) * 100%.

15. Discussion

 It is worthwhile to point out that:
 o  The unidirectional/bidirectional LSP setup delay is one ingress-
    egress round-trip time plus processing time.  But in this
    document, unidirectional/bidirectional LSP setup delay has not
    taken the processing time in the end nodes (ingress and/or egress)
    into account.  The timestamp T2 is taken after the endpoint node
    receives it.  Actually, the last node has to take some time to
    process local procedures.  Similarly, in the LSP graceful release
    delay, the memo has not considered the processing time in the end
    node.
 o  This document assumes that the correct procedures for installing
    the data plane are followed as described in [RFC3209], [RFC3471],
    and [RFC3473].  That is, by the time the egress receives and
    processes a Path message, it is safe for the egress to transmit
    data on the reverse path, and by the time the ingress receives and
    processes a Resv message it is safe for the ingress to transmit
    data on the forward path.  See [CCAMP-SWITCH] for detailed
    explanations.  This document does not include any verification
    that the implementations of the control plane software are
    conformant, although such tests MAY be constructed with the use of
    suitable signal generation test equipment.  In [CCAMP-DPM], we
    defined a series of metrics to do such verifications.  However, it
    is RECOMMENDED that both the measurements defined in this document
    and the measurements defined in [CCAMP-DPM] are performed to
    complement each other.

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 39] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

 o  Note that, in implementing the tests described in this document, a
    tester should be sure to measure the time taken for the control
    plane messages including the processing of those messages by the
    nodes under test.
 o  Bidirectional LSPs may be set up using three-way signaling, where
    the initiating node will send a ResvConf message downstream upon
    receiving the Resv message.  The ResvConf message is used to
    notify the terminate node that it can transfer data upstream.
    Actually, both directions should be ready to transfer data when
    the Resv message is received by the initiating node.  Therefore,
    the bidirectional LSP setup delay defined in this document does
    not take the confirmation procedure into account.

16. Security Considerations

 Samples of the metrics can be obtained in either active or passive
 manners.
 In active measurement, ingress nodes inject probing messages into the
 control plane.  Since the measurement endpoints must be conformant to
 signaling specifications and behave as normal signaling endpoints, it
 will not incur other security issues than normal LSP provisioning.
 However, the measurement parameters must be carefully selected so
 that the measurements inject trivial amounts of additional traffic
 into the networks they measure.  If they inject "too much" traffic,
 they can skew the results of the measurement, and, in extreme cases,
 cause congestion and denial of service.
 When samples of the metrics are collected in a passive manner, e.g.,
 by monitoring the operations on real-life LSPs, the implementation of
 the monitoring and reporting mechanism must be careful so that they
 will not be used to attack the control plane.  A typical
 implementation may use the Management Information Base (MIB) to
 collect/store the metrics and access to the MIB is limited to the
 Network Management Systems (NMSs).  In this case, passive monitoring
 will not incur other security issues than implementing the MIBs and
 NMSs.  If an implementation chooses to expose the performance data to
 other applications, then it must take into account the possible
 security issues it may face.  For example, when exposing the
 performance data through Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP),
 certain authentication methods should be used to ensure that the
 entity maintaining the performance data are not subject to
 unauthorized readings and modifications.  Rate limiting on the
 performance query may also be desirable to reduce the risk that the
 entity maintaining the performance data are overwhelmed by too many
 query requests.  It is RECOMMENDED that implementers consider the

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 40] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

 security features as provided by the SNMPv3 framework (see [RFC3410],
 section 8), including full support for the SNMPv3 cryptographic
 mechanisms (for authentication and privacy).
 Additionally, the security considerations pertaining to the original
 RSVP protocol [RFC2205] and its TE extensions [RFC3209] also remain
 relevant.

17. Acknowledgments

 We wish to thank Dan Li, Fang Liu (Christine), Zafar Ali, Monique
 Morrow, Adrian Farrel, Deborah Brungard, Lou Berger, Thomas D. Nadeau
 for their comments and help.  Lou Berger and Adrian Farrel have made
 text contributions to this document.
 We wish to thank experts from IPPM and BMWG -- Reinhard Schrage, Al
 Morton, and Henk Uijterwaal -- for reviewing this document.  Reinhard
 Schrage has made text contributions to this document.
 This document contains ideas as well as text that have appeared in
 existing IETF documents.  The authors wish to thank G. Almes, S.
 Kalidindi, and M. Zekauskas.
 We also wish to thank Weisheng Hu, Yaohui Jin, and Wei Guo in the
 state key laboratory of advanced optical communication systems and
 networks for the valuable comments.  We also wish to thank the
 support from National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) and
 863 program of China.

18. References

18.1. Normative References

 [RFC2119]       Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
                 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
 [RFC2205]       Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
                 Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) --
                 Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205,
                 September 1997.
 [RFC2679]       Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-
                 way Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, September 1999.
 [RFC2681]       Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A Round-
                 trip Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2681,
                 September 1999.

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 41] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

 [RFC3209]       Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan,
                 V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for
                 LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
 [RFC3471]       Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
                 Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description",
                 RFC 3471, January 2003.
 [RFC3473]       Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
                 Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
                 Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions",
                 RFC 3473, January 2003.
 [RFC3945]       Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
                 Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945,
                 October 2004.
 [RFC4208]       Swallow, G., Drake, J., Ishimatsu, H., and Y.
                 Rekhter, "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching
                 (GMPLS) User-Network Interface (UNI): Resource
                 ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
                 Support for the Overlay Model", RFC 4208,
                 October 2005.

18.2. Informative References

 [CCAMP-DPM]     Sun, W., Zhang, G., Gao, J., Xie, G., Papneja, R.,
                 Gu, B., Wei, X., Otani, T., and R. Jing, "Label
                 Switched Path (LSP) Data Path Delay Metric in
                 Generalized MPLS/ MPLS-TE Networks", Work
                 in Progress, December 2009.
 [CCAMP-SWITCH]  Shiomoto, K. and A. Farrel, "Advice on When It is
                 Safe to Start Sending Data on Label Switched Paths
                 Established Using RSVP-TE", Work in Progress,
                 October 2009.
 [RFC2330]       Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,
                 "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330,
                 May 1998.
 [RFC3410]       Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart,
                 "Introduction and Applicability Statements for
                 Internet-Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410,
                 December 2002.

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 42] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

Appendix A. Authors' Addresses

 Jianhua Gao
 Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.
 China
 Phone: +86 755 28973237
 EMail: gjhhit@huawei.com
 Guowu Xie
 University of California, Riverside
 900 University Ave.
 Riverside, CA 92521
 USA
 Phone: +1 951 237 8825
 EMail: xieg@cs.ucr.edu
 Rajiv Papneja
 Isocore
 12359 Sunrise Valley Drive, STE 100
 Reston, VA  20190
 USA
 Phone: +1 703 860 9273
 EMail: rpapneja@isocore.com
 Bin Gu
 IXIA
 Oriental Kenzo Plaza 8M, 48 Dongzhimen Wai Street, Dongcheng District
 Beijing  200240
 China
 Phone: +86 13611590766
 EMail: BGu@ixiacom.com
 Xueqin Wei
 Fiberhome Telecommunication Technology Co., Ltd.
 Wuhan
 China
 Phone: +86 13871127882
 EMail: xqwei@fiberhome.com.cn

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 43] RFC 5814 LSP Dynamic PPM in GMPLS Networks March 2010

 Tomohiro Otani
 KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc.
 2-1-15 Ohara Kamifukuoka Saitama
 356-8502
 Japan
 Phone: +81-49-278-7357
 EMail: otani@kddilabs.jp
 Ruiquan Jing
 China Telecom Beijing Research Institute
 118 Xizhimenwai Avenue
 Beijing  100035
 China
 Phone: +86-10-58552000
 EMail: jingrq@ctbri.com.cn

Editors' Addresses

 Weiqiang Sun (editor)
 Shanghai Jiao Tong University
 800 Dongchuan Road
 Shanghai  200240
 China
 Phone: +86 21 3420 5359
 EMail: sunwq@mit.edu
 Guoying Zhang (editor)
 China Academy of Telecommunication Research, MIIT, China.
 No.52 Hua Yuan Bei Lu,Haidian District
 Beijing  100083
 China
 Phone: +86 1062300103
 EMail: zhangguoying@mail.ritt.com.cn

Sun & Zhang Standards Track [Page 44]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc5814.txt · Last modified: 2010/03/19 00:35 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki