[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits] [IPR]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 6391

PWE3                                                      S. Bryant, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                               C. Filsfils
Intended status: Standards Track                           Cisco Systems
Expires: January 7, 2012                                        U. Drafz
                                                        Deutsche Telekom
                                                             V. Kompella
                                                                J. Regan
                                                          Alcatel-Lucent
                                                               S. Amante
                                                  Level 3 Communications
                                                            July 6, 2011


Flow Aware Transport of Pseudowires over an MPLS Packet Switched Network
                       draft-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw-07

Abstract

   Where the payload of a pseudowire comprises a number of distinct
   flows, it can be desirable to carry those flows over the equal cost
   multiple paths (ECMPs) that exist in the packet switched network.
   Most forwarding engines are able to generate a hash of the MPLS label
   stack and use this mechanism to balance MPLS flows over ECMPs.

   This document describes a method of identifying the flows, or flow
   groups, within pseudowires such that Label Switching Routers can
   balance flows at a finer granularity than individual pseudowires.
   The mechanism uses an additional label in the MPLS label stack.

Requirements Language

   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 [RFC2119].

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference



Bryant, et al.           Expires January 7, 2012                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                   FAT-PW                        July 2011


   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 7, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 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.

































Bryant, et al.           Expires January 7, 2012                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                   FAT-PW                        July 2011


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1.  ECMP in Label Switching Routers  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     1.2.  Flow Label . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.  Native Service Processing Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.  Pseudowire Forwarder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.1.  Encapsulation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  Signaling the Presence of the Flow Label . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.1.  Structure of Flow Label Sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.  Static Pseudowires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   6.  Multi-Segment Pseudowires  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   7.  OAM  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   8.  Applicability of PWs using Flow Labels . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     8.1.  Equal Cost Multiple Paths  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     8.2.  Link Aggregation Groups  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     8.3.  Multiple RSVP-TE Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     8.4.  The Single Large Flow Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     8.5.  Applicability to MPLS-TP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     8.6.  Asymmetric Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   9.  Applicability to MPLS LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   10. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   11. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   12. Congestion Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   13. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19






















Bryant, et al.           Expires January 7, 2012                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                   FAT-PW                        July 2011


1.  Introduction

   A pseudowire (PW) [RFC3985] is normally transported over one single
   network path, even if multiple Equal Cost Multiple Paths (ECMP) exist
   between the ingress and egress PW provider edge (PE)
   equipment[RFC4385] [RFC4928].  This is required to preserve the
   characteristics of the emulated service (e.g. to avoid misordering
   SAToP PW packets [RFC4553] or subjecting the packets to unusable
   inter-arrival times).  The use of a single path to preserve order
   remains the default mode of operation of a PW.  The new capability
   proposed in this document is an OPTIONAL mode which may be used when
   the use of ECMP is known to be beneficial (and not harmful) to the
   operation of the PW.

   Some PWs are used to transport large volumes of IP traffic between
   routers.  One example of this is the use of an Ethernet PW to create
   a virtual direct link between a pair of routers.  Such PWs may carry
   from hundreds of Mbps to Gbps of traffic.  These PWs only require
   packet ordering to be preserved within the context of each individual
   transported IP flow.  They do not require packet ordering to be
   preserved between all packets of all IP flows within the pseudowire.

   The ability to explicitly configure such a PW to leverage the
   availability of multiple ECMPs allows for better capacity planning as
   the statistical multiplexing of a larger number of smaller flows is
   more efficient than with a smaller set of larger flows.

   Typically, forwarding hardware can deduce that an IP payload is being
   directly carried by an MPLS label stack, and it is capable of looking
   at some fields in packets to construct hash buckets for conversations
   or flows.  However, when the MPLS payload is a PW, an intermediate
   node has no information on the type of PW being carried in the
   packet.  This limits the forwarder at the intermediate node to only
   being able to make an ECMP choice based on a hash of the MPLS label
   stack.  In the case of a PW emulating a high bandwidth trunk, the
   granularity obtained by hashing the label stack is inadequate for
   satisfactory load-balancing.  The ingress node, however, is in the
   special position of being able to look at the un-encapsulated packet
   and spread flows amongst any available ECMPs, or even any Loop-Free
   Alternates [RFC5286].  This document defines a method to introduce
   granularity on the hashing of traffic running over PWs by introducing
   an additional label, chosen by the ingress node, and placed at the
   bottom of the label stack.

   In addition to providing an indication of the flow structure for use
   in ECMP forwarding decisions, the mechanism described in the document
   may also be used to select flows for distribution over an 802.1ad
   link aggregation group that has been used in an MPLS network.



Bryant, et al.           Expires January 7, 2012                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                   FAT-PW                        July 2011


   NOTE: Although Ethernet is frequently referenced as a use case in
   this RFC, the mechanisms described in this document are general
   mechanisms that may be applied to any PW type in which there are
   identifiable flows, and in which there is no requirement to preserve
   the order between those flows.

1.1.  ECMP in Label Switching Routers

   Label switching routers (LSRs) commonly generate a hash of the label
   stack or some elements of the label stack as a method of
   discriminating between flows, and use this to distribute those flows
   over the available ECMPs that exist in the network.  Since the label
   at the bottom of stack is usually the label most closely associated
   with the flow, this normally provides the greatest entropy, and hence
   is usually included in the hash.  This document describes a method of
   adding an additional label stack entry (LSE) at the bottom of stack
   in order to facilitate the load balancing of the flows within a PW
   over the available ECMPs.  A similar design for general MPLS use has
   also been proposed [I-D.kompella-mpls-entropy-label], Section 9.

   An alternative method of load balancing by creating a number of PWs
   and distributing the flows amongst them was considered, but was
   rejected because:

   o  It did not introduce as much entropy as can be introduced by
      adding an additional LSE.

   o  It required additional PWs to be set up and maintained.

1.2.  Flow Label

   An additional LSE [RFC3032] is interposed between the PW LSE and the
   control word, or if the control word is not present, between the PW
   LSE and the PW payload.  This additional LSE is called the flow LSE
   and the label carried by the flow LSE is called the flow label.
   Indivisible flows within the PW MUST be mapped to the same flow label
   by the ingress PE.  The flow label stimulates the correct ECMP load
   balancing behaviour in the packet switched network (PSN).  On receipt
   of the PW packet at the egress PE (which knows a flow LSE is present)
   the flow LSE is discarded without processing.

   Note that the flow label MUST NOT be an MPLS reserved label (values
   in the range 0..15) [RFC3032], but is otherwise unconstrained by the
   protocol.

   It is useful to give consideration to the choice of TTL value in the
   flow LSE [RFC3032].  The flow LSE is at the bottom of label stack,
   therefore, even when penultimate hop popping is employed, it will



Bryant, et al.           Expires January 7, 2012                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                   FAT-PW                        July 2011


   always be will preceded by the PW label on arrival at the PE.  If,
   due to an error condition the flow LSE becomes top of stack it might
   be examined as if it were a normal LSE, and the packet might then be
   forwarded.  This can be prevented by setting the flow LSE TTL to 1,
   thereby forcing the packet to be discarded by the forwarder.  Note
   that this may be a departure from considerations that apply to the
   general MPLS case.

   This document does not define a use for the TC bits (formerly known
   as the EXP bits) in the flow label.  Future documents may define a
   use for these bits, therefore implementations conforming to this
   specification MUST set the TC bits to zero at the ingress and MUST
   ignore them at the egress.


2.  Native Service Processing Function

   The Native Service Processing (NSP) function [RFC3985] is a component
   of a PE that has knowledge of the structure of the emulated service
   and is able to take action on the service outside the scope of the
   PW.  In this case it is required that the NSP in the ingress PE
   identify flows, or groups of flows within the service, and indicate
   the flow (group) identity of each packet as it is passed to the
   pseudowire forwarder.  As an example, where the PW type is an
   Ethernet, the NSP might parse the ingress Ethernet traffic and
   consider all of the IP traffic.  This traffic could then be
   categorised into flows by considering all traffic with the same
   source and destination address pair to be a single indivisible flow.
   Since this is an NSP function, by definition, the method used to
   identify a flow is outside the scope of the PW design.  Similarly,
   since the NSP is internal to the PE, the method of flow indication to
   the PW forwarder is outside the scope of this document.


3.  Pseudowire Forwarder

   The PW forwarder must be provided with a method of mapping flows to
   load balanced paths.

   The forwarder must generate a label for the flow or group of flows.
   How the flow label values are determined is outside the scope of this
   document, however the flow label allocated to a flow MUST NOT be an
   MPLS reserved label and SHOULD remain constant for the life of the
   flow.  It is RECOMMENDED that the method chosen to generate the load
   balancing labels introduces a high degree of entropy in their values,
   to maximise the entropy presented to the ECMP selection mechanism in
   the LSRs in the PSN, and hence distribute the flows as evenly as
   possible over the available PSN ECMP.  The forwarder at the ingress



Bryant, et al.           Expires January 7, 2012                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                   FAT-PW                        July 2011


   PE prepends the PW control word (if applicable), and then pushes the
   flow label, followed by the PW label.

   NOTE: Although this document does not attempt to specify any hash
   algorithms, it is suggested that any such algorithm should be based
   on the assumption that there will be a high degree of entropy in the
   values assigned to the load balancing labels.

   The forwarder at the egress PE uses the pseudowire label to identify
   the pseudowire.  From the context associated with the pseudowire
   label, the egress PE can determine whether a flow LSE is present.  If
   a flow LSE is present, it MUST be checked to determine whether it
   carries a reserved label.  If it is a reserved label the packet is
   processed according to the rules associated with that reserved label,
   otherwise the LSE is discarded.

   All other PW forwarding operations are unmodified by the inclusion of
   the flow LSE.

3.1.  Encapsulation

   The PWE3 Protocol Stack Reference Model modified to include flow LSE
   is shown in Figure 1 below

      +-------------+                                +-------------+
      |  Emulated   |                                |  Emulated   |
      |  Ethernet   |                                |  Ethernet   |
      | (including  |         Emulated Service       | (including  |
      |  VLAN)      |<==============================>|  VLAN)      |
      |  Services   |                                |  Services   |
      +-------------+                                +-------------+
      |    Flow     |                                |    Flow     |
      +-------------+            Pseudowire          +-------------+
      |Demultiplexer|<==============================>|Demultiplexer|
      +-------------+                                +-------------+
      |    PSN      |            PSN Tunnel          |    PSN      |
      |   MPLS      |<==============================>|   MPLS      |
      +-------------+                                +-------------+
      |  Physical   |                                |  Physical   |
      +-----+-------+                                +-----+-------+


               Figure 1: PWE3 Protocol Stack Reference Model

   The encapsulation of a PW with a flow LSE is shown in Figure 2 below






Bryant, et al.           Expires January 7, 2012                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                   FAT-PW                        July 2011


       +---------------------------+
       |                           |
       |  Payload                  |
       |                           |  n octets
       |                           |
       +---------------------------+
       |  Optional Control Word    |  4 octets
       +---------------------------+
       |  Flow LSE                 |  4 octets
       +---------------------------+
       |  PW LSE                   |  4 octets
       +---------------------------+
       |  MPLS Tunnel LSE (s)      |  n*4 octets (four octets per LSE)
       +---------------------------+




    Figure 2: Encapsulation of a pseudowire with a pseudowire flow LSE


4.  Signaling the Presence of the Flow Label

   When using the signalling procedures in [RFC4447], a new Pseudowire
   Interface Parameter Sub-TLV, the Flow Label Sub-TLV (FL Sub-TLV), is
   used to synchronise the flow label states between the ingress and
   egress PEs.

   The absence of a FL Sub-TLV indicates that the PE is unable to
   process flow labels.  A PE that is using PW signalling and that does
   not send a FL Sub-TLV MUST NOT include a flow label in the PW packet.
   A PE that is using PW signalling and which does not receive a FL Sub-
   TLV from its peer MUST NOT include a flow label in the PW packet.
   This preserves backwards compatibility with existing PW
   specifications.

   A PE that wishes to send a flow label in a PW packet MUST include in
   its label mapping message a FL Sub-TLV with T = 1 (see Section 4.1).

   A PE that is willing to receive a flow label MUST include in its
   label mapping message a FL Sub-TLV with R = 1 (see Section 4.1).

   A PE that receives a label mapping message a FL Sub-TLV with R = 0
   MUST NOT include a flow label in the PW packet.

   Thus a PE sending a FL Sub-TLV with T = 1 and receiving a FL Sub-TLV
   with R = 1 MUST include a flow label in the PW packet.  Under all
   other combinations of FL Sub-TLV signalling a PE MUST NOT include a



Bryant, et al.           Expires January 7, 2012                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                   FAT-PW                        July 2011


   flow label in the PW packet.

   The signalling procedures in [RFC4447] state that "Processing of the
   interface parameters should continue when unknown interface
   parameters are encountered, and they MUST be silently ignored."  The
   signalling procedure described here is therefore backwards compatible
   with existing implementations.

   Note that what is signalled is the desire to include the flow LSE in
   the label stack.  The value of the flow label is a local matter for
   the ingress PE, and the label value itself is not signalled.

4.1.  Structure of Flow Label Sub-TLV

   The structure of the flow label TLV is shown in Figure 3.

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | FL=0x17       |    Length     |T|R|      Reserved             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                       Figure 3: Flow Label Sub-TLV

   Where:

   o  FL (value 0x17) is the flow label sub-TLV identifier assigned by
      IANA (seeSection 11 ).

   o  Length is the length of the TLV in octets and is 4.

   o  When T=1 the PE is requesting the ability to send a PW packet that
      includes a flow label.  When T=0, the PE is indicating that it
      will not send a PW packet containing a flow label.

   o  When R=1 the PE is able to receive a PW packet with a flow label
      present.  When R=0 the PE is unable to receive a PW packet with
      the flow label present.

   o  Reserved bits MUST be zero on transmit and MUST be ignored on
      receive.


5.  Static Pseudowires

   If PWE3 signalling [RFC4447] is not in use for a PW, then whether the
   flow label is used MUST be identically provisioned in both PEs at the
   PW endpoints.  If there is no provisioning support for this option,



Bryant, et al.           Expires January 7, 2012                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                   FAT-PW                        July 2011


   the default behaviour is not to include the flow label.


6.  Multi-Segment Pseudowires

   The flow label mechanism described in this document works on multi-
   segment PWs without requiring modification to the Switching PEs
   (S-PEs).  This is because the flow LSE is transparent to the label
   swap operation, and because interface parameter Sub-TLV signalling is
   transitive.


7.  OAM

   The following OAM considerations apply to this method of load
   balancing.

   Where the OAM is only to be used to perform a basic test that the PWs
   have been configured at the PEs, VCCV [RFC5085] messages may be sent
   using any load balance PW path, i.e. using any value for the flow
   label.

   Where it is required to verify that a pseudowire is fully functional
   for all flows, VCCV [RFC5085] connection verification message MUST be
   sent over each ECMP path to the pseudowire egress PE.  This solution
   may be difficult to achieve and scales poorly.  Under these
   circumstances, it may be sufficient to send VCCV messages using any
   load balance pseudowire path because if a failure occurs within the
   PSN the failure will normally be detected and repaired by the PSN.
   That is, the PSN's Interior Gateway protocol (IGP) link/node failure
   detection mechanism (loss of light, bidirectional forwarding
   detection [RFC5880] or IGP hello detection), and the IGP convergence
   will naturally modify the ECMP set of network paths between the
   ingress and egress PE's.  Hence the PW is only impacted during the
   normal IGP convergence time.  Note that this period may be reduced if
   a fast re-route or fast convergence technology is deployed in the
   network [RFC4090], [RFC5286].

   If the failure is related to the individual corruption of a Label
   Forwarding Information database (LFIB) entry in a router, then only
   the network path using that specific entry is impacted.  If the PW is
   load balanced over multiple network paths, then this failure can only
   be detected if, by chance, the transported OAM flow is mapped onto
   the impacted network path, or if all paths are tested.  Since testing
   all paths may present problems as noted above, other mechanisms to
   detect this type of error may need to be developed, such as an LSP
   self test technology.




Bryant, et al.           Expires January 7, 2012               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                   FAT-PW                        July 2011


   To troubleshoot the MPLS PSN, including multiple paths, the
   techniques described in [RFC4378] and [RFC4379] can be used.

   Where the PW OAM is carried out of band (VCCV Type 2) [RFC5085] it is
   necessary to insert an "MPLS Router Alert Label" in the label stack.
   The resultant label stack is a follows:


   +-------------------------------+
   |                               |
   |      VCCV Message             |  n octets
   |                               |
   +-------------------------------+
   |   Optional Control Word       |  4 octets
   +-------------------------------+
   |      Flow label               |  4 octets
   +-------------------------------+
   |      PW label                 |  4 octets
   +-------------------------------+
   |      Router Alert label       |  4 octets
   +-------------------------------+
   |      MPLS Tunnel label(s)     |  n*4 octets (four octets per label)
   +-------------------------------+


                    Figure 4: Use of Router Alert Label

   Note that, depending on the number of labels hashed by the LSR, the
   inclusion of the Router Alert label may cause the OAM packet to be
   load balanced to a different path from that taken by the data packets
   with identical Flow and PW labels.


8.  Applicability of PWs using Flow Labels

   A node within the PSN is not able to perform deep-packet-inspection
   (DPI) of the PW as the PW technology is not self-describing: the
   structure of the PW payload is only known to the ingress and egress
   PE devices.  The method proposed in this document provides a
   statistical mitigation of the problem of load balance in those cases
   where a PE is able to discern flows embedded in the traffic received
   on the attachment circuit.

   The methods described in this document are transparent to the PSN and
   as such do not require any new capability from the PSN.

   The requirement to load-balance over multiple PSN paths occurs when
   the ratio between the PW access speed and the PSN's core link



Bryant, et al.           Expires January 7, 2012               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                   FAT-PW                        July 2011


   bandwidth is large (e.g. >= 10%).  ATM and FR are unlikely to meet
   this property.  Ethernet may have this property, and for that reason
   this document focuses on Ethernet.  Applications for other high-
   access-bandwidth PW's (e.g.  Fibre Channel) may be defined in the
   future.

   This design applies to MPLS PWs where it is meaningful to de-
   construct the packets presented to the ingress PE into flows.  The
   mechanism described in this document promotes the distribution of
   flows within the PW over different network paths.  This in turn means
   that whilst packets within a flow are delivered in order (subject to
   normal IP delivery perturbations due to topology variation), order is
   no longer maintained for all packets sent over the PW.  It is not
   proposed to associate a different sequence number with each flow.  If
   sequence number support is required the flow label mechanism MUST NOT
   be used.

   Where it is known that the traffic carried by the Ethernet PW is IP
   the flows can be identified and mapped to an ECMP.  Such methods
   typically include hashing on the source and destination addresses,
   the protocol ID and higher-layer flow-dependent fields such as TCP/
   UDP ports, L2TPv3 Session IDs etc.

   Where it is known that the traffic carried by the Ethernet PW is
   non-IP, techniques used for link bundling between Ethernet switches
   may be reused.  In this case however the latency distribution would
   be larger than is found in the link bundle case.  The acceptability
   of the increased latency is for further study.  Of particular
   importance the Ethernet control frames SHOULD always be mapped to the
   same PSN path to ensure in-order delivery.

8.1.  Equal Cost Multiple Paths

   ECMP in packet switched networks is statistical in nature.  The
   mapping of flows to a particular path does not take into account the
   bandwidth of the flow being mapped or the current bandwidth usage of
   the members of the ECMP set.  This simplification works well when the
   distribution of flows is evenly spread over the ECMP set and there
   are a large number of flows that have low bandwidth relative to the
   paths.  The random allocation of a flow to a path provides a good
   approximation to an even spread of flows, provided that polarisation
   effects are avoided.  The method defined in this document has the
   same statistical properties as an IP PSN.

   ECMP is a load-sharing mechanism that is based on sharing the load
   over a number of layer 3 paths through the PSN.  Often however
   multiple links exist between a pair of LSRs that are considered by
   the IGP to be a single link.  These are known as link bundles.  The



Bryant, et al.           Expires January 7, 2012               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                   FAT-PW                        July 2011


   mechanism described in this document can also be used to distribute
   the flows within a PW over the members of the link bundle by using
   the flow label value to identify candidate flows.  How that mapping
   takes place is outside the scope of this specification.  Similar
   considerations apply to link aggregation groups.

   There is no mechanism currently defined to indicate the bandwidths in
   use by specific flows using the fields of the MPLS shim header.
   Furthermore, since the semantics of the MPLS shim header are fully
   defined in [RFC3032] and [RFC5462], those fields cannot be assigned
   semantics to carry this information.  This document does not define
   any semantic for use in the TTL or TC fields of the label entry that
   carries the flow label, but requires that the flow label itself be
   selected with a high degree of entropy suggesting that the label
   value should not be overloaded with additional meaning in any
   subsequent specification.

   A different type of load balancing is the desire to carry a PW over a
   set of PSN links in which the bandwidth of members of the link set is
   less than the bandwidth of the PW.  Proposals to address this problem
   have been made in the past[I-D.stein-pwe3-pwbonding].  Such a
   mechanism can be considered complementary to this mechanism.

8.2.  Link Aggregation Groups

   A Link Aggregation Group (LAG) is used to bond together several
   physical circuits between two adjacent nodes so they appear to
   higher-layer protocols as a single, higher bandwidth "virtual" pipe.
   These may co-exist in various parts of a given network.  An advantage
   of LAGs is that they reduce the number of routing and signalling
   protocol adjacencies between devices, reducing control plane
   processing overhead.  As with ECMP, the key problem related to LAGs
   is that due to inefficiencies in LAG load-distribution algorithms, a
   particular component of a LAG may experience congestion.  The
   mechanism proposed here may be able to assist in producing a more
   uniform flow distribution.

   The same considerations requiring a flow to go over a single member
   of an ECMP set apply to a member of a LAG.

8.3.  Multiple RSVP-TE Paths

   In some networks it is desirable for a Label Edge Router (LER) to be
   able to load balance a PW across multiple RSVP-TE tunnels.  The flow
   label mechanism described in this document may be used to provide the
   LER with the required flow information, and necessary entropy to
   provide this type of load balancing.  An example of such a case is
   the use of the flow label mechanism in networks using a link bundle



Bryant, et al.           Expires January 7, 2012               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                   FAT-PW                        July 2011


   with the all ones component [RFC4201].

   Methods by which the LER is configured to apply this type of ECMP is
   outside the scope of this document.

8.4.  The Single Large Flow Case

   Clearly the operator should make sure that the service offered using
   PW technology and the method described in this document does not
   exceed the maximum planned link capacity, unless it can be guaranteed
   that it conforms to the Internet traffic profile of a very large
   number of small flows.

   If the NSP cannot access sufficient information to distinguish flows,
   perhaps because the protocol stack required parsing further into the
   packet than it is able, then the functionality described in this
   document does not give any benefits.  The most common case where a
   single flow dominates the traffic on a PW is when it is used to
   transport enterprise traffic.  Enterprise traffic may well consist of
   a single, large TCP flow, or encrypted flows that cannot be handled
   by the methods described in this document.

   An operator has four options under these circumstances:

   1.  The operator can choose to do nothing and the system will work as
       it does without the flow label.

   2.  The operator can make the customer aware that the service
       offering has a restriction on flow bandwidth and police flows to
       that restriction.  This would allow customers offering multiple
       flows to use a larger fraction their access bandwidth, whilst
       preventing a single flow from consuming a fraction of internal
       link bandwidth that the operator considered excessive.

   3.  The operator could configure the ingress PE to assign a constant
       flow label to all high bandwidth flows so that only one path was
       affected by these flows.

   4.  The operator could configure the ingress PE to assign a random
       flow label to all high bandwidth flows so as to minimise the
       disruption to the network as a cost of out of order traffic to
       the user.

   The issues described above are mitigated by the following two
   factors:






Bryant, et al.           Expires January 7, 2012               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                   FAT-PW                        July 2011


   o  Firstly, the customer of a high-bandwidth PW service has an
      incentive to get the best transport service because an inefficient
      use of the PSN leads to jitter and eventually to loss to the PW's
      payload.

   o  Secondly, the customer is usually able to tailor their
      applications to generate many flows in the PSN.  A well-known
      example is massive data transport between servers which use many
      parallel TCP sessions.  This same technique can be used by any
      transport protocol: multiple UDP ports, multiple L2TPv3 Session
      ID's, multiple GRE keys may be used to decompose a large flow into
      smaller components.  This approach may be applied to IPsec
      [RFC4301] where multiple Security Parameters Indexes (SPIs) may be
      allocated to the same security association.

8.5.  Applicability to MPLS-TP

   The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) [RFC5654] requirement 44 states
   that "MPLS-TP MUST support mechanisms that ensure the integrity of
   the transported customer's service traffic as required by its
   associated SLA.  Loss of integrity may be defined as packet
   corruption, reordering, or loss during normal network conditions. "
   In addition MPLS-TP makes extensive use of the fate sharing between
   OAM and data packets, which is defeated by the flow LSE.  The flow
   aware transport of a PW reorders packets, therefore MUST NOT be
   deployed in a network conforming to the MPLS-TP unless these
   integrity requirements specified in the SLA can be satisfied.  In a

8.6.  Asymmetric Operation

   The protocol defined in this document supports the asymmetric
   inclusion of the flow LSE.  Asymmetric operation can be expected when
   there is asymmetry in the bandwidth requirements making it
   unprofitable for one PE to perform the flow classification, or when
   that PE is otherwise unable to perform the classification but is able
   to receive flow labeled packet from its peer.  Asymmetric operation
   of the PW may also be required when one PE has a high transmission
   bandwidth requirement, but has a need to receive the entire PW on a
   single interface in order to perform a processing operation that
   requires the context of the complete PW (for example policing of the
   egress traffic).


9.  Applicability to MPLS LSPs

   An extension of this technique is to create a basis for hash
   diversity without having to peek below the label stack for IP traffic
   carried over LDP LSPs.  The generalisation of this extension to MPLS



Bryant, et al.           Expires January 7, 2012               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft                   FAT-PW                        July 2011


   has been described in [I-D.kompella-mpls-entropy-label].  This
   generalization can be regarded as a complementary, but distinct,
   approach from the technique described in this document.  While
   similar consideration may apply to the identification of flows and
   the allocation of flow label values, the flow labels are imposed by
   different network components, and the associated signalling
   mechanisms are different.


10.  Security Considerations

   The PW generic security considerations described in [RFC3985] and the
   security considerations applicable to a specific PW type (for
   example, in the case of an Ethernet PW [RFC4448] apply.  The security
   considerations in [RFC5920] also apply.

   Section 1.2 describes considerations that apply to the TTL value used
   in the flow LSE.  The use of a TTL value of one prevents the
   accidental forwarding of a packet based on the label value in the
   flow LSE.


11.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to amend the PW Interface Parameters Sub-TLV type
   Registry value 0x17 (Flow Label indicator) to refer to this RFC.

   Parameter  Length       Description
   ID

   0x17         4           Flow Label


12.  Congestion Considerations

   The congestion considerations applicable to PWs as described in
   [RFC3985] and any additional congestion considerations developed at
   the time of publication apply to this design.

   The ability to explicitly configure a PW to leverage the availability
   of multiple ECMPs is beneficial to capacity planning as, all other
   parameters being constant, the statistical multiplexing of a larger
   number of smaller flows is more efficient than with a smaller number
   of larger flows.

   Note that if the classification into flows is only performed on IP
   packets the behaviour of those flows in the face of congestion will
   be as already defined by the IETF for packets of that type and no



Bryant, et al.           Expires January 7, 2012               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft                   FAT-PW                        July 2011


   additional congestion processing is required.

   Where flows that are not IP are classified PW congestion avoidance
   must be applied to each non-IP load balance group.


13.  Acknowledgements

   The authors wish to thank Mary Barns, Eric Grey, Kireeti Kompella,
   Joerg Kuechemann, Wilfried Maas, Luca Martini, Mark Townsley, Rolf
   Winter and Lucy Yong for valuable comments on this document.


14.  References

14.1.  Normative References

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

   [RFC3032]  Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
              Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
              Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001.

   [RFC4379]  Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
              Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
              February 2006.

   [RFC4385]  Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
              "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
              Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, February 2006.

   [RFC4447]  Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and G.
              Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label
              Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April 2006.

   [RFC4448]  Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., and G. Heron,
              "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over MPLS
              Networks", RFC 4448, April 2006.

   [RFC4553]  Vainshtein, A. and YJ. Stein, "Structure-Agnostic Time
              Division Multiplexing (TDM) over Packet (SAToP)",
              RFC 4553, June 2006.

   [RFC4928]  Swallow, G., Bryant, S., and L. Andersson, "Avoiding Equal
              Cost Multipath Treatment in MPLS Networks", BCP 128,
              RFC 4928, June 2007.




Bryant, et al.           Expires January 7, 2012               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft                   FAT-PW                        July 2011


   [RFC5085]  Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Pseudowire Virtual Circuit
              Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for
              Pseudowires", RFC 5085, December 2007.

14.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.kompella-mpls-entropy-label]
              Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
              L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
              draft-kompella-mpls-entropy-label-02 (work in progress),
              March 2011.

   [I-D.stein-pwe3-pwbonding]
              Stein, Y., Mendelsohn, I., and R. Insler, "PW Bonding",
              draft-stein-pwe3-pwbonding-01 (work in progress),
              November 2008.

   [RFC3985]  Bryant, S. and P. Pate, "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-
              Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005.

   [RFC4090]  Pan, P., Swallow, G., and A. Atlas, "Fast Reroute
              Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
              May 2005.

   [RFC4201]  Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and L. Berger, "Link Bundling
              in MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4201, October 2005.

   [RFC4301]  Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
              Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.

   [RFC4378]  Allan, D. and T. Nadeau, "A Framework for Multi-Protocol
              Label Switching (MPLS) Operations and Management (OAM)",
              RFC 4378, February 2006.

   [RFC5286]  Atlas, A. and A. Zinin, "Basic Specification for IP Fast
              Reroute: Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 5286, September 2008.

   [RFC5462]  Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
              (MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic
              Class" Field", RFC 5462, February 2009.

   [RFC5654]  Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D., Betts, M., Sprecher, N.,
              and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS Transport Profile",
              RFC 5654, September 2009.

   [RFC5880]  Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
              (BFD)", RFC 5880, June 2010.




Bryant, et al.           Expires January 7, 2012               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft                   FAT-PW                        July 2011


   [RFC5920]  Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
              Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.


Authors' Addresses

   Stewart Bryant (editor)
   Cisco Systems
   250 Longwater Ave
   Reading  RG2 6GB
   United Kingdom

   Phone: +44-208-824-8828
   Email: stbryant@cisco.com


   Clarence Filsfils
   Cisco Systems
   Brussels
   Belgium

   Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com


   Ulrich Drafz
   Deutsche Telekom
   Muenster
   Germany

   Email: Ulrich.Drafz@t-com.net


   Vach Kompella
   Alcatel-Lucent

   Email: Alcatel-Lucent vach.kompella@alcatel-lucent.com


   Joe Regan
   Alcatel-Lucent

   Email: joe.regan@alcatel-lucent.comRegan









Bryant, et al.           Expires January 7, 2012               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft                   FAT-PW                        July 2011


   Shane Amante
   Level 3 Communications

   Email: shane@castlepoint.net















































Bryant, et al.           Expires January 7, 2012               [Page 20]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/