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

Versions: (draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Network Working Group                                              X. Xu
Internet-Draft                                               Alibaba Inc
Intended status: Standards Track                                 S. Kini
Expires: January 26, 2019
                                                            S. Sivabalan
                                                             C. Filsfils
                                                                   Cisco
                                                            S. Litkowski
                                                                  Orange
                                                           July 25, 2018


  Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy Readable Label Depth
                              Using IS-IS
                      draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-04

Abstract

   Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) has defined a mechanism to load
   balance traffic flows using Entropy Labels (EL).  An ingress Label
   Switching Router (LSR) cannot insert ELs for packets going into a
   given tunnel unless an egress LSR has indicated via signaling that it
   has the capability of processing ELs, referred to as Entropy Label
   Capability (ELC), on that tunnel.  In addition, it would be useful
   for ingress LSRs to know each LSR's capability of reading the maximum
   label stack depth and performing EL-based load-balancing, referred to
   as Entropy Readable Label Depth (ERLD), in the cases where stacked
   LSPs are used for whatever reasons.  This document defines mechanisms
   to signal these two capabilities using IS-IS.  These mechanisms are
   useful when the label advertisement is also done via IS-IS.

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 26, 2019.




Xu, et al.              Expires January 26, 2019                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft     Signaling ELC and ERLD using IS-IS          July 2018


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Advertising ELC Using IS-IS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Advertising ERLD Using IS-IS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5

1.  Introduction

   [RFC6790] describes a method to load balance Multiprotocol Label
   Switching (MPLS) traffic flows using Entropy Labels (EL).  [RFC6790]
   introduces the concept of Entropy Label Capability (ELC) and defines
   the signalings of this capability via MPLS signaling protocols.
   Recently, mechanisms are being defined to signal labels via link-
   state Interior Gateway Protocols (IGP) such as IS-IS
   [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions].  In such scenario, the
   signaling mechanisms defined in [RFC6790] are inadequate.  This draft
   defines a mechanism to signal the ELC [RFC6790] using IS-IS.  This
   mechanism is useful when the label advertisement is also done via IS-
   IS.

   In addition, in the cases where stacked LSPs are used for whatever
   reasons (e.g., SR-MPLS [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]), it
   would be useful for ingress LSRs to know each intermediate LSR's
   capability of reading the maximum label stack depth and performing
   EL-based load-balancing.  This capability, referred to as Entropy



Xu, et al.              Expires January 26, 2019                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft     Signaling ELC and ERLD using IS-IS          July 2018


   Readable Label Depth (ERLD) as defined in
   [I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label] may be used by ingress LSRs to
   determine whether it's necessary to insert an EL for a given LSP of
   the stacked LSP tunnel in the case where there has already been at
   least one EL in the label stack [I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label].

2.  Terminology

   This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC6790] and [RFC4971].

   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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

3.  Advertising ELC Using IS-IS

   The IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV as defined in [RFC4971] is used by
   IS-IS routers to announce their capabilities.  A new sub-TLV of this
   TLV, called ELC sub-TLV is defined to advertise the capability of the
   router to process the ELs.  As shown in Figure 1, it is formatted as
   described in [RFC5305] with a Type code to be assigned by IANA and a
   Length of zero.  The scope of the advertisement depends on the
   application.  If a router has multiple linecards, the router MUST NOT
   advertise the ELC unless all of the linecards are capable of
   processing ELs.

         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
        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
        |    Type=TBD1  |    Length=0   |
        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                         Figure 1: ELC sub-TLV Format

4.  Advertising ERLD Using IS-IS

   A new MSD-type of the IS-IS Node MSD sub-TLV
   [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd], called ERLD is defined to
   advertise the ERLD of a given router . As shown in Figure 2, it is
   formatted as described in [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd] with a
   new MSD-Type code to be assigned by IANA (the type code of 2 is
   desired) and the Value field is set to the ERLD in the range between
   0 to 255.  The scope of the advertisement depends on the application.
   If a router has multiple linecards with different capabilities of
   reading the maximum label stack deepth, the router MUST advertise the
   smallest one.






Xu, et al.              Expires January 26, 2019                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft     Signaling ELC and ERLD using IS-IS          July 2018


         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
        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
        | MSD-Type=TBD2 |     ERLD      |
        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                         Figure 2: ERLD MSD-Type Format

5.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Yimin Shen, George Swallow, Acee
   Lindem, Les Ginsberg, Ketan Talaulikar, Jeff Tantsura and Carlos
   Pignataro for their valuable comments.

6.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to allocate one sub-TLV type of the IS-IS Router
   Capability TLV for ELC and a MSD type (the type code of 2 is desired)
   from the "IGP MSD Types" registry for ERLD.

7.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations as described in [RFC4971] is applicable
   to this document.  This document does not introduce any new security
   risk.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]
              Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A.,
              Gredler, H., Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and J. Tantsura,
              "IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-
              segment-routing-extensions-19 (work in progress), July
              2018.

   [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd]
              Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and L. Ginsberg,
              "Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using IS-IS", draft-
              ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-13 (work in progress), July
              2018.

   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]
              Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B.,
              Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS
              data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-14
              (work in progress), June 2018.




Xu, et al.              Expires January 26, 2019                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft     Signaling ELC and ERLD using IS-IS          July 2018


   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC4971]  Vasseur, JP., Ed., Shen, N., Ed., and R. Aggarwal, Ed.,
              "Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS)
              Extensions for Advertising Router Information", RFC 4971,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4971, July 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4971>.

   [RFC5305]  Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
              Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October
              2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>.

   [RFC6790]  Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
              L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
              RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label]
              Kini, S., Kompella, K., Sivabalan, S., Litkowski, S.,
              Shakir, R., and J. Tantsura, "Entropy label for SPRING
              tunnels", draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-12 (work in
              progress), July 2018.

Authors' Addresses

   Xiaohu Xu
   Alibaba Inc

   Email: xiaohu.xxh@alibabab-inc.com


   Sriganesh Kini

   Email: sriganeshkini@gmail.com


   Siva Sivabalan
   Cisco

   Email: msiva@cisco.com






Xu, et al.              Expires January 26, 2019                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft     Signaling ELC and ERLD using IS-IS          July 2018


   Clarence Filsfils
   Cisco

   Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com


   Stephane Litkowski
   Orange

   Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com









































Xu, et al.              Expires January 26, 2019                [Page 6]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/