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

Versions: (draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10

Network Working Group                                              X. Xu
Internet-Draft                                               Alibaba Inc
Intended status: Standards Track                                 S. Kini
Expires: April 23, 2020
                                                               P. Psenak
                                                             C. Filsfils
                                                            S. Litkowski
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                                M. Bocci
                                                                   Nokia
                                                        October 21, 2019


  Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy Readable Label Depth
                              Using IS-IS
                      draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-10

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 Label Switched Path (LSP) unless an egress LSR has indicated
   via signaling that it has the capability to process 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 for
   reading the maximum label stack depth and performing EL-based load-
   balancing, referred to as Entropy Readable Label Depth (ERLD).  This
   document defines a mechanism to signal these two capabilities using
   IS-IS.  These mechanisms are particularly useful, where label
   advertisements are done via protocols like 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 April 23, 2020.



Xu, et al.               Expires April 23, 2020                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft     Signaling ELC and ERLD using IS-IS       October 2019


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Advertising ERLD Using IS-IS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  Signaling ELC and ERLD in BGP-LS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   9.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

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

   In addition, in the cases where 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



Xu, et al.               Expires April 23, 2020                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft     Signaling ELC and ERLD using IS-IS       October 2019


   reading the maximum label stack depth and performing EL-based load-
   balancing.  This capability, referred to as Entropy Readable Label
   Depth (ERLD) as defined in [I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label] may
   be used by ingress LSRs to determine the position of the EL label in
   the stack, and whether it's necessary to insert multiple ELs at
   different positions in the label stack.

2.  Terminology

   This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC6790], [RFC4971] and
   [I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label].

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

3.  Advertising ELC Using IS-IS

   Even though ELC is a property of the node, in some cases it is
   advantageous to associate and advertise the ELC with a prefix.  In a
   multi-area network, routers may not know the identity of the prefix
   originator in a remote area, or may not know the capabilities of such
   originator.  Similarly in a multi-domain network, the identity of the
   prefix originator and its capabilities may not be known to the
   ingress LSR.

   One bit of the "Bit Values for Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV"
   registry defined in [RFC7794] (Bit 3 is desired) is to be assigned by
   the IANA for the ELC.  If a router has multiple line cards, the
   router MUST NOT announce the ELC for any prefixes that are locally
   attached unless all of its line-cards are capable of processing ELs.
   If a router supports ELs on all of its line-cards, it SHOULD set the
   ELC for every local host prefix it advertises in IS-IS.

          0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7...
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...
         |X|R|N|E|        ...
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...
               Figure 1: Prefix Attribute Flags

               E-flag: ELC Flag (Bit 3)
                   Set for local host prefix of the originating node
                   if it supports ELC.

   When a router leaks a prefix between two levels (upwards or
   downwards), it MUST preserve the ELC signaling for this prefix.



Xu, et al.               Expires April 23, 2020                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft     Signaling ELC and ERLD using IS-IS       October 2019


   When redistributing a prefix between two IS-IS protocol instances or
   redistributing from another protocol to an IS-IS protocol instance, a
   router SHOULD preserve the ELC signaling for that prefix.  The exact
   mechanism used to exchange ELC between protocol instances running on
   an ASBR is outside of the scope of this document and is
   implementation specific.

4.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Yimin Shen, George Swallow, Acee
   Lindem, Les Ginsberg, Ketan Talaulikar, Jeff Tantsura, Bruno Decraene
   Carlos Pignataro, Wim Hendrickx, and Gunter Van De Velde for their
   valuable comments.

5.  Advertising ERLD Using IS-IS

   A new MSD-type of the Node MSD ((Maximum SID Depth) sub-TLV
   [RFC8491], called ERLD is defined to advertise the ERLD of a given
   router.  As shown in Figure 2, it is formatted as described in
   [RFC8491] 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 line-cards with different
   capabilities of reading the maximum label stack depth, the router
   MUST advertise the smallest one.

         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

   When the ERLD MSD-Type is received in the Link MSD Sub-TLV, it MUST
   be ignored.

6.  Signaling ELC and ERLD in BGP-LS

   The IS-IS extensions defined in this document can be advertised via
   BGP-LS [RFC7752] using existing BGP-LS TLVs.

   The ELC Flag included in the Prefix Attribute Flags sub-TLV, as
   defined in Section 3, is advertised using the Prefix Attribute Flags
   TLV (TLV 1170) of the BGP-LS IPv4/IPv6 Prefix NLRI Attribute as
   defined in section 2.3.2 of
   [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext].





Xu, et al.               Expires April 23, 2020                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft     Signaling ELC and ERLD using IS-IS       October 2019


   The ERLD MSD-type introduced for IS-IS in Section 5 is advertised
   using the Node MSD TLV (TLV 266) of the BGP-LS Node NLRI Attribute as
   defined in section 3 of [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd].

7.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to allocate the E-bit (bit position 3 is desired)
   from the "Bit Values for Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV" registry.

   IANA is requested to allocate a MSD type (the type code of 2 is
   desired) from the "IGP MSD Types" registry for ERLD.

8.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations as described in [RFC4971] nd
   [I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label] are applicable to this document.

   Incorrectly setting the E flag (ELC capable) (during origination,
   leaking or redistribution) may lead to black-holing of the traffic on
   the egress node.

   Incorrectly setting of the ERLD value may lead to poor load-balancing
   of the traffic.

9.  Contributors

   The following people contributed to the content of this document and
   should be considered as co-authors:























Xu, et al.               Expires April 23, 2020                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft     Signaling ELC and ERLD using IS-IS       October 2019


      Gunter Van de Velde (editor)
      Nokia
      Antwerp
      BE

      Email: gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com


      Wim Henderickx
      Nokia
      Belgium

      Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com

      Keyur Patel
      Arrcus
      USA

      Email: keyur@arrcus.com


10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext]
              Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
              and M. Chen, "BGP Link-State extensions for Segment
              Routing", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-16
              (work in progress), June 2019.

   [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd]
              Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Talaulikar, K., Mirsky, G.,
              and N. Triantafillis, "Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth)
              using Border Gateway Protocol Link-State", draft-ietf-idr-
              bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-09 (work in progress), October
              2019.

   [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.








Xu, et al.               Expires April 23, 2020                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft     Signaling ELC and ERLD using IS-IS       October 2019


   [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-22
              (work in progress), May 2019.

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [RFC7752]  Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
              S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
              Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.

   [RFC7794]  Ginsberg, L., Ed., Decraene, B., Previdi, S., Xu, X., and
              U. Chunduri, "IS-IS Prefix Attributes for Extended IPv4
              and IPv6 Reachability", RFC 7794, DOI 10.17487/RFC7794,
              March 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7794>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8491]  Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and L. Ginsberg,
              "Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD) Using IS-IS", RFC 8491,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8491, November 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8491>.

10.2.  Informative References








Xu, et al.               Expires April 23, 2020                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft     Signaling ELC and ERLD using IS-IS       October 2019


   [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]
              Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A.,
              Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS Extensions for
              Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-
              extensions-25 (work in progress), May 2019.

Authors' Addresses

   Xiaohu Xu
   Alibaba Inc

   Email: xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com


   Sriganesh Kini

   Email: sriganeshkini@gmail.com


   Peter Psenak
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Eurovea Centre, Central 3
   Pribinova Street 10
   Bratislava  81109
   Slovakia

   Email: ppsenak@cisco.com


   Clarence Filsfils
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Brussels
   Belgium

   Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com


   Stephane Litkowski
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   La Rigourdiere
   Cesson Sevigne
   France

   Email: slitkows@cisco.com







Xu, et al.               Expires April 23, 2020                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft     Signaling ELC and ERLD using IS-IS       October 2019


   Matthew Bocci
   Nokia
   Shoppenhangers Road
   Maidenhead, Berks
   UK

   Email: matthew.bocci@nokia.com












































Xu, et al.               Expires April 23, 2020                 [Page 9]


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