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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04

MPLS Working Group                                              R. Singh
INTERNET-DRAFT                                                   Y. Shen
Intended Status: Proposed Standard                              J. Drake
Expires: April 30, 2015                                 Juniper Networks
                                                        October 27, 2014


                    Entropy label for seamless MPLS
              draft-ravisingh-mpls-el-for-seamless-mpls-04


Abstract

   This document describes certain optimizations to how entropy labels
   can be used for load balancing in a seamless MPLS architecture, as
   enabled by LSP concatenation and LSP hierarchies.

   The definition of the control plane and data plane behavior at LSP
   concatenation points; and at the ingress of an LSP in a hierarchy of
   LSPs, as described in this document, brings the benefits of entropy
   labels to certain deployment scenarios that may not have had such
   benefits as specified in [EL-RFC].

   This document, if approved, updates RFC 6790.

Status of this Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as
   Internet-Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 3, 2015.




Singh, et al.            Expires April 30, 2015                 [Page 1]


INTERNET DRAFT      Entropy label for seamless MPLS     October 27, 2014


Copyright and License Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 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.



Table of Contents

   1  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3. Key attributes of the entropy label solution: Summary from
      [EL-RFC]  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4. Problems and Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.1 EL applicability for seamless MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.2 EL for LSP concatenation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       4.2.1 Spectrum of EL usage behaviors required to be
             supported for concatenated LSPs  . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
         4.2.1.1 Entropy label for per-segment LSP  . . . . . . . . .  9
         4.2.1.2 Entropy label for notional-segment-LSP(s)  . . . . . 10
         4.2.1.3 Entropy label for e2e LSP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.3 EL for LSP hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       4.3.1 Possibility of unnecessary reduction of max-payload of
             the LSP: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       4.3.2 Possibility of EL being non-usable for load-balancing: . 12
   5. EL for LSP concatenation/hierarchy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.1 Additional EL abstractions: specific to LSP
         concatenation/hierarchy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.2 New abstractions: EL applicability for LSP concatenation . . 13
       5.2.1 Signaling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
         5.2.1.1 Signaling ELC at concatenation points (Translation
                 rules) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       5.2.2 Data plane aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
         5.2.2.1 LSP concatenation: Differing EL dispositions . . . . 16
     5.3 New abstractions: EL applicability for LSP hierarchy . . . . 18
       5.3.1 Management plane:  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
       5.3.2 Data plane aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   6. Use-cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19



Singh, et al.            Expires April 30, 2015                 [Page 2]


INTERNET DRAFT      Entropy label for seamless MPLS     October 27, 2014


     6.1 Carrier of carrier L3VPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     6.2 Inter-AS L3VPN: Option C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   7. Manageability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   8. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   10. IANA considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   11.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     11.1  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     11.2  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24









































Singh, et al.            Expires April 30, 2015                 [Page 3]


INTERNET DRAFT      Entropy label for seamless MPLS     October 27, 2014


1  Introduction

   [EL-RFC] specifies a way to implement load-balancing in an MPLS
   network such that sub-flows of an LSP may be identified and sent on
   different paths through the network. This is achieved by using
   entropy labels (ELs) to abstract out the flow-identifying information
   into the entropy label and inserting the entropy label underneath the
   LSP label. The transit LSRs perform the load-balancing hash-
   computation, on the label-stack alone, to effect a good load-
   balancing outcome without a need to parse inner headers.

   The key feature of [EL-RFC] is that it defines the EL in the context
   of a given LSP. [EL-RFC] defines the signaling extensions by which
   entropy label capability might be signaled for LSPs setup by RSVP-TE,
   LDP or [LU-BGP]. While that works well for individual LSPs, there are
   additional issues to consider for the seamless MPLS architecture [S-
   MPLS].

   The currently-under-definition framework for seamless MPLS proposes
   an architecture ([S-MPLS]) that shall enable the setting-up of MPLS
   LSPs from access nodes to access nodes using a medley of signaling
   protocols and statically configured LSPs...by essentially leveraging
   LSP concatenation and hierarchies to carry labeled traffic in larger
   portions of the network without essentially increasing control plane
   state. There are special EL-related considerations that need to be
   dealt with to make EL more suitable for seamless MPLS, on account of
   its reliance on LSP concatenation and hierarchies.

   This document defines additional abstractions and rules for the use
   of entropy-label with LSP concatenation/hierarchy to enable the use
   of ELs for the seamless MPLS architecture. This document describes
   how entropy labels may be used when the LSP has been setup by
   concatenation LSP segments or by tunneling the LSP over other LSPs.
   It is conceivable that different signaling protocols are in use to
   create an e2e LSP.

   LSP stitching is the process of connecting LSP segments in the data
   plane to form a single e2e data plane LSP.  This is achieved by
   setting up LSP segments through signaling or through management
   action, and then setting-up an e2e LSP that "uses" these LSP segments
   as hops in its path. The term "LSP stitching" has potential to be
   ambiguous. In order to reduce the ambiguity, both meanings of the
   usage of the term "LSP stitching" are clarified below.
   One meaning of the term "LSP stitching" is as defined in [GMPLS-
   STITCHING].

   An alternate use of "LSP stitching" as occurs for inter-AS scenarios
   described in [INTER-AS-VPNS]. When section 10 in [INTER-AS-VPNS]



Singh, et al.            Expires April 30, 2015                 [Page 4]


INTERNET DRAFT      Entropy label for seamless MPLS     October 27, 2014


   refers to either of the two following statements it is essentially
   describing "LSP stitching" in the data plane:
          - In "b)": "This procedure requires that there be a label
            switched path leading from a packet's ingress PE to its
            egress PE."
          - In "c)": "Like the previous procedure, it requires that
            there be a label switched path leading from a packet's
            ingress PE to its egress PE."

   Labeled data traffic flowing over e2e MPLS LSPs, that have been setup
   by stitching together segments, would benefit from having the entropy
   label be included in it. The specification of [EL-RFC] can be
   optimized for usage in such environments.

   This document specifies optimizations for "LSP stitching" which are
   applicable to the latter meaning of the term "LSP stitching". For
   terminology sake, this document shall refer to that latter case as
   "LSP concatenation".

   LSP hierarchy is defined in [MPLS-ARCH] and [GMPLS-HIER]. Usage of
   entropy label in LSP hierarchies has some peculiar practical issues
   that will benefit from some additional flexibility in inserting ELs
   for a specific layer in an LSP hierarchy.



2. Terminology

   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].


   The following acronyms/terms are used:

   e2e: End to end LSP that has been setup by concatenating together LSP
        segments

   ECMP: Equal Cost Multi-Path

   EL: Entropy Label

   ELC: Entropy Label Capability or Entropy Label Capable

   ELI: Entropy Label Indicator

   Intrinsic ELC: Entropy label capability/capable as in [EL-RFC]. In
                  this document, an LSP is considered to be



Singh, et al.            Expires April 30, 2015                 [Page 5]


INTERNET DRAFT      Entropy label for seamless MPLS     October 27, 2014


                  "intrinsically" EL-capable when the:
                  - ingress of the LSP has the ability to compute
                    and PUSH the EL before PUSHing the ELI before
                    PUSHing the LSP label; and
                  - egress/PHR of the LSP-segment has the ability
                    to POP the (ELI+EL) at the egress/PHR while
                    POPping-transport-label/ELI-is-top-label
                    respectively.

   LAG: Link Aggregation Group

   LER: Label Edge Router

   LSP: Label Switched Path

   LSR: Label Switching Router

   Notional ingress: Ingress LER for an LSP segment that is inserting
                     the (ELI+EL) on data traffic going over an e2e LSP

   Notional egress: egress LER for an LSP segment that is removing the
                    (ELI+EL) from data traffic going over an e2e LSP

   Notional LSP segment: the portion of the e2e LSP between a notional
                         ingress and a notional egress

   PHP: Penultimate Hop Popping

   PHR: Penultimate Hop Router

   UHP: Ultimate Hop Popping


   NOTE: this document references the (ELI+EL) pair simply as EL when
         the presence of the ELI is of no significance for the issue
         being described. The presence of ELI is mandatory as per
         [EL-RFC] when EL is in use.


3. Key attributes of the entropy label solution: Summary from [EL-RFC]
     - Transport-label-PUSHing router inserts (ELI+EL)
       The (ELI+EL) insertion is done, if at all, by a router that is
       PUSHing the transport LSP's label.

     - Ingress-LER (transport-label-PUSHing-router) inserts (ELI+EL)
       only if the PHR/egress has signaled ability to strip it off.

     - Transport-label-POPping router POPs (ELI+EL) PHR/egress of the



Singh, et al.            Expires April 30, 2015                 [Page 6]


INTERNET DRAFT      Entropy label for seamless MPLS     October 27, 2014


       LSP is responsible for POPping off the (ELI+EL) after it has
       been exposed as the top label on the packet due to POPping the
       transport label. The removal of the (ELI+EL) is done either
       when the ELI is the top label; or when the ELI is next label
       below the top label being POPed.

     - Max-payload size for the LSP gets reduced by 8 bytes after the
       insertion of the (ELI+EL).

4. Problems and Motivation

   [EL-RFC] defines EL signaling/usage suitable for single-segment
   LSPs.

   [EL-RFC] does not explicitly specify the EL-signaling-interaction
   between concatenated LSP segments. Similarly, peculiarities in the
   data-plane related to LSP concatenation need further specification.
   Likewise, the signaling and data-plane peculiarities for using EL
   over LSP hierarchies could be further specified.

   It is desirable to get the benefits of EL even for concatenated LSPs.

   Certain aspects peculiar to concatenated LSPs need additional
   handling to increase the applicability of [EL-RFC]. [EL-RFC] needs to
   be extended to define the behavior for LSP concatenation and LSP
   hierarchies (tunneling) when using EL.

   The sub-sections below list the specific additional requirements for
   making entropy label more deployable when used with LSP
   concatenation, and LSP hierarchy.


4.1 EL applicability for seamless MPLS

   The seamless MPLS architecture relies on the use of LSP concatention
   and hierarchy to signal an e2e LSP between access-nodes, such that
   the e2e LSP is going over aggregation/transport/cores nodes.

   The signaling of such e2e LSPs is enabled by using the
   concatenation/hierarchy mechanisms that exist, using [LU-
   BGP]/LDP/RSVP.

   The rules of section 5 provide a general-purpose way for the use of
   ELs across e2e LSPs by defining:

   - the rules of ELC propagation at concatenation points;

   - the data-plane guidelines for the concatenation point LSR; and



Singh, et al.            Expires April 30, 2015                 [Page 7]


INTERNET DRAFT      Entropy label for seamless MPLS     October 27, 2014


   - the data-plane guidelines for LSP hierarchies for inserting
     (ELI+EL) at ingress LER of an LSP in an LSP hierarchy.

4.2 EL for LSP concatenation

   A concatenated e2e LSP might be stitched from greater than 2 segment
   LSPs (along the length of the e2e LSP), with 2 LSPs forming the
   stitch at each concatenation point.

   An LSP segment is considered to be intrinsically EL capable when it
   supports the attributes summarized in section 3.

   Some of the segment LSPs in the e2e LSP may intrinsically support EL
   and some may not. So, the e2e LSP may not intrinsically support EL
   from end to end. However, to obtain the benefits of EL for
   concatenated LSPs, it is important that an EL should be present on
   the data packets traversing as many segments of the e2e LSP as is
   possible within data plane abilities of the routers on the way.

   In using EL with LSP concatenation, the aims are BOTH of the
   following:
        a. Get EL benefits wherever possible: on all segments where
           possible. Just because a given segment does not support EL
           is not a reason to deny EL benefits to other segments of the
           e2e LSP.

        b. Not run into data-plane problems where an
           intermediate-segment whose ingress LER can not look deeper
           to remove EL when the subsequent segment does not support EL.

   - Independent setup of LSP segments:

   LSP concatenation typically relies on LSP segments that have been
   independently setup. In an e2e LSP (made of concatenated segments),
   it is unlikely that all of the concatenation points (i.e., segment
   LSP end points) as well as the ultimate ingress and ultimate egress
   support EL as defined in section 3.

   However, there would be individual LSP segments that would completely
   satisfy the requirements of section 2 (i.e. are intrinsically EL
   capable). This document describes how EL may be used for (portions
   of) the e2e LSP while still working within the framework for [EL-
   RFC].


        S---A---B---C---D

   In the above topology, for an e2e LSP from S to D, the segments AB



Singh, et al.            Expires April 30, 2015                 [Page 8]


INTERNET DRAFT      Entropy label for seamless MPLS     October 27, 2014


   and CD could be intrinsically EL capable while the segments SA, & BC
   may not be. For data traffic going over the LSP from S to D, using EL
   on the segments AB and CD would be beneficial for load-balancing over
   LAGs/ECMP.

   - Dealing with different protocols being used to setup the segments
     of the e2e LSP.

4.2.1 Spectrum of EL usage behaviors required to be supported for
   concatenated LSPs

   To cater for an incremental deployment of intrinsically-ELC routers
   in a network, the multiple different modes for EL use with LSP
   concatenation need to be to be supported.

   The spectrum of supported behaviors are listed below by referencing
   the following diagram.

            S1          S2         S3         S4

      A-----------B-----------C-----------D-----------E

   LSP segments S1, S2, S3, S4 are between LERs A/B/C/D/E. There may or
   may not be other routers between the per-segment ingress<->egress
   LERs.

   Transport LSP signaling protocol: could be any: LDP/RSVP/([LU-BGP]
   tunneled over RSVP/LDP).

4.2.1.1 Entropy label for per-segment LSP

   Each of the segments will have their independent EL capability based
   on BOTH the:

        - Per-segment ingress having the ability to insert the EL.

        - Per-segment egress (or PH router) having the ability to strip
           the EL.

   This is very similar to [EL-RFC] with the additional data-plane rule
   of section 5.2.2.1 "A. Rationalizing EL for the outgoing LSP
   segment:".

   Reasoning for why per-segment EL may be attractive for certain use
   scenarios:

   Opportunity to get benefits on those segments where EL benefits are
   available. Even though the e2e LSP may not support ELC, this allows



Singh, et al.            Expires April 30, 2015                 [Page 9]


INTERNET DRAFT      Entropy label for seamless MPLS     October 27, 2014


   the EL benefits on those segments that are EL-capable.



4.2.1.2 Entropy label for notional-segment-LSP(s)

   In the case of concatenated LSPs, it is useful to:

        - Insert EL at first per-segment ingress LER (per-segment ingress
          LER closest to the e2e ingress LER) that has the ability to
          insert EL.
        - Carry the EL on the data packets as far along the concatenated LSP

          as the last per-segment egress LER that ability to strip the EL
          on a series of contiguous EL-supporting segments.

   The above is enabled by the rules of section "5.2.1.1 Signaling ELC
   at concatenation points (Translation rules)".

   The benefit of using EL with notional-segment LSPs:

   An operator might be able to use EL for the MPLS traffic on its path
   to a concatenation point even though the concatenation-point router
   (or its PHR) itself may not have the data-plane capabilities required
   as in [EL-RFC].

   Additionally, even if the concatenation-point (or its PHR) do have
   the data-plane capabilities of [EL-RFC], it is just more efficient to
   forward the data packets without having to strip the EL and then
   reinsert the EL when the downstream segment is also intrinsically
   ELC.

4.2.1.3 Entropy label for e2e LSP

   This correspond to having the notional-LSP and the e2e LSP being the
   same.

   This is covered  by the rules of section 5.2.1.1 "Signaling ELC at
   concatenation points (Translation rules):" with the additional
   requirement that the data-plane be exactly the same as [EL-RFC],
   i.e.
        the (ELI+EL) insertion is done by a label PUSHing router,
        the (ELI+EL) POP is done by the PHR/egress for the e2e LSP.

4.3 EL for LSP hierarchy

   For the purpose of highlighting the problem to be addressed and the
   resultant requirements to be met, the following diagram is presented



Singh, et al.            Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 10]


INTERNET DRAFT      Entropy label for seamless MPLS     October 27, 2014


   as an example.

   Let there be an LSP hierarchy with the ingress for the different
   levels of LSP hierarchy being at different routers, such that each
   LSP in the hierarchy is intrinsically EL capable. The individual LSPs
   in the hierarchy could be a single-segment LSP or a concatenated e2e
   LSP.


                S1                  D1
                  \    ---------    /
                   A===B===C===D===E
                  /    ---------    \
                S2                  D2

   In the above topology, let there be the following LSPs:

        L1: B->D
        L2: A->E, tunneled through LSP L1
        L3: S1->D1, tunneled through LSP L2
        L4: S2->D2, tunneled through LSP L2

   All of the LSPs above are assumed to be intrinsically EL capable.

4.3.1 Possibility of unnecessary reduction of max-payload of the LSP:

   Even though the aim of using EL is to get better load-balancing
   support, in some cases the insertion of (ELI+EL) may unnecessarily
   reduce the effective payload of an LSP.

   In above diagram, as per [EL-RFC] for a data packet on LSP L3, the
   insertion of (ELI+EL) for each of the 3 LSPs: L1, L2 and L3 is not
   explicitly prohibited. As a result it is possible that the packet on
   LSP L3, might end up with 3 (ELI+EL)s (one for each LSP level in the
   hierarchy) thus reducing the effective payload of the LSP L3.
   Likewise for L4. The presence of the (ELI+EL) for the outer LSPs L1
   and L2 is not strictly useful for load-balancing the data traffic on
   the LSPs L3 and L4.

   The solution for this issue is presented in section 5.3.2: it relies
   on inserting the (ELI+EL) in the context of only 1 LSP in a
   hierarchy.

   This issues results in the following requirement for EL usage in the
   presence of LSP hierarchies:
   - Desirability of having a single (ELI+EL) on data packets over an
     LSP hierarchy: The LSP for which the (ELI+EL) is inserted, is
     preferably the innermost intrinsically EL-capable LSP, as the



Singh, et al.            Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 11]


INTERNET DRAFT      Entropy label for seamless MPLS     October 27, 2014


     notion of a user-flow is more specifically indicated by fields
     deeper inside the packet headers. Having an EL be present deeper
     in the packet provides load-balancing benefits of EL for the
     traversal of the packet across a longer stretch of the network.

   If there is to be only 1 (ELI+EL) in the label stack, it imposes an
   additional data plane requirement on the ingress LER as described in
   section 5.3.2.

4.3.2 Possibility of EL being non-usable for load-balancing: Even though
   the aim of using EL is to get better load-balancing, in some cases
   the insertion of (ELI+EL) may actually offer no load-balancing
   benefits at all. Whether the presence of an EL offers load-balancing
   benefits on a given transit router, depends on:

    - whether the transit router has a LAG or an ECMP as an outgoing
      interface for the LSP, AND
    - whether the forwarding ASICs of the transit routers have the
      ability to include the EL (appearing at a specific position in
      the label stack) in the hash computation, either by:
        +   looking up the ELI and then picking the EL, or
        +   computing the hash on the maximum number of labels that it can
             pick from the label-stack for hash-computation which
             happens to also include the EL.

   When the EL on a packet is outside the portion-of-the-label-stack
   that the ASIC of a transit router can use for hash computation, the
   forwarding hardware may include only the top few labels or the bottom
   few labels in the hash computation. This may prevent the inclusion of
   EL for hash-computation.

   In the above diagram, for a data packet going over LSP L3 let the
   issue of section 4.3.1 have been resolved by the router S1 inserting
   the (ELI+EL) underneath the label for LSP L3 and none of the other
   routers inserting the (ELI+EL). When this data packet arrives at
   router C, its label stack looks thus:

         Label-LSP1 | Label-LSP2 | Label-LSP3 | ELI | EL
         Top-label              ->                    Bottom label


   Let's say that the router C is able to include only the top 4 labels
   in a label stack for the hash-computation due to the ability of its
   forwarding ASICs.

   So, the router C is not able to get the benefit of the presence of
   the EL in the data packet. If the only ECMP/LAG in this network is
   the link between C&D, then the presence of the EL serves no purpose



Singh, et al.            Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 12]


INTERNET DRAFT      Entropy label for seamless MPLS     October 27, 2014


   for the above network example and it ends up reducing the payload
   capacity of the LSPs L3 and L4 by 8 bytes.

   This example could be further generalized in the case of seamless
   MPLS, where there may be deeper LSP hierarchies.

   A transit router that has the ability to hash on an EL (based on its
   depth in the label stack) does not have multiple paths; while another
   router that has multiple paths and the ability hash on the EL
   (appearing at a specific depth in the label stack) is unable to do so
   as the EL appears outside the depth of the label stack that may be
   included in the hash. In neither of the foregoing cases is the
   presence of an EL helpful.

   This translates into a requirement for EL: Flexibility in choice of
   LSP tunnel for which EL is inserted:

   There is a need to have a way by which to include an EL underneath a
   specific label in a label-hierarchy based on it serving the most
   useful purpose (i.e. taking into consideration location of multiple-
   forwarding-paths and stack-depth-concerns).

   [EL-RFC] has no way of influencing the insertion of (ELI+EL) at a
   certain LSP level in the stack. Thus, there is a need for a mechanism
   by which one of the many intrinsically-EL-capable LSPs in an LSP
   hierarchy could be picked for inserting the (ELI+EL).


5. EL for LSP concatenation/hierarchy
5.1 Additional EL abstractions: specific to LSP concatenation/hierarchy

   Given the previous sections, following additional abstractions need
   to be defined to make EL more useful for LSP concatenation and
   hierarchy.

5.2 New abstractions: EL applicability for LSP concatenation
5.2.1 Signaling

   New abstractions need to be defined to handle the differences in the
   use of ELs for concatenated-LSPs as compared to their use for single-
   segment LSPs.

   The differences are:

    - Notion of ingress for EL insertion:
      (ELI+EL) insertion might not necessarily be done by a
      label-PUSHing router. A concatenation point where the label is
      being swapped might do the (ELI+EL) insertion, and serves as a



Singh, et al.            Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 13]


INTERNET DRAFT      Entropy label for seamless MPLS     October 27, 2014


      "notional ingress".

    - Notion of egress for EL:
      "Notional-egress" might not be the segment egress for the segment
      of the notional-ingress.
      Even though certain concatenation-points (segment LERs) might not
      support POPping (ELI+EL), it may be acceptable to let the (ELI+EL)
      continue to be on the packet since the egress of a subsequent
      segment has the capability to POP the (ELI+EL) (which may not
      necessarily be along with POPping the transport label). A
      "notional-ingress and notional-egress" pair might actually be the
      segment-ingress and segment-egress for different LSP segments that
      are part of the same e2e LSP.

   The portion of the concatenated e2e LSP, between a notional-ingress
   and a notional-egress is referred to as the "notional-LSP-segment" in
   this document.

   As a packet traverses an e2e LSP, it may have an (ELI+EL) imposed on
   it and then removed at different routers.

   It is desirable for there to not be more than one instance of an
   (ELI+EL) to appear on a packet at any given time. However, the
   insertion followed by removal of an (ELI+EL) may happen more than
   once as the packet traverses the e2e LSP.  Each router doing the
   (ELI+EL) insertion is the notional-ingress and each router doing the
   (ELI+EL) removal is the notional-egress (or notion EL-stripping-PH-
   router).

   Thus, there may be more than 1 "notional ingress" for EL insertion,
   and there may be more than 1 "notional egress" for EL removal.

   For each notional "ingress ingress", there will be a "notional
   egress" with the "notional ingress"es and "notional egress"es
   alternating along the path of the e2e LSP when there are more than 1
   notional ingress and egress for an e2e LSP.

   In the simplest case, this boils down to the case of there being just
   one notional ingress and one notional egress; and the notional
   ingress coincides with the e2e ingress, and the notional-egress
   coincides with the e2e egress. That is the case that [EL-RFC]
   addresses.

   Separation of control/data-plane implies that certain routers

    - Might be running software that supports signaling ELC and
      understanding an egress' ELC.
    - However, might not have the capability to insert (ELI+EL).



Singh, et al.            Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 14]


INTERNET DRAFT      Entropy label for seamless MPLS     October 27, 2014


   Such routers should not be allowed to play a spoil-sport in
   preventing EL benefits for traffic traversing over them via
   concatenated LSPs. In other words, such routers can not act as
   notional-ingress or notional-egress. However, the presence of such
   per-segment ingress/egress routers on the path of a notional segment-
   LSP should not prevent the notional segment-LSP from benefiting from
   the use of EL.

5.2.1.1 Signaling ELC at concatenation points (Translation rules)

   The rules for propagating ELC, at concatenation points, from a
   downstream segment LSP to an upstream segment LSP are listed in this
   section.

   The benefit in propagating ELC across concatenation points is to not
   have to re-compute the EL at different segment ingress for those
   segments that are EL capable, including when the LSP segments have
   been setup using different protocols.

   Additionally, in certain cases it should be possible to get the
   benefits of (ELI+EL) on LSP segments that are not "intrinsically EL
   capable", where the lack of "intrinsic EL capability" is due to:
    - The per-segment ingress does not support EL insertion.
    - The per-segment PHR/egress does not support POP of the EL.

   However, such a concatenation point might support ELC signaling.

   At a concatenation point, when 2 LSP segments: L1 (incoming LSP) and
   L2 (the outgoing LSP) are being concatenated, the following rules
   should be followed by the concatenation point in signaling its ELC.

   A. Segment-egress:

      1. A segment-egress signals ELC for an LSP-segment L1 when:
         a. The segment-egress is intrinsically ELC, or
         b. When it is not intrinsically-ELC, however segment-egress for
            LSP-segment L2 (downstream of L1)- for which this
            concatenation-point is segment-ingress - is signaling ELC.
            [This handles the case: Support the signaling even though it
             may not support the data-plane behavior.]


   B. Segment-ingress:

      The following is relevant only for RSVP as defined in [EL-RFC].
      When this router acting as segment-egress for an LSP L1 (that is
      concatenated to downstream LSP L2) is signaling ELC for L1, then
      this router must signal ELC in its Path messages using the



Singh, et al.            Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 15]


INTERNET DRAFT      Entropy label for seamless MPLS     October 27, 2014


      mechanism defined in [EL-RFC].

      This is relevant only in the context of bidirectional LSPs.

5.2.2 Data plane aspects
5.2.2.1 LSP concatenation: Differing EL dispositions

   At a concatenation point, when 2 LSP segments: L1 (incoming LSP) and
   L2 (the outgoing LSP) are being concatenated, the following rules
   should be followed by the concatenation point in its data-plane
   behavior.

   A. Rationalizing EL for the outgoing LSP segment:
      When the LSP segments L1 and L2 differ in their ELC, the
      concatenation point router needs to take the following
      data-plane actions depending on its role for the e2e LSP:

        a. Notional egress behavior:
           When L1 intrinsically supports ELC and L2 does not, then
           the concatenation-point router must remove the (ELI+EL), if
           present under top label, from the received data packets
           before effectively SWAPing the top label. In other words,
           in the presence of the ELI, the operations performed
           should be:

            POP(IncomingLabel), POP(ELI+EL), PUSH(OutgoingLabel)
                 or alternately:
            POP, POP, SWAP(OutgoingLabel)

           Translation rule "A 2" of section 5.2.1.1 would have ensured that
            the above is doable at the concatenation point.

        b. Notional ingress behavior:
           When L1 does not intrinsically support ELC and L2 does, then the
           concatenation point router must POP the incoming label, insert
           (ELI+EL) before PUSHing the label for the LSP segment L2.

           The label operations performed would be:
            POP(IncomingLabel), PUSH(EL), PUSH(ELI), PUSH(OutgoingLabel),
                        or
            SWAP(EL), PUSH(ELI), PUSH(OutgoingLabel)

        c. Implicit notional ingress behavior:
           When L1 is intrinsically ELC and so is L2, the arriving data
           traffic should already have (ELI+EL) on it.

           However, it is possible that due to local configuration on the
           notional-ingress, (ELI+EL) is not being inserted. In that



Singh, et al.            Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 16]


INTERNET DRAFT      Entropy label for seamless MPLS     October 27, 2014


           case, traffic arriving on L1 will not have (ELI+EL) on it.

           In that case, this concatenation-point is the "implicit notional
           ingress" and it should insert (ELI+EL) just as if it were a
           "notional ingress".


   B. Preventing multiple (ELI+EL) pairs underneath a given forwarding
      label in the stack:

      A segment-ingress that is intrinsically-EL-capable should have
      the ability to inspect received data packets to check whether an
      (ELI+EL) already exists on the data packet underneath the top
      label.

      Not causing multiple ELs on a data packet:
            When both the LSP segments L1 and L2 support ELC, the
            concatenation point router SHOULD insert an (ELI+EL) only if
            the incoming packet does not contain an (ELI+EL) underneath
            the top label. In that case, the label operations are as
            below:
                   POP(IncomingLabel), PUSH(ELI+EL), PUSH(OutgoingLabel)

      If the incoming packet already contains an (ELI+EL) underneath the
      top label, an additional (ELI+EL) MUST NOT be inserted on the
      packet underneath the top label that is being effectively SWAPed.

      This prevents a segment ingress from inserting an (ELI+EL) when
      the notional ingress has already inserted an (ELI+EL).


   C. Rationalizing EL insertion (at concatenation-point) for LSP
      hierarchy:

      A concatenation point router that is intrinsically-EL-capable
      should have the ability to inspect received data packets to check
      whether an (ELI+EL) already exists, underneath any label in the
      label-stack.

      If the router has such a ability, then this router MUST NOT insert
      an (ELI+EL) as in "A a" above.

      This helps to prevent multiple (ELI+EL)s on the packet inserted
      (at a concatenation point) in the context of different transport
      labels in a label hierarchy.


   D. Notional ingress role change at a router:



Singh, et al.            Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 17]


INTERNET DRAFT      Entropy label for seamless MPLS     October 27, 2014


      This role can change due to local configuration on the router or
      due to segment egress starting/stopping to signal ELC possibly due
      to a configuration change at the segment egress or due to a
      configuration change at this router.
      When this router becomes a notional ingress, it reacts to the
      change as in "A b" above.

      When this router stops being a notional ingress, this router
      stops inserting the (ELI+EL) underneath the top label that this
      router is
        SWAPing(if this router is concatenation point), or
        PUSHING (if this router is e2e ingress).

   E. Notional egress role change at a router:

      This role can change due to local configuration on the router or
      due the egress of a downstream concatenated LSP segment starting
      to signal ELC.

      When this router becomes a notional egress, it reacts to the
      change as in "A a" above.

      When this router stops being a notional egress, this router stops
      performing the label operation described in "A a" above. Instead
      this router now starts to simply SWAP the top label.


5.3 New abstractions: EL applicability for LSP hierarchy
5.3.1 Management plane:

   Moving the (ELI+EL) underneath a different LSP's transport label:
   There are 2 ways to handle the issue of section 4.3.2:
     - Configuration at the ingress LER: a configuration option should
       exist by which an operator can disable the insertion of (ELI+EL)
       on a per-LSP basis. The specific level in the LSP hierarchy for
       which to enable this configuration is based on operator knowledge
       based on:
         * Knowledge of transit routers that need EL benefits : those
           routers that have a multi-path (LAG or LSP ECMP) as egress
           interface.
         * The label hashing abilities of such routers: information
           about the specific number of labels in the label-stack that
           can be used in the hash computation; and any constraints
           about the position of the labels that can be used for
           computation when the label stack is larger than a certain
           ASIC-specific threshold.

     - Configuration-based rewrite of the label stack at the ingress LER



Singh, et al.            Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 18]


INTERNET DRAFT      Entropy label for seamless MPLS     October 27, 2014


       of an intrinsically-EL-capable LSP:

       An operator will know the forwarding characteristics (with
       regards to the number of labels that can be included in the hash
       computation) of the transit routers across the path of the e2e
       LSP that is part of an LSP hierarchy.

       By making such a configuration, the operator can ensure that the
       EL will appear in the label stack such that all transit routers
       shall be able to include the as part of the hash computation.

       The configuration would cause the label stack of the outgoing
       packet to have its extant (ELI+EL) removed, and an (ELI+EL)
       inserted just underneath the label of the LSP for which this
       ingress LER is setup to insert (ELI+EL).



5.3.2 Data plane aspects

   Preventing insertion of multiple (ELI+EL)s:
   At an ingress LER, the router SHOULD not insert an (ELI+EL) for an
   LSP if the packet already contains an ELI.
   This ensures that for a data packet on a hierarchy of LSPs, there
   will be only 1 instance of an (ELI+EL). This helps to prevent the
   issue of section 4.3.1.

   This also ensures that when multiple LSPs in an LSP hierarchy are
   intrinsically-EL-capable, the (ELI+EL) will be inserted just
   underneath the transport label of the innermost LSP in the hierarchy.
   However, based on section 5.3.1 there is a way by which to modify the
   level in the LSP hierarchy for which an (ELI+EL) is inserted.


   A more specific case of this is already covered in section "5.2.2.1
   C. Rationalizing EL insertion (at concatenation-point) for LSP
   hierarchy:".




6. Use-cases

   In this document, the definition of LSP-concatenation refers to those
   cases where  a label advertised by one label distribution protocol
   being:

     - removed at one router (by PH POP) followed by a label PUSH for a



Singh, et al.            Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 19]


INTERNET DRAFT      Entropy label for seamless MPLS     October 27, 2014


       label distributed by another protocol at the router downstream
       of the PH router of the previous protocol's LSP. Such a router
       which is PUSHing a label for a subsequent protocol is
       referred to as a concatenation-point router in this document.

     - SWAPed at a router for a label distributed by another protocol
       is also referred to as a concatenation-point in this document.

   The list of use-cases of this draft stems from the following possible
   optimizations:

   A. Not having to insert/remove (ELI+EL) multiple times along an e2e
      labeled path, due to the EL capability not getting signaled e2e.
      In other words, not having to remove (ELI+EL) at a concatenation
      point only to re-insert it.
      The lack of e2e EL capability signaling could be either due
      to lack of support; or due to a label advertised by one
      label distribution protocol being removed at one router
      (which also causes the removal of (ELI+EL)) and a label
      distributed by a subsequent router being PUSHed along
      with (ELI+EL) at that router.

   B. On an e2e labeled transport-LSP path, it may be possible
      to get the load-balancing benefits of EL on (segment of)
      the e2e LSP even though not every concatenation point router
      (as defined above) may intrinsically support EL for the
      LSP terminating at it.
























Singh, et al.            Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 20]


INTERNET DRAFT      Entropy label for seamless MPLS     October 27, 2014


6.1 Carrier of carrier L3VPN
                                                             -----
                               =======                      /  A1
  ----                         |      |                 ____CE1   |
 /   \       --------         /       \        ------  /    |     |
|  A2 CE2-   / AS2   \       |         |       /      PE1   \    /
\    /  \   /           \_   /           \_  _/ Carrier|     ----
  ----    -PE2           |  |   Carrier's |  |   cust. |
            |            | |   carrier   |   |         |
            |       ASBR1|--ASBR2     ASBR3--|ASBR4    |    ----
            | Carrier    |  |             |  |         |   /     \
            | cust.      /  |     AS1     |  |    AS2  |  CE5  A5 |
            \           /    \            |  |       PE4__/\     /
          ---PE3-------/      |           |  \        /    -----
         /  |                 \           /   --------
  ----  /   |  ----            |          |
 /    \     | /    \           ============
|  A3 CE3   -CE4 A4|
\     /      \     /
  ----         ----
                                         A<n> = Customer site n
                                         CE = Customer Edge Device
                                         PE = Provider Edge Router

   In the above figure, the "carrier's carrier" is providing L3VPN
   service to a carrier customer (carrier cust.) is itself an L3VPN
   provider.
   Let the sites A<n> be the sites of the same L3VPN.
   In order to provide L3VPN service to the sites A<n>, there is
   effectively an e2e LSP between each pair of PEs. For PEs in the same
   carrier customer site, the e2e LSP is an RSVP or LDP LSP. eg. Between
   PE2 and PE3.
   For PEs that are across the carrier-customer's core, there is an e2e
   LSP created by advertising a BGP label for the remote PE's loopback
   address. The BGP label advertised from ASBR2 to ASBR1 rides-on top of
   the RSVP or LDP label in the carrier's-carrier core.

   eg. For having an e2e LSP from PE1 to PE2, a BGP label is advertised
   for PE1's loopback into the carrier customer's site on the left. This
   label could be dealt with by ASBR1 in two ways:
         a. Advertising it into LDP in the carrier customer's site (on
   the left), or
         b. By advertising it over an iBGP session to PE2.

   In the former case (LDP advertising a FEC for PE1), this document
   makes possible for ASBR1 to not have to remove the EL (inserted by
   PE2) and let it be removed by a either a concatenation point (ASBR2
   or ASBR3 or ASBR4) or the egress PE1. This is facilitated by the



Singh, et al.            Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 21]


INTERNET DRAFT      Entropy label for seamless MPLS     October 27, 2014


   translation rules of section 5.2.1.1. The same also facilitates
   traffic with EL to be carried over concatenation points such that the
   EL is eventually removed by the last-EL-capable concatenation point
   or the EL capable e2e egress.

   Each carrier (carrier's carrier; and carrier-customer) will have LAGs
   and LDP ECMP paths in its network.

6.2 Inter-AS L3VPN: Option C

   Option C is conceptually similar to CoC L3VPN from a point of view of
   setting up the e2e LSP. Therefore, similar EL use-cases also exist
   for Option C.

   This applies for both L3VPN and also BGP-VPLS.


7. Manageability

   There are no new MPLS OAM issues opened up by this specification. Any
   MPLS manageability are the same as those inherited from [EL-RFC] and
   addressing those is outside the scope of this document.

8. Security considerations

   Security considerations as listed in section 9 of [EL-RFC] apply.



9. Acknowledgments

   Many thanks to Adrian Farrel for his inputs on the stitching
   scenarios, and suggesting editorial improvements.

   Thanks to the EL team (Sudharsana Venkataraman, Nitin Singh, Ramji
   Vijayaraghavan, Jie Yan, Abhishek Tripathi) for discussions on some
   of these topics.

   May thanks to John Scudder for discussions on this topic and his
   editorial comments/corrections.

10. IANA considerations

   None.







Singh, et al.            Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 22]


INTERNET DRAFT      Entropy label for seamless MPLS     October 27, 2014


11.  References

11.1  Normative References

   [EL-RFC]     Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W.,
                L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
                RFC-6790, November 2012.

   [GMPLS-HIER] Kompella, K., Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
                Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
                Switching (GMPLS)", RFC-4206, October 2005.

   [MPLS-ARCH]  Rosen, E.,  Viswanathan, A., R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
                Label Switching Architecture", RFC-3031, January 2001.

   [S-MPLS]     Leymann, N., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C.,
                Konstantynowicz, M., Steinberg, D., "Seamless MPLS
                Architecture", draft-ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls-07,
                October 2012. (work-in-progress)

   [INTER-AS-VPNS] Rosen, E., Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual
                Private Networks (VPNs)", RFC4364, February 2006.

   [GMPLS-STITCHING]  Ayyangar, A., Kompella, K., Vasseur, JP.,
                A. Farrel, "Label Switched Path Stitching with
                Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic
                Engineering (GMPLS TE)", RFC 5150, February 2008.


11.2  Informative References

   [ISSUE-DEEP] K. Kompella, "Deep Label Stacks",
                http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/84/slides/slides-84-mpls-
                15.pdf, August 2012

   [LU-BGP]     Rekhter, Y., E. Rosen, "Carrying Label Information in
                BGP-4", RFC-3107, May 2001.














Singh, et al.            Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 23]


INTERNET DRAFT      Entropy label for seamless MPLS     October 27, 2014


Authors' Addresses


   Ravi Singh
   Juniper Networks
   1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
   Sunnyvale, CA  94089
   US

   EMail: ravis@juniper.net

   Yimin Shen
   Juniper Networks
   10 Technology Park Drive
   Westford, MA 01886
   US

   EMail: yshen@juniper.net

   John Drake
   Juniper Networks
   1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
   Sunnyvale, CA  94089
   US

   EMail: jdrake@juniper.net

























Singh, et al.            Expires April 30, 2015                [Page 24]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.121, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/