draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-02.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-03.txt 
Network Working Group S. Kini, Ed. Network Working Group S. Kini, Ed.
Internet-Draft Ericsson Internet-Draft
Intended status: Standards Track K. Kompella Intended status: Standards Track K. Kompella
Expires: July 29, 2016 Juniper Expires: October 9, 2016 Juniper
S. Sivabalan S. Sivabalan
Cisco Cisco
S. Litkowski S. Litkowski
Orange Orange
R. Shakir R. Shakir
X. Xu
Huawei
W. Hendrickx
Alcatel-Lucent
J. Tantsura J. Tantsura
Ericsson
January 26, 2016 April 7, 2016
Entropy labels for source routed tunnels with label stacks Entropy labels for source routed tunnels with label stacks
draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-02 draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-03
Abstract Abstract
Source routed tunnels with label stacking is a technique that can be Source routed tunnels with label stacking is a technique that can be
leveraged to provide a method to steer a packet through a controlled leveraged to provide a method to steer a packet through a controlled
set of segments. This can be applied to the Multi Protocol Label set of segments. This can be applied to the Multi Protocol Label
Switching (MPLS) data plane. Entropy label (EL) is a technique used Switching (MPLS) data plane. Entropy label (EL) is a technique used
in MPLS to improve load balancing. This document examines and in MPLS to improve load balancing. This document examines and
describes how ELs are to be applied to source routed tunnels with describes how ELs are to be applied to source routed tunnels with
label stacks. label stacks.
skipping to change at page 1, line 49 skipping to change at page 1, line 44
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 29, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 9, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 34 skipping to change at page 2, line 34
2. Abbreviations and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Abbreviations and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Use-case requiring multipath load balancing . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Use-case requiring multipath load balancing . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Recommended EL solution for SPRING . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Recommended EL solution for SPRING . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Options considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Options considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Single EL at the bottom of the stack of tunnels . . . . . 6 5.1. Single EL at the bottom of the stack of tunnels . . . . . 6
5.2. An EL per tunnel in the stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2. An EL per tunnel in the stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.3. A re-usable EL for a stack of tunnels . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.3. A re-usable EL for a stack of tunnels . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3.1. EL at top of stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.3.1. EL at top of stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.4. ELs at readable label stack depths . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.4. ELs at readable label stack depths . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The source routed tunnels with label stacking paradigm is leveraged The source routed tunnels with label stacking paradigm is leveraged
by techniques such as Segment Routing (SR) by techniques such as Segment Routing (SR)
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] to steer a packet through a set of [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] to steer a packet through a set of
segments. This can be directly applied to the MPLS data plane, but segments. This can be directly applied to the MPLS data plane, but
it has implications on the label stack depth. it has implications on the label stack depth.
Clarifying statements on label stack depth have been provided in Clarifying statements on label stack depth have been provided in
skipping to change at page 9, line 26 skipping to change at page 9, line 26
A variant of this solution was selected which balances the number of A variant of this solution was selected which balances the number of
labels that need to be pushed against the requirement for entropy. labels that need to be pushed against the requirement for entropy.
6. Acknowledgements 6. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank John Drake, Loa Andersson, Curtis The authors would like to thank John Drake, Loa Andersson, Curtis
Villamizar, Greg Mirsky, Markus Jork, Kamran Raza and Nobo Akiya for Villamizar, Greg Mirsky, Markus Jork, Kamran Raza and Nobo Akiya for
their review comments and suggestions. their review comments and suggestions.
7. IANA Considerations 7. Contributors
Xiaohu Xu
Huawei
Email: xuxiaohu@huawei.com
Wim Hendrickx
Alcatel-Lucent
Email: wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com
8. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA. Note to RFC Editor: Remove This memo includes no request to IANA. Note to RFC Editor: Remove
this section before publication. this section before publication.
8. Security Considerations 9. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any new security considerations This document does not introduce any new security considerations
beyond those already listed in [RFC6790]. beyond those already listed in [RFC6790].
9. References 10. References
9.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and [RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding", L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012, RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.
9.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S.,
and r. rjs@rob.sh, "Segment Routing Architecture", draft- and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", draft-ietf-
ietf-spring-segment-routing-07 (work in progress), spring-segment-routing-07 (work in progress), December
December 2015. 2015.
[I-D.xu-isis-mpls-elc] [I-D.xu-isis-mpls-elc]
Xu, X., Kini, S., Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., and S. Xu, X., Kini, S., Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., and S.
Litkowski, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability Using IS- Litkowski, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability Using IS-
IS", draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc-02 (work in progress), April IS", draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc-02 (work in progress), April
2015. 2015.
[I-D.xu-ospf-mpls-elc] [I-D.xu-ospf-mpls-elc]
Xu, X., Kini, S., Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., and S. Xu, X., Kini, S., Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., and S.
Litkowski, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability Using Litkowski, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability Using
skipping to change at page 10, line 39 skipping to change at page 11, line 8
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4206>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4206>.
[RFC7325] Villamizar, C., Ed., Kompella, K., Amante, S., Malis, A., [RFC7325] Villamizar, C., Ed., Kompella, K., Amante, S., Malis, A.,
and C. Pignataro, "MPLS Forwarding Compliance and and C. Pignataro, "MPLS Forwarding Compliance and
Performance Requirements", RFC 7325, DOI 10.17487/RFC7325, Performance Requirements", RFC 7325, DOI 10.17487/RFC7325,
August 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7325>. August 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7325>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Sriganesh Kini (editor) Sriganesh Kini (editor)
Ericsson
Email: sriganesh.kini@ericsson.com Email: sriganeshkini@gmail.com
Kireeti Kompella Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Juniper
Email: kireeti@juniper.net Email: kireeti@juniper.net
Siva Sivabalan Siva Sivabalan
Cisco Cisco
Email: msiva@cisco.com Email: msiva@cisco.com
Stephane Litkowski Stephane Litkowski
Orange Orange
Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com
skipping to change at page 11, line 18 skipping to change at page 11, line 30
Stephane Litkowski Stephane Litkowski
Orange Orange
Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com
Rob Shakir Rob Shakir
Email: rjs@rob.sh Email: rjs@rob.sh
Xiaohu Xu
Huawei
Email: xuxiaohu@huawei.com
Wim Hendrickx
Alcatel-Lucent
Email: wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com
Jeff Tantsura Jeff Tantsura
Ericsson
Email: jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com Email: jefftant@gmail.com
 End of changes. 19 change blocks. 
38 lines changed or deleted 35 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/