draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-05.txt   draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-06.txt 
Network Working Group X. Xu Network Working Group X. Xu
Internet-Draft Alibaba Inc Internet-Draft Alibaba Inc
Intended status: Standards Track S. Kini Intended status: Standards Track S. Kini
Expires: January 30, 2019 Expires: March 29, 2019
S. Sivabalan S. Sivabalan
C. Filsfils C. Filsfils
Cisco Cisco
S. Litkowski S. Litkowski
Orange Orange
July 29, 2018 September 25, 2018
Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy Readable Label Depth Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy Readable Label Depth
Using IS-IS Using IS-IS
draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-05 draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-06
Abstract Abstract
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) has defined a mechanism to load Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) has defined a mechanism to load
balance traffic flows using Entropy Labels (EL). An ingress Label balance traffic flows using Entropy Labels (EL). An ingress Label
Switching Router (LSR) cannot insert ELs for packets going into a Switching Router (LSR) cannot insert ELs for packets going into a
given tunnel unless an egress LSR has indicated via signaling that it given tunnel unless an egress LSR has indicated via signaling that it
has the capability of processing ELs, referred to as Entropy Label has the capability of processing ELs, referred to as Entropy Label
Capability (ELC), on that tunnel. In addition, it would be useful Capability (ELC), on that tunnel. In addition, it would be useful
for ingress LSRs to know each LSR's capability of reading the maximum for ingress LSRs to know each LSR's capability of reading the maximum
skipping to change at page 2, line 7 skipping to change at page 2, line 7
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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://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 January 30, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 29, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://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 37 skipping to change at page 2, line 37
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Non-IGP Functional Capabilities Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Non-IGP Functional Capabilities Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Advertising ELC Using IS-IS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Advertising ELC Using IS-IS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Advertising ERLD Using IS-IS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Advertising ERLD Using IS-IS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[RFC6790] describes a method to load balance Multiprotocol Label [RFC6790] describes a method to load balance Multiprotocol Label
Switching (MPLS) traffic flows using Entropy Labels (EL). [RFC6790] Switching (MPLS) traffic flows using Entropy Labels (EL). [RFC6790]
introduces the concept of Entropy Label Capability (ELC) and defines introduces the concept of Entropy Label Capability (ELC) and defines
the signalings of this capability via MPLS signaling protocols. the signalings of this capability via MPLS signaling protocols.
Recently, mechanisms are being defined to signal labels via link- Recently, mechanisms are being defined to signal labels via link-
state Interior Gateway Protocols (IGP) such as IS-IS state Interior Gateway Protocols (IGP) such as IS-IS
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]. In such scenario, the [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]. In such scenario, the
skipping to change at page 4, line 23 skipping to change at page 4, line 23
advertised in this Sub-TLV MUST describe protocol behavior and advertised in this Sub-TLV MUST describe protocol behavior and
address backwards compatibility. address backwards compatibility.
4. Advertising ELC Using IS-IS 4. Advertising ELC Using IS-IS
One bit of the Non-IGP Functional Capability Bits (Bit 0 is desired) One bit of the Non-IGP Functional Capability Bits (Bit 0 is desired)
is to be assigned by the IANA for the ELC [RFC6790]. If a router has is to be assigned by the IANA for the ELC [RFC6790]. If a router has
multiple line cards, the router MUST NOT announce the ELC [RFC6790] multiple line cards, the router MUST NOT announce the ELC [RFC6790]
unless all of its linecards are capable of processing ELs. unless all of its linecards are capable of processing ELs.
How to apply the ELC advertisement to the inter-area, inter-AS and
inter-protocol scenarios is outside the scope of this document.
5. Advertising ERLD Using IS-IS 5. Advertising ERLD Using IS-IS
A new MSD-type of the Node MSD sub-TLV A new MSD-type of the Node MSD sub-TLV
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd], called ERLD is defined to [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 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 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 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 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. 0 to 255. The scope of the advertisement depends on the application.
If a router has multiple linecards with different capabilities of If a router has multiple linecards with different capabilities of
skipping to change at page 4, line 46 skipping to change at page 4, line 49
0 1 2 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 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 | | MSD-Type=TBD2 | ERLD |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: ERLD MSD-Type Format Figure 2: ERLD MSD-Type Format
6. Acknowledgements 6. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Yimin Shen, George Swallow, Acee The authors would like to thank Yimin Shen, George Swallow, Acee
Lindem, Les Ginsberg, Ketan Talaulikar, Jeff Tantsura and Carlos Lindem, Les Ginsberg, Ketan Talaulikar, Jeff Tantsura, Bruno Decraene
Pignataro for their valuable comments. and Carlos Pignataro for their valuable comments.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
This document requests IANA to allocate one sub-TLV type of the This document requests IANA to allocate one sub-TLV type of the
Router Capability TLV registry for the Non-IGP Functional Router Capability TLV registry for the Non-IGP Functional
Capabilities Sub-TLV. Futhermore, this document requests IANA to Capabilities Sub-TLV. Futhermore, this document requests IANA to
creat a subregistry for "Non-IGP Functional Capability Bits" within creat a subregistry for "Non-IGP Functional Capability Bits" within
the "Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters" registry. This the "Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters" registry. This
subregistry is comprised of the fields Bit Number, Capability Name, subregistry is comprised of the fields Bit Number, Capability Name,
and Reference. Initially, one bit is reqested to be assigned for the and Reference. Initially, one bit is reqested to be assigned for the
skipping to change at page 5, line 47 skipping to change at page 5, line 47
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]
Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A.,
Gredler, H., Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and J. Tantsura, Gredler, H., Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and J. Tantsura,
"IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis- "IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-
segment-routing-extensions-19 (work in progress), July segment-routing-extensions-19 (work in progress), July
2018. 2018.
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd] [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd]
Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and L. Ginsberg, Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and L. Ginsberg,
"Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using IS-IS", draft- "Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using IS-IS", draft-
ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-13 (work in progress), July ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-16 (work in progress),
2018. September 2018.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]
Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS
data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-14 data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-14
(work in progress), June 2018. (work in progress), June 2018.
[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,
skipping to change at page 6, line 31 skipping to change at page 6, line 31
[RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic [RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>. 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.
[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>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label] [I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label]
Kini, S., Kompella, K., Sivabalan, S., Litkowski, S., Kini, S., Kompella, K., Sivabalan, S., Litkowski, S.,
Shakir, R., and J. Tantsura, "Entropy label for SPRING Shakir, R., and J. Tantsura, "Entropy label for SPRING
 End of changes. 9 change blocks. 
9 lines changed or deleted 17 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/