draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-09.txt		draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-10.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: April 6, 2020		Expires: April 23, 2020
	P. Psenak		P. Psenak
	C. Filsfils		C. Filsfils
	S. Litkowski		S. Litkowski
	Cisco		Cisco Systems, Inc.
	October 4, 2019		M. Bocci
			Nokia
			October 21, 2019
	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-09		draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-10
	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 Label Switched Path (LSP) unless an egress LSR has indicated		given Label Switched Path (LSP) unless an egress LSR has indicated
	via signaling that it has the capability to process ELs, referred to		via signaling that it has the capability to process ELs, referred to
	as Entropy Label Capability (ELC), on that tunnel. In addition, it		as Entropy Label Capability (ELC), on that tunnel. In addition, it
	would be useful for ingress LSRs to know each LSR's capability for		would be useful for ingress LSRs to know each LSR's capability for
	skipping to change at page 1, line 47 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 49 ¶
	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 April 6, 2020.		This Internet-Draft will expire on April 23, 2020.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2019 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 30 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 30 ¶
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3. Advertising ELC Using IS-IS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		3. Advertising ELC Using IS-IS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	5. Advertising ERLD Using IS-IS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		5. Advertising ERLD Using IS-IS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	6. Signaling ELC and ERLD in BGP-LS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		6. Signaling ELC and ERLD in BGP-LS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
			Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	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). "The Use		Switching (MPLS) traffic flows using Entropy Labels (EL). "The Use
	of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding" [RFC6790] introduces the		of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding" [RFC6790] introduces the
	concept of Entropy Label Capability (ELC) and defines the signalings		concept of Entropy Label Capability (ELC) and defines the signalings
	of this capability via MPLS signaling protocols. Recently,		of this capability via MPLS signaling protocols. Recently,
	mechanisms have been defined to signal labels via link-state Interior		mechanisms have been defined to signal labels via link-state Interior
	Gateway Protocols (IGP) such as IS-IS		Gateway Protocols (IGP) such as IS-IS
	skipping to change at page 5, line 29 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 29 ¶
	The security considerations as described in [RFC4971] nd		The security considerations as described in [RFC4971] nd
	[I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label] are applicable to this document.		[I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label] are applicable to this document.
	Incorrectly setting the E flag (ELC capable) (during origination,		Incorrectly setting the E flag (ELC capable) (during origination,
	leaking or redistribution) may lead to black-holing of the traffic on		leaking or redistribution) may lead to black-holing of the traffic on
	the egress node.		the egress node.
	Incorrectly setting of the ERLD value may lead to poor load-balancing		Incorrectly setting of the ERLD value may lead to poor load-balancing
	of the traffic.		of the traffic.
	9. References		9. Contributors
	9.1. Normative References		The following people contributed to the content of this document and
			should be considered as co-authors:
			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]		[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext]
	Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,		Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
	and M. Chen, "BGP Link-State extensions for Segment		and M. Chen, "BGP Link-State extensions for Segment
	Routing", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-16		Routing", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-16
	(work in progress), June 2019.		(work in progress), June 2019.
	[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd]		[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd]
	Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Talaulikar, K., Mirsky, G.,		Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Talaulikar, K., Mirsky, G.,
	and N. Triantafillis, "Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth)		and N. Triantafillis, "Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth)
	using Border Gateway Protocol Link-State", draft-ietf-idr-		using Border Gateway Protocol Link-State", draft-ietf-idr-
	bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-08 (work in progress),		bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-09 (work in progress), October
	September 2019.		2019.
	[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
	tunnels", draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-12 (work in		tunnels", draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-12 (work in
	progress), July 2018.		progress), July 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
	skipping to change at page 6, line 47 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 47 ¶
	[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC		[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
	2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,		2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
	May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.		May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
	[RFC8491] Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and L. Ginsberg,		[RFC8491] Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and L. Ginsberg,
	"Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD) Using IS-IS", RFC 8491,		"Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD) Using IS-IS", RFC 8491,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC8491, November 2018,		DOI 10.17487/RFC8491, November 2018,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8491>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8491>.
	9.2. Informative References		10.2. Informative References
	[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., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS Extensions for		Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS Extensions for
	Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-		Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-
	extensions-25 (work in progress), May 2019.		extensions-25 (work in progress), May 2019.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Xiaohu Xu		Xiaohu Xu
	Alibaba Inc		Alibaba Inc
	Email: xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com		Email: xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com
	Sriganesh Kini		Sriganesh Kini
	Email: sriganeshkini@gmail.com		Email: sriganeshkini@gmail.com
	Peter Psenak		Peter Psenak
	Cisco		Cisco Systems, Inc.
			Eurovea Centre, Central 3
			Pribinova Street 10
			Bratislava 81109
			Slovakia
	Email: ppsenak@cisco.com		Email: ppsenak@cisco.com
	Clarence Filsfils		Clarence Filsfils
	Cisco		Cisco Systems, Inc.
			Brussels
			Belgium
	Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com		Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
	Stephane Litkowski		Stephane Litkowski
	Cisco		Cisco Systems, Inc.
			La Rigourdiere
			Cesson Sevigne
			France
	Email: sslitkows@cisco.com		Email: slitkows@cisco.com
			Matthew Bocci
			Nokia
			Shoppenhangers Road
			Maidenhead, Berks
			UK
			Email: matthew.bocci@nokia.com
End of changes. 13 change blocks.
	17 lines changed or deleted		53 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/