--- 1/draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-10.txt 2020-03-24 04:15:34.702104344 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-11.txt 2020-03-24 04:15:34.722104853 -0700 @@ -1,228 +1,222 @@ Network Working Group X. Xu Internet-Draft Alibaba Inc Intended status: Standards Track S. Kini -Expires: April 23, 2020 +Expires: September 25, 2020 P. Psenak C. Filsfils S. Litkowski Cisco Systems, Inc. M. Bocci Nokia - October 21, 2019 + March 24, 2020 Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy Readable Label Depth Using IS-IS - draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-10 + draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-11 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 + as the 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. + 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. + This Internet-Draft will expire on September 25, 2020. Copyright Notice - Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the + Copyright (c) 2020 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 + 4. Advertising ERLD Using IS-IS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 5. Signaling ELC and ERLD in BGP-LS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 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. + Switching (MPLS) traffic flows using Entropy Labels (EL). It also + introduces the concept of Entropy Label Capability (ELC) and defines + the signaling 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 [RFC8660]. This + draft defines a mechanism to signal the ELC using 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 - 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. + In cases where LSPs are used for whatever reasons (e.g., SR-MPLS + [RFC8660], it would be useful for ingress LSRs to know each + intermediate LSR's capability of 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 + [RFC8662] 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]. + This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC6790], and [RFC8662]. 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. + Bit 3 in the Prefix Attribute Flags [RFC7794] is used as the ECL Flag + (E-flag), as shown in Figure 1. If a router has multiple interfaces, + the router MUST NOT announce the ELC for any local host prefixes + unless all of its interfaces are capable of processing ELs. If a + router supports ELs on all of its interfaces, 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. + E-flag: ELC Flag (Bit 3) - Set for local host prefix of the + originating node if it supports ELC on all interfaces. - When a router leaks a prefix between two levels (upwards or - downwards), it MUST preserve the ELC signaling for this prefix. + When a router propagates a prefix between ISIS levels ([RFC5302], it + MUST preserve the ELC signaling for this prefix. 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. + an Autonomous System Boundary Router (ASBR) is outside of the scope + of this document. -4. Acknowledgements +4. Advertising ERLD Using IS-IS - 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. + A new MSD-type [RFC8491], called ERLD-MSD is defined to advertise the + ERLD [RFC8662] of a given router. A MSD-Type code 2 has been + assigned by IANA for EARLD-MSD. MSD-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 interfaces with + different capabilities of reading the maximum label stack depth, the + router MUST advertise the smallest one. -5. Advertising ERLD Using IS-IS + The absence of ERLD-MSD advertisements indicates only that the + advertising node does not support advertisement of this capability. - 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. + The considerations for advertising the ERLD are specified in + [RFC8662]. 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. + If the ERLD-MSD Type is received in the Link MSD Sub-TLV, it MUST be + ignored. -6. Signaling ELC and ERLD in BGP-LS +5. 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 + The ELC is advertised using the Prefix Attribute Flags TLV as defined + in [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext]. + + The ERLD-MSD is advertised using the Node MSD TLV as defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext]. - 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]. +6. IANA Considerations -7. IANA Considerations + Early allocation has been done by IANA for this document as follows: - IANA is requested to allocate the E-bit (bit position 3 is desired) - from the "Bit Values for Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV" registry. + - Bit 3 in the Bit Values for Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV + registry has been assigned to the ELC Flag. IANA is asked to + update the registry to reflect the name used in this document: ECL + Flag (E-flag). - IANA is requested to allocate a MSD type (the type code of 2 is - desired) from the "IGP MSD Types" registry for ERLD. + - Type 2 in the IGP MSD-Types registry has been assigned for the + ERLD-MSD. IANA is asked to update the registry to reflect the + name used in this document: ERLD-MSD. -8. Security Considerations +7. Security Considerations - The security considerations as described in [RFC4971] nd - [I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label] are applicable to this document. + This document specifies the ability to advertise additional node + capabilities using IS-IS and BGP-LS. As such, the security + considerations as described in [RFC4971], [RFC7752], [RFC7794], + [RFC8491], [RFC7752], [RFC8662], + [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext] and + [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd] 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 the E flag during origination, propagation 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. + Incorrectly setting of the ERLD value may lead to poor or no load- + balancing of the traffic. -9. Contributors +8. Contributors 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 @@ -232,92 +226,109 @@ Belgium Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com Keyur Patel Arrcus USA Email: keyur@arrcus.com +9. 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. + 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. - - [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. + using Border Gateway Protocol - Link State", draft-ietf- + idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-15 (work in progress), + March 2020. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [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, . + [RFC5302] Li, T., Smit, H., and T. Przygienda, "Domain-Wide Prefix + Distribution with Two-Level IS-IS", RFC 5302, + DOI 10.17487/RFC5302, October 2008, + . + [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, . [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, . [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, . + [RFC7981] Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and M. Chen, "IS-IS Extensions + for Advertising Router Information", RFC 7981, + DOI 10.17487/RFC7981, October 2016, + . + [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . [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, . + [RFC8662] Kini, S., Kompella, K., Sivabalan, S., Litkowski, S., + Shakir, R., and J. Tantsura, "Entropy Label for Source + Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) Tunnels", RFC 8662, + DOI 10.17487/RFC8662, December 2019, + . + 10.2. Informative References - [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. + [RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., + Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment + Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660, + DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019, + . + + [RFC8667] Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Ed., Filsfils, C., + Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS + Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8667, + DOI 10.17487/RFC8667, December 2019, + . Authors' Addresses Xiaohu Xu Alibaba Inc Email: xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com Sriganesh Kini