draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-06.txt   draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-07.txt 
OSPF Working Group X. Xu OSPF 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: February 2, 2019 Expires: March 29, 2019
S. Sivabalan S. Sivabalan
C. Filsfils C. Filsfils
Cisco Cisco
S. Litkowski S. Litkowski
Orange Orange
August 01, 2018 September 25, 2018
Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy Readable Label-stack Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy Readable Label-stack
Depth Using OSPF Depth Using OSPF
draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-06 draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-07
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 12 skipping to change at page 2, line 12
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 February 2, 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 36 skipping to change at page 2, line 36
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Non-OSPF Functional Capabilities TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Non-OSPF Functional Capabilities TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Advertising ELC Using OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Advertising ELC Using OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Advertising ERLD Using OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Advertising ERLD Using OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[RFC6790] describes a method to load balance Multiprotocol Label [RFC6790] describes a method to load balance Multiprotocol Label
skipping to change at page 4, line 31 skipping to change at page 4, line 31
One bit of the Non-IGP Functional Capability Bits for is used to One bit of the Non-IGP Functional Capability Bits for is used to
indicate the ELC. indicate the ELC.
Assignment of a Non-IGP Functional Capability Bit for the ELC is Assignment of a Non-IGP Functional Capability Bit for the ELC is
defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc]. defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc].
If a router has multiple line cards, the router MUST NOT announce the If a router has multiple line cards, the router MUST NOT announce the
ELC [RFC6790] unless all of its linecards are capable of processing ELC [RFC6790] unless all of its linecards are capable of processing
ELs. 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 OSPF 5. Advertising ERLD Using OSPF
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. The scope of the advertisement advertise the ERLD of a given router. The scope of the advertisement
depends on the application. depends on the application.
Assignment of a MSD-Type for ERLD is defined in Assignment of a MSD-Type for ERLD is defined in
[I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc]. [I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc].
If a router has multiple linecards with different capabilities of If a router has multiple linecards with different capabilities of
reading the maximum label stack deepth, the router MUST advertise the reading the maximum label stack deepth, the router MUST advertise the
smallest one. smallest one.
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
Pignataro for their valuable comments. Decraene and Carlos Pignataro for their valuable comments.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
This document requests IANA to allocate one TLV type from the OSPF RI This document requests IANA to allocate one TLV type from the OSPF RI
TLVs registry for the Non-IGP Functional CapabilitiesTLV. TLVs registry for the Non-IGP Functional CapabilitiesTLV.
8. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
The security considerations as described in [RFC7770] is applicable The security considerations as described in [RFC7770] is applicable
to this document. This document does not introduce any new security to this document. This document does not introduce any new security
skipping to change at page 5, line 29 skipping to change at page 5, line 35
[I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc] [I-D.ietf-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 and Entropy Litkowski, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy
Readable Label Depth Using IS-IS", draft-ietf-isis-mpls- Readable Label Depth Using IS-IS", draft-ietf-isis-mpls-
elc-05 (work in progress), July 2018. elc-05 (work in progress), July 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-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions]
Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment- Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment-
routing-extensions-25 (work in progress), April 2018. routing-extensions-25 (work in progress), April 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
 End of changes. 8 change blocks. 
9 lines changed or deleted 12 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/