Network Working Group X. Xu
Internet-Draft Alibaba Inc
Intended status: Standards Track S. Kini
Expires: April 23, 2020
P. Psenak
C. Filsfils
S. Litkowski
Cisco Systems, Inc.
M. Bocci
Nokia
October 21, 2019
Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy Readable Label Depth
Using IS-IS
draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-10
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
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.
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.
Xu, et al. Expires April 23, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Signaling ELC and ERLD using IS-IS October 2019
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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
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.
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
Xu, et al. Expires April 23, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Signaling ELC and ERLD using IS-IS October 2019
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.
2. Terminology
This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC6790], [RFC4971] and
[I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label].
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.
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.
When a router leaks a prefix between two levels (upwards or
downwards), it MUST preserve the ELC signaling for this prefix.
Xu, et al. Expires April 23, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Signaling ELC and ERLD using IS-IS October 2019
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.
4. 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.
5. Advertising ERLD Using IS-IS
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.
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.
6. 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
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext].
Xu, et al. Expires April 23, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Signaling ELC and ERLD using IS-IS October 2019
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].
7. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to allocate the E-bit (bit position 3 is desired)
from the "Bit Values for Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV" registry.
IANA is requested to allocate a MSD type (the type code of 2 is
desired) from the "IGP MSD Types" registry for ERLD.
8. Security Considerations
The security considerations as described in [RFC4971] nd
[I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label] 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 of the ERLD value may lead to poor load-balancing
of the traffic.
9. Contributors
The following people contributed to the content of this document and
should be considered as co-authors:
Xu, et al. Expires April 23, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Signaling ELC and ERLD using IS-IS October 2019
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]
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.
Xu, et al. Expires April 23, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Signaling ELC and ERLD using IS-IS October 2019
[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.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4971>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
[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>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8491>.
10.2. Informative References
Xu, et al. Expires April 23, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Signaling ELC and ERLD using IS-IS October 2019
[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.
Authors' Addresses
Xiaohu Xu
Alibaba Inc
Email: xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com
Sriganesh Kini
Email: sriganeshkini@gmail.com
Peter Psenak
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Eurovea Centre, Central 3
Pribinova Street 10
Bratislava 81109
Slovakia
Email: ppsenak@cisco.com
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Brussels
Belgium
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Stephane Litkowski
Cisco Systems, Inc.
La Rigourdiere
Cesson Sevigne
France
Email: slitkows@cisco.com
Xu, et al. Expires April 23, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Signaling ELC and ERLD using IS-IS October 2019
Matthew Bocci
Nokia
Shoppenhangers Road
Maidenhead, Berks
UK
Email: matthew.bocci@nokia.com
Xu, et al. Expires April 23, 2020 [Page 9]