Network Working Group C. Filsfils
Internet-Draft P. Mohapatra
Intended status: Standards Track C. Pignataro
Expires: January 2, 2009 Cisco Systems
July 1, 2008
Load Balancing for Mesh Softwires
draft-pmohapat-softwire-lb-00
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 2, 2009.
Abstract
Payloads carried over a Softwire mesh service as defined by BGP
Encapsulation Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI) information
exchange often carry a number of identifiable, distinct flows. It
can in some circumstances be desirable to distribute these flows over
the equal cost multiple paths (ECMPs) that exist in the packet
switched network. Currently, the payload of a packet entering the
Softwire can only be interpreted by the ingress and egress routers.
Thus the load balancing decision of a core router is only based on
the encapsulating header, presenting much less entropy than available
in the payload or the encapsulated header since the Softwire
encapsulation acts in a tunneling fashion. This document describes a
Filsfils, et al. Expires January 2, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Load Balancing for Mesh Softwires July 2008
method for achieving comparable load balancing efficiency in a
network carrying Softwire mesh service over Layer Two Tunneling
Protocol - Version 3 (L2TPv3) over IP or Generic Routing
Encapsulation (GRE) encapsulation to what would be achieved without
such encapsulation.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Load Balancing Block sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Applicability to Tunnel Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Encapsulation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 7
Filsfils, et al. Expires January 2, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Load Balancing for Mesh Softwires July 2008
1. Introduction
Consider the case of a router R1 which encapsulates a packet P into a
Softwire bound to router R3. R2 is a router on the shortest path
from R1 to R3. R2's shortest path to R3 involves equal cost multiple
paths (ECMPs). The goal is for R2 to be able to choose which path to
use on the basis of the full entropy of packet P.
This is achieved by carrying in the encapsulation header a signature
of the inner header, hence enhancing the entropy of the flows as seen
by the core routers. The signature is carried as part of one of the
fields of the encapsulation header. To aid with better description
in the document, we define the generic term "load balancing field" to
mean such a value that is specific to an encapsulation type. For
example, for L2TPv3-over-IP [RFC3931] encapsulation, the load
balancing field is the Session Identifier (Session ID). For GRE
[RFC2784] encapsulation, the key field [RFC2890], if present,
represents the load balancing field. This mechanism assumes that
core routers base their load-balancing decisions on a flow definition
that includes the load balancing field. This is an obvious and
generic functionality as, for example, for L2TPv3-over-IP tunnels,
the Session ID is at the same well-known constant offset as the TCP/
UDP ports in the encapsulating header.
The "Encapsulation SAFI" [I-D.ietf-softwire-encaps-safi] is extended
such that a contiguous block of the load balancing field is bound to
the Softwire advertised by a BGP next-hop. On a per-inner flow
basis, the ingress PE selects one value of the load balancing field
from the block to preserve per-flow ordering, and at the same time to
enhance the entropy across flows.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Load Balancing Block sub-TLV
This document defines a new sub-TLV for use with the Tunnel
Encapsulation Attribute defined in [I-D.ietf-softwire-encaps-safi].
The new sub-TLV is referred to as the "Load Balancing Block sub-TLV"
and MAY be included in any Encapsulation SAFI UPDATE message where
load balancing is desired.
The sub-TLV type of the Load Balancing Block sub-TLV is 5. The sub-
TLV length is 2 octets. The value represents the length of the block
Filsfils, et al. Expires January 2, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Load Balancing for Mesh Softwires July 2008
in bits and it MUST NOT exceed the size of the load balancing field.
This format is very similar to the variable-length subnet masking
(VLSM) used in IP addresses to allow arbitrary length prefixes. The
block is determined by extracting the initial sequence of 'block
size' bits from the load balancing field.
As an example, Assume that there is a Softwire set up between R1 and
R3 with L2TPv3-over-IP tunnel type. Assume that R3 encodes the
Session ID with value 0x1234ABCD in the encapsulation sub-TLV. It
also includes the load balancing block sub-TLV and encodes the value
24. This should be interpreted as follows:
o If an ingress router does not understand Load Balancing block sub-
TLV, it continues to use the Session ID 0x1234ABCD and
encapsulates all packets with that Session ID,
o If an ingress router understands Load Balancing Block sub-TLV, it
picks the first 24 bits out of the Session ID (0x1234AB) to be
used as the block and fills in the lower-order 8 bits with a per-
flow identifier (e.g. it can be determined based on the inner
packet's source, destination addresses and TCP/UDP ports). This
selection preserves per-flow ordering of packets.
This requirement and solution applies equally to GRE where the key
plays the same role as the Session ID in L2TPv3.
Needless to say, if an egress router does not support load balancing
block sub-TLV, the Softwire continues to operate with a single load
balancing field that all ingress routers encapsulate with.
2.1. Applicability to Tunnel Types
The load balancing block sub-TLV is applicable to Tunnel types that
define a load balancing field. This document defines load balancing
fields for tunnel types 1 (L2TPv3 over IP) and 2 (GRE) as follows:
o L2TPv3 over IP - Session ID. Special care needs to be taken to
always create a non-zero Session ID. When an egress router
includes a load balancing sub-TLV, it MUST encode the Session ID
field of the Encapsulation sub-TLV in a way that ensures that the
most significant bits of the Session ID after extracting the block
are non-zero.
o GRE - GRE key
Future tunnel types that desire to use the load balancing sub-TLV
MUST define a load balancing field that is part of the encapsulating
header.
Filsfils, et al. Expires January 2, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Load Balancing for Mesh Softwires July 2008
2.2. Encapsulation Considerations
Fields included in the encapsulation header besides the load
balancing field are not affected by the load balancing block sub-TLV.
All other encapsulation fields are shared between variations of the
load balancing field. For example, for L2TPv3-over-IP tunnel type,
if the optional cookie is included in the Encapsulation sub-TLV by
the egress router during Softwire signaling, it applies to all the
"Session ID" values derived at the ingress router after applying the
load balancing block as described in this document.
3. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to assign the type of 5 for the Load Balancing
Block sub-TLV, in the tunnel sub-TLV types of the Tunnel
Encapsulation attribute registry (number space created as part of the
publication of [I-D.ietf-softwire-encaps-safi]):
Sub-TLV name Type
------------- -----
Load Balancing Block 5
4. Security Considerations
There are no additional security risks introduced by this design.
5. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Stewart Bryant and Mark Townsley for
their review and comments.
6. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-softwire-encaps-safi]
Mohapatra, P. and E. Rosen, "BGP Encapsulation SAFI and
BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute",
draft-ietf-softwire-encaps-safi-03 (work in progress),
June 2008.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2784] Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P.
Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784,
Filsfils, et al. Expires January 2, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Load Balancing for Mesh Softwires July 2008
March 2000.
[RFC2890] Dommety, G., "Key and Sequence Number Extensions to GRE",
RFC 2890, September 2000.
[RFC3931] Lau, J., Townsley, M., and I. Goyret, "Layer Two Tunneling
Protocol - Version 3 (L2TPv3)", RFC 3931, March 2005.
Authors' Addresses
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems
Brussels,
Belgium
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Pradosh Mohapatra
Cisco Systems
170 W. Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: pmohapat@cisco.com
Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems
7200 Kit Creek Road, PO Box 14987
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
USA
Email: cpignata@cisco.com
Filsfils, et al. Expires January 2, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Load Balancing for Mesh Softwires July 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Filsfils, et al. Expires January 2, 2009 [Page 7]