< 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 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/