< draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-02.txt		draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-03.txt >
	Network Working Group S. Kini, Ed.		Network Working Group S. Kini, Ed.
	Internet-Draft Ericsson		Internet-Draft
	Intended status: Standards Track K. Kompella		Intended status: Standards Track K. Kompella
	Expires: July 29, 2016 Juniper		Expires: October 9, 2016 Juniper
	S. Sivabalan		S. Sivabalan
	Cisco		Cisco
	S. Litkowski		S. Litkowski
	Orange		Orange
	R. Shakir		R. Shakir
	X. Xu
	Huawei
	W. Hendrickx
	Alcatel-Lucent
	J. Tantsura		J. Tantsura
	Ericsson
	January 26, 2016		April 7, 2016
	Entropy labels for source routed tunnels with label stacks		Entropy labels for source routed tunnels with label stacks
	draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-02		draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-03
	Abstract		Abstract
	Source routed tunnels with label stacking is a technique that can be		Source routed tunnels with label stacking is a technique that can be
	leveraged to provide a method to steer a packet through a controlled		leveraged to provide a method to steer a packet through a controlled
	set of segments. This can be applied to the Multi Protocol Label		set of segments. This can be applied to the Multi Protocol Label
	Switching (MPLS) data plane. Entropy label (EL) is a technique used		Switching (MPLS) data plane. Entropy label (EL) is a technique used
	in MPLS to improve load balancing. This document examines and		in MPLS to improve load balancing. This document examines and
	describes how ELs are to be applied to source routed tunnels with		describes how ELs are to be applied to source routed tunnels with
	label stacks.		label stacks.
	skipping to change at page 1, line 49 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 44 ¶
	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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://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 July 29, 2016.		This Internet-Draft will expire on October 9, 2016.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2016 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
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://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 34 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 34 ¶
	2. Abbreviations and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. Abbreviations and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3. Use-case requiring multipath load balancing . . . . . . . . . 4		3. Use-case requiring multipath load balancing . . . . . . . . . 4
	4. Recommended EL solution for SPRING . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		4. Recommended EL solution for SPRING . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	5. Options considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		5. Options considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	5.1. Single EL at the bottom of the stack of tunnels . . . . . 6		5.1. Single EL at the bottom of the stack of tunnels . . . . . 6
	5.2. An EL per tunnel in the stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		5.2. An EL per tunnel in the stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	5.3. A re-usable EL for a stack of tunnels . . . . . . . . . . 8		5.3. A re-usable EL for a stack of tunnels . . . . . . . . . . 8
	5.3.1. EL at top of stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		5.3.1. EL at top of stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	5.4. ELs at readable label stack depths . . . . . . . . . . . 8		5.4. ELs at readable label stack depths . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
			Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	The source routed tunnels with label stacking paradigm is leveraged		The source routed tunnels with label stacking paradigm is leveraged
	by techniques such as Segment Routing (SR)		by techniques such as Segment Routing (SR)
	[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] to steer a packet through a set of		[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] to steer a packet through a set of
	segments. This can be directly applied to the MPLS data plane, but		segments. This can be directly applied to the MPLS data plane, but
	it has implications on the label stack depth.		it has implications on the label stack depth.
	Clarifying statements on label stack depth have been provided in		Clarifying statements on label stack depth have been provided in
	skipping to change at page 9, line 26 ¶		skipping to change at page 9, line 26 ¶
	A variant of this solution was selected which balances the number of		A variant of this solution was selected which balances the number of
	labels that need to be pushed against the requirement for entropy.		labels that need to be pushed against the requirement for entropy.
	6. Acknowledgements		6. Acknowledgements
	The authors would like to thank John Drake, Loa Andersson, Curtis		The authors would like to thank John Drake, Loa Andersson, Curtis
	Villamizar, Greg Mirsky, Markus Jork, Kamran Raza and Nobo Akiya for		Villamizar, Greg Mirsky, Markus Jork, Kamran Raza and Nobo Akiya for
	their review comments and suggestions.		their review comments and suggestions.
	7. IANA Considerations		7. Contributors
			Xiaohu Xu
			Huawei
			Email: xuxiaohu@huawei.com
			Wim Hendrickx
			Alcatel-Lucent
			Email: wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com
			8. IANA Considerations
	This memo includes no request to IANA. Note to RFC Editor: Remove		This memo includes no request to IANA. Note to RFC Editor: Remove
	this section before publication.		this section before publication.
	8. Security Considerations		9. Security Considerations
	This document does not introduce any new security considerations		This document does not introduce any new security considerations
	beyond those already listed in [RFC6790].		beyond those already listed in [RFC6790].
	9. References		10. References
	9.1. Normative References		10.1. Normative References
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,		DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and		[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
	L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",		L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
	RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012,		RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.
	9.2. Informative References		10.2. Informative References
	[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]		[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]
	Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S.,		Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S.,
	and r. rjs@rob.sh, "Segment Routing Architecture", draft-		and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", draft-ietf-
	ietf-spring-segment-routing-07 (work in progress),		spring-segment-routing-07 (work in progress), December
	December 2015.		2015.
	[I-D.xu-isis-mpls-elc]		[I-D.xu-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 Using IS-		Litkowski, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability Using IS-
	IS", draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc-02 (work in progress), April		IS", draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc-02 (work in progress), April
	2015.		2015.
	[I-D.xu-ospf-mpls-elc]		[I-D.xu-ospf-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 Using		Litkowski, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability Using
	skipping to change at page 10, line 39 ¶		skipping to change at page 11, line 8 ¶
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4206>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4206>.
	[RFC7325] Villamizar, C., Ed., Kompella, K., Amante, S., Malis, A.,		[RFC7325] Villamizar, C., Ed., Kompella, K., Amante, S., Malis, A.,
	and C. Pignataro, "MPLS Forwarding Compliance and		and C. Pignataro, "MPLS Forwarding Compliance and
	Performance Requirements", RFC 7325, DOI 10.17487/RFC7325,		Performance Requirements", RFC 7325, DOI 10.17487/RFC7325,
	August 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7325>.		August 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7325>.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Sriganesh Kini (editor)		Sriganesh Kini (editor)
	Ericsson
	Email: sriganesh.kini@ericsson.com		Email: sriganeshkini@gmail.com
	Kireeti Kompella		Kireeti Kompella
	Juniper		Juniper
	Email: kireeti@juniper.net		Email: kireeti@juniper.net
	Siva Sivabalan		Siva Sivabalan
	Cisco		Cisco
	Email: msiva@cisco.com		Email: msiva@cisco.com
	Stephane Litkowski		Stephane Litkowski
	Orange		Orange
	Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com		Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com
	Rob Shakir		Rob Shakir
	Email: rjs@rob.sh		Email: rjs@rob.sh
	Xiaohu Xu
	Huawei
	Email: xuxiaohu@huawei.com
	Wim Hendrickx
	Alcatel-Lucent
	Email: wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com
	Jeff Tantsura		Jeff Tantsura
	Ericsson
	Email: jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com		Email: jefftant@gmail.com
End of changes. 19 change blocks.
	38 lines changed or deleted		35 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/