< draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-04.txt   draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-05.txt >
OSPF Working Group X. Xu OSPF Working Group X. Xu
Internet-Draft Huawei Internet-Draft Huawei
Intended status: Standards Track S. Kini Intended status: Standards Track S. Kini
Expires: June 3, 2017 Expires: July 7, 2018
S. Sivabalan S. Sivabalan
C. Filsfils C. Filsfils
Cisco Cisco
S. Litkowski S. Litkowski
Orange Orange
November 30, 2016 January 3, 2018
Signaling Entropy Label Capability Using OSPF Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Readable Label-stack Depth Using
draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-04 OSPF
draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-05
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
can process ELs on that tunnel. This draft defines a mechanism to has the capability of processing ELs, referred to as Entropy Label
signal that capability using OSPF. This mechanism is useful when the Capability (ELC), on that tunnel. In addition, it would be useful
label advertisement is also done via OSPF. for ingress LSRs to know each LSR's capability of reading the maximum
label stack depth, referred to as Readable Label-stack Depth (RLD),
in the cases where stacked LSPs are used for whatever reasons. This
document defines mechanisms to signal these two capabilities using
OSPF. These mechanisms are useful when the label advertisement is
also done via OSPF. In addition, this document introduces the Router
Non-OSPF Functional Capabilities TLV for advertising OSPF router's
actual non-OSPF functional capabilities. ELC is one of such non-OSPF
functional capabilities.
Requirements Language Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 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 June 3, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 7, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
(http://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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
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 RLDC Using OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Advertising RLD Using OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
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
Switching (MPLS) traffic flows using Entropy Labels (EL). [RFC6790] Switching (MPLS) traffic flows using Entropy Labels (EL). [RFC6790]
skipping to change at page 2, line 43 skipping to change at page 3, line 4
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
Switching (MPLS) traffic flows using Entropy Labels (EL). [RFC6790] Switching (MPLS) traffic flows using Entropy Labels (EL). [RFC6790]
introduces the concept of Entropy Label Capability (ELC) and defines introduces the concept of Entropy Label Capability (ELC) and defines
the signalings of this capability via MPLS signaling protocols. the signalings of this capability via MPLS signaling protocols.
Recently, mechanisms are being defined to signal labels via link- Recently, mechanisms are being defined to signal labels via link-
state Interior Gateway Protocols (IGP) such as OSPF state Interior Gateway Protocols (IGP) such as OSPF
[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions]. In such scenario, the [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions]. In such scenario, the
signaling mechanisms defined in [RFC6790] are inadequate. This draft signaling mechanisms defined in [RFC6790] are inadequate. This draft
defines a mechanism to signal the ELC [RFC6790] using OSPF. This defines a mechanism to signal the ELC [RFC6790] using OSPF. This
mechanism is useful when the label advertisement is also done via mechanism is useful when the label advertisement is also done via
OSPF. In addition, in the cases where stacked LSPs are used for OSPF. In addition, in the cases where stacked LSPs are used for
whatever reasons (e.g., SPRING-MPLS whatever reasons (e.g., SPRING-MPLS
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]), it would be useful for [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]), it would be useful for
ingress LSRs to know each LSR's capability of reading the maximum ingress LSRs to know each LSR's capability of reading the maximum
label stack depth. This capability, referred to as Readable Label label stack depth. This capability, referred to as Readable Label-
Depth Capability (RLDC) may be used by ingress LSRs to determine stack Depth (RLD) may be used by ingress LSRs to determine whether
whether it's necessary to insert an EL for a given LSP of the stacked it's necessary to insert an EL for a given LSP of the stacked LSP
LSP tunnel in the case where there has already been at least one EL tunnel in the case where there has already been at least one EL in
in the label stack [I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label]. the label stack [I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label].
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC6790] and [RFC7770]. This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC6790] and [RFC7770].
3. Non-OSPF Functional Capabilities TLV 3. Non-OSPF Functional Capabilities TLV
This document defines the Router Non-OSPF Functional Capabilities TLV This document defines the Router Non-OSPF Functional Capabilities TLV
for advertisement in the OSPF Router Information LSA. An OSPF router for advertisement in the OSPF Router Information LSA. An OSPF router
advertising an OSPF RI LSA MAY include the Router Non-OSPF Functional advertising an OSPF RI LSA MAY include the Router Non-OSPF Functional
skipping to change at page 4, line 14 skipping to change at page 4, line 25
capabilities advertised in this TLV MUST describe protocol behavior capabilities advertised in this TLV MUST describe protocol behavior
and address backwards compatibility. and address backwards compatibility.
4. Advertising ELC Using OSPF 4. Advertising ELC Using OSPF
One bit of the Non-OSPF Functional Capability Bits is to be assigned One bit of the Non-OSPF Functional Capability Bits is to be assigned
by the IANA for the ELC [RFC6790]. If a router has multiple line by the IANA for the ELC [RFC6790]. If a router has multiple line
cards, the router MUST NOT announce the ELC [RFC6790] unless all of cards, the router MUST NOT announce the ELC [RFC6790] unless all of
its linecards are capable of processing ELs. its linecards are capable of processing ELs.
5. Advertising RLDC Using OSPF 5. Advertising RLD Using OSPF
A new TLV within the body of the OSPF RI LSA, called RLDC TLV is A new TLV within the body of the OSPF RI LSA, called RLD TLV is
defined to advertise the capability of the router to read the maximum defined to advertise the capability of the router to read the maximum
label stack depth. As showed in Figure 2, it is formatted as label stack depth. As showed in Figure 2, it is formatted as
described in Section 2.3 of [RFC7770] with a Type code to be assigned described in Section 2.3 of [RFC7770] with a Type code to be assigned
by IANA and a Length of one. The Value field is set to the maximum by IANA and a Length of one. The Value field is set to the maximum
readable label stack depth in the range between 1 to 255. The scope readable label stack depth in the range between 1 to 255. The scope
of the advertisement depends on the application but it is RECOMMENDED of the advertisement depends on the application but it is RECOMMENDED
that it SHOULD be domain-wide. If a router has multiple line cards that it SHOULD be domain-wide. If a router has multiple line cards
with different capabilities of reading the maximum label stack depth, with different capabilities of reading the maximum label stack depth,
the router MUST advertise the smallest one in the RLDC TLV. This TLV the router MUST advertise the smallest one in the RLD TLV. This TLV
is applicable to both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. is applicable to both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=TBD2 | Length | | Type=TBD2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RLD | | RLD |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: RLDC TLV Format Figure 2: RLD TLV Format
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, Carlos Pignataro and Bruno Decraene for their valuable Lindem, Carlos Pignataro and Bruno Decraene for their valuable
comments and suggestions. comments and suggestions.
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
skipping to change at page 5, line 12 skipping to change at page 5, line 22
comprised of the fields Bit Number, Capability Name, and Reference. comprised of the fields Bit Number, Capability Name, and Reference.
Initially, one bit is reqested to be assigned for the ELC. All Non- Initially, one bit is reqested to be assigned for the ELC. All Non-
OSPF Functional Capability TLV additions are to be assigned through OSPF Functional Capability TLV additions are to be assigned through
IETF Review [RFC5226]. IETF Review [RFC5226].
This document also requests IANA to allocate one TLV type from the This document also requests IANA to allocate one TLV type from the
OSPF RI TLVs registry for the RLDC TLV. OSPF RI TLVs registry for the RLDC TLV.
8. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
The security considerations as described in [RFC7770] is appliable to The security considerations as described in [RFC7770] is applicable
this document. This document does not introduce any new security to this document. This document does not introduce any new security
risk. risk.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[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. jefftant@gmail.com, "Entropy labels for Shakir, R., and J. Tantsura, "Entropy label for SPRING
source routed tunnels with label stacks", draft-ietf-mpls- tunnels", draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-07 (work in
spring-entropy-label-04 (work in progress), July 2016. progress), October 2017.
[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>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC7770] Lindem, A., Ed., Shen, N., Vasseur, JP., Aggarwal, R., and [RFC7770] Lindem, A., Ed., Shen, N., Vasseur, JP., Aggarwal, R., and
S. Shaffer, "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional S. Shaffer, "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional
Router Capabilities", RFC 7770, DOI 10.17487/RFC7770, Router Capabilities", RFC 7770, DOI 10.17487/RFC7770,
February 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7770>. February 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7770>.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[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-10 (work in progress), October 2016. routing-extensions-24 (work in progress), December 2017.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Shakir, R., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS
jefftant@gmail.com, j., and E. Crabbe, "Segment Routing data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-11
with MPLS data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing- (work in progress), October 2017.
mpls-05 (work in progress), July 2016.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[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>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Xiaohu Xu Xiaohu Xu
Huawei Huawei
Email: xuxiaohu@huawei.com Email: xuxh.mail@gmail.com
Sriganesh Kini Sriganesh Kini
Email: sriganeshkini@gmail.com Email: sriganeshkini@gmail.com
Siva Sivabalan Siva Sivabalan
Cisco Cisco
Email: msiva@cisco.com Email: msiva@cisco.com
 End of changes. 26 change blocks. 
38 lines changed or deleted 47 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/