idnits 2.17.1 draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (December 18, 2013) is 3776 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: 'I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing' is defined on line 144, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of draft-previdi-isis-segment-routing-extensions-04 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4971 (Obsoleted by RFC 7981) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group X. Xu 3 Internet-Draft Huawei 4 Intended status: Standards Track S. Kini 5 Expires: June 18, 2014 Ericsson 6 S. Sivabalan 7 C. Filsfils 8 Cisco 9 December 18, 2013 11 Signaling Entropy Label Capability Using IS-IS 12 draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc-00 14 Abstract 16 Multi Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) has defined a mechanism to load 17 balance traffic flows using Entropy Labels (EL). An ingress LSR 18 cannot insert ELs for packets going into a given tunnel unless an 19 egress LSR has indicated via signaling that it can process ELs on 20 that tunnel. This draft defines a mechanism to signal that 21 capability using IS-IS. This mechanism is useful when the label 22 advertisement is also done via IS-IS. 24 Status of This Memo 26 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 27 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 29 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 30 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 31 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 32 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 34 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 35 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 36 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 37 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 39 This Internet-Draft will expire on June 18, 2014. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 44 document authors. All rights reserved. 46 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 47 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 48 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 49 publication of this document. Please review these documents 50 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 51 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 52 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 53 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 54 described in the Simplified BSD License. 56 Table of Contents 58 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 59 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 60 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 61 3. Advertising ELC using IS-IS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 62 4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 63 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 66 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 67 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 68 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 70 1. Introduction 72 Multi Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) has defined a method in 73 [RFC6790] to load balance traffic flows using Entropy Labels (EL). 74 An ingress LSR cannot insert ELs for packets going into a given 75 tunnel unless an egress LSR has indicated via signaling that it can 76 process ELs on that tunnel. [RFC6790] defines the signaling of this 77 capability (a.k.a Entropy Label Capability - ELC) via signaling 78 protocols. Recently, mechanisms are being defined to signal labels 79 via link state Interior Gateway Protocols (IGP) such as IS-IS 80 [I-D.previdi-isis-segment-routing-extensions]. In such scenario the 81 signaling mechanisms defined in [RFC6790] are inadequate. This draft 82 defines a mechanism to signal the ELC using IS-IS. This mechanism is 83 useful when the label advertisement is also done via IS-IS. 85 1.1. Requirements Language 87 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 88 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 89 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 91 2. Terminology 93 This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC6790] and [RFC4971]. 95 3. Advertising ELC using IS-IS 96 The IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV defined in [RFC4971] is used by IS-IS 97 routers to announce their capabilities. A new sub-TLV of this TLV, 98 called ELC sub-TLV is defined to advertise the capability of the 99 router to process the ELs. It is formatted as described in [RFC5305] 100 with a Type code to be assigned by IANA and a Length of zero. The 101 scope of the advertisement depends on the application but it is 102 recommended that it SHOULD be domain-wide. 104 4. Acknowledgements 106 The authors would like to thank Yimin Shen and George Swallow for 107 their comments. 109 5. IANA Considerations 111 This memo includes a request to IANA to allocate a sub-TLV type 112 within the IS-IS Router Capability TLV. 114 6. Security Considerations 116 This document does not introduce any new security considerations. 118 7. References 120 7.1. Normative References 122 [I-D.previdi-isis-segment-routing-extensions] 123 Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., and 124 S. Litkowski, "IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", 125 draft-previdi-isis-segment-routing-extensions-04 (work in 126 progress), October 2013. 128 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 129 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 131 [RFC4971] Vasseur, JP., Shen, N., and R. Aggarwal, "Intermediate 132 System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for 133 Advertising Router Information", RFC 4971, July 2007. 135 [RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic 136 Engineering", RFC 5305, October 2008. 138 [RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and 139 L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding", 140 RFC 6790, November 2012. 142 7.2. Informative References 144 [I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing] 145 Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., 146 Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Milojevic, I., Shakir, R., 147 Ytti, S., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J., and E. Crabbe, 148 "Segment Routing Architecture", draft-filsfils-rtgwg- 149 segment-routing-01 (work in progress), October 2013. 151 Authors' Addresses 153 Xiaohu Xu 154 Huawei 156 Email: xuxiaohu@huawei.com 158 Sriganesh Kini 159 Ericsson 161 Email: sriganesh.kini@ericsson.com 163 Siva Sivabalan 164 Cisco 166 Email: msiva@cisco.com 168 Clarence Filsfils 169 Cisco 171 Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com