idnits 2.17.1 draft-xzc-lsr-mpls-flc-flrd-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 (February 21, 2021) is 1153 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-18) exists of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-16 == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-00 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7752 (Obsoleted by RFC 9552) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 LSR Working Group X. Min 3 Internet-Draft Z. Zhang 4 Intended status: Standards Track ZTE Corp. 5 Expires: August 25, 2021 W. Cheng 6 China Mobile 7 February 21, 2021 9 Signaling Flow-ID Label Capability and Flow-ID Readable Label Depth 10 Using IGP and BGP-LS 11 draft-xzc-lsr-mpls-flc-flrd-00 13 Abstract 15 Flow-ID Label (FL) is used for MPLS flow identification and flow- 16 based performance measurement with alternate marking method. The 17 ability to process Flow-ID labels is called Flow-ID Label Capability 18 (FLC), and the capability of reading the maximum label stack depth 19 and performing FL-based performance measurement is called Flow-ID 20 Readable Label Depth (FRLD). This document defines a mechanism to 21 signal the FLC and the FRLD using IGP and BGP-LS. 23 Status of This Memo 25 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 26 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 28 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 29 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 30 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 31 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 33 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 34 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 35 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 36 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 38 This Internet-Draft will expire on August 25, 2021. 40 Copyright Notice 42 Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 43 document authors. All rights reserved. 45 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 46 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 47 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 48 publication of this document. Please review these documents 49 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 50 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 51 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 52 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 53 described in the Simplified BSD License. 55 Table of Contents 57 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 58 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 59 2. Advertising FLC Using IGP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 2.1. Advertising FLC Using IS-IS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 2.2. Advertising FLC Using OSPFv2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 62 2.3. Advertising FLC Using OSPFv3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 3. Advertising FRLD Using IGP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 4. Signaling FLC and FRLD in BGP-LS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 68 8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 69 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 71 1. Introduction 73 As specified in [I-D.ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation], Flow-ID 74 Label (FL) is used for MPLS flow identification and flow-based 75 performance measurement with alternate marking method. 77 Flow-ID Label may appear multiple times in a label stack with 78 variable depth, so both the Flow-ID Label Capability (FLC) and the 79 Flow-ID Readable Label Depth (FRLD) are defined in 80 [I-D.ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation]. 82 Analogous to [I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc] and [I-D.ietf-ospf-mpls-elc], 83 this document defines a mechanism to signal the FLC and the FRLD 84 using IGP and BGP-LS, specifically, IGP includes IS-IS, OSPFv2 and 85 OSPFv3. 87 1.1. Terminology 89 This memo makes use of the terms defined in 90 [I-D.ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation] and [RFC8491]. 92 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 93 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 94 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 95 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 96 capitals, as shown here. 98 2. Advertising FLC Using IGP 100 Even though FLC is a property of the node, in some cases it is 101 advantageous to associate and advertise the FLC with a prefix, so FLC 102 is advertised with a prefix in this document. 104 If a router has multiple interfaces, the router MUST NOT announce FLC 105 unless all of its interfaces are capable of processing FLs. 107 If the router supports FLs on all of its interfaces, it SHOULD 108 advertise the FLC with every local host prefix it advertises in IGP. 110 2.1. Advertising FLC Using IS-IS 112 Next to the ELC Flag (E-flag) defined in Section 3 of 113 [I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc], a new bit FLC Flag (F-flag) is defined, 114 which is Bit 4 in the Prefix Attribute Flags [RFC7794], as shown in 115 Figure 1. 117 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7... 118 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+... 119 |X|R|N|E|F| ... 120 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+... 122 Figure 1: Prefix Attribute Flags 124 F-Flag: FLC Flag (Bit 4) 126 Set for local host prefix of the originating node if it supports 127 FLC on all interfaces. 129 The FLC signaling MUST be preserved when a router propagates a prefix 130 between ISIS levels [RFC5302]. 132 2.2. Advertising FLC Using OSPFv2 134 Next to the ELC Flag (E-flag) defined in Section 3.1 of 135 [I-D.ietf-ospf-mpls-elc], a new bit FLC Flag (F-flag) is defined, 136 which is Bit 3 in Flags field of OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV 137 [RFC7684]: 139 0x10 - F-Flag (FLC Flag): Set for local host prefix of the 140 originating node if it supports FLC on all interfaces. 142 The FLC signaling MUST be preserved when an OSPFv2 Area Border Router 143 (ABR) distributes information between areas. To do so, an ABR MUST 144 originate an OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA [RFC7684] including 145 the received FLC setting. 147 2.3. Advertising FLC Using OSPFv3 149 Next to the ELC Flag (E-flag) defined in Section 3.2 of 150 [I-D.ietf-ospf-mpls-elc], a new bit FLC Flag (F-flag) is defined, 151 which is Bit 0 in OSPFv3 PrefixOptions field [RFC5340]: 153 0x80 - F-Flag (FLC Flag): Set for local host prefix of the 154 originating node if it supports FLC on all interfaces. 156 The FLC signaling MUST be preserved when an OSPFv3 Area Border Router 157 (ABR) distributes information between areas. The setting of the FLC 158 Flag in the Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA [RFC5340] or in the Inter-Area- 159 Prefix TLV [RFC8362], generated by an ABR, MUST be the same as the 160 value the FLC Flag associated with the prefix in the source area. 162 3. Advertising FRLD Using IGP 164 As requested by [RFC8491], IANA has created an IANA-managed registry 165 titled "IGP MSD-Types" to identify MSD-Types. A new MSD-Type, called 166 FRLD-MSD, is defined to advertise the FRLD of a given router. The 167 MSD-Type code 3 is requested to be assigned by IANA for FRLD-MSD. 168 The MSD-Value field is set to the FRLD in the range between 0 to 255. 170 If a router has multiple interfaces with different capabilities of 171 reading the maximum label stack depth, the router MUST advertise the 172 smallest value found across all of its interfaces. 174 For IS-IS, the FRLD is advertised in a Node MSD Sub-TLV [RFC8491] 175 using the FRLD-MSD type. 177 For OSPF including both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3, the FRLD is advertised in 178 a Node MSD TLV [RFC8476] using the FRLD-MSD type. 180 The absence of FRLD-MSD advertisements indicates only that the 181 advertising node does not support advertisement of this capability. 183 4. Signaling FLC and FRLD in BGP-LS 185 The IGP extensions defined in this document can be advertised via 186 BGP-LS (Distribution of Link-State and TE Information Using BGP) 187 [RFC7752] using existing BGP-LS TLVs. 189 The FLC is advertised using the Prefix Attribute Flags TLV as defined 190 in [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext]. 192 The FRLD-MSD is advertised using the Node MSD TLV as defined in 193 [RFC8814]. 195 5. Security Considerations 197 This document does not raise any additional security issues beyond 198 those of the specifications referred to in the list of normative 199 references. 201 6. IANA Considerations 203 This document requests the following allocations from IANA: 205 - Bit 4 in the Bit Values for Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV 206 registry is requested to be assigned to the FLC Flag (F-Flag). 208 - Flag 0x10 in the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Flags registry is 209 requested to be assigned to the FLC Flag (F-Flag). 211 - Bit 0x80 in the "OSPFv3 Prefix Options (8 bits)" registry is 212 requested to be assigned to the FLC Flag (F-Flag). 214 - Type 3 in the IGP MSD-Types registry is requested to be assigned 215 to the FRLD-MSD. 217 7. Acknowledgements 219 TBA. 221 8. Normative References 223 [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext] 224 Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., 225 and M. Chen, "BGP Link-State extensions for Segment 226 Routing", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-16 227 (work in progress), June 2019. 229 [I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc] 230 Xu, X., Kini, S., Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., Litkowski, S., 231 and M. Bocci, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability and 232 Entropy Readable Label Depth Using IS-IS", draft-ietf- 233 isis-mpls-elc-13 (work in progress), May 2020. 235 [I-D.ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation] 236 Cheng, W., Min, X., Zhou, T., Dong, X., and Y. Peleg, 237 "Encapsulation For MPLS Performance Measurement with 238 Alternate Marking Method", draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm- 239 encapsulation-00 (work in progress), January 2021. 241 [I-D.ietf-ospf-mpls-elc] 242 Xu, X., Kini, S., Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., Litkowski, S., 243 and M. Bocci, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability and 244 Entropy Readable Label Depth Using OSPF", draft-ietf-ospf- 245 mpls-elc-15 (work in progress), June 2020. 247 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 248 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 249 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 250 . 252 [RFC5302] Li, T., Smit, H., and T. Przygienda, "Domain-Wide Prefix 253 Distribution with Two-Level IS-IS", RFC 5302, 254 DOI 10.17487/RFC5302, October 2008, 255 . 257 [RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF 258 for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008, 259 . 261 [RFC7684] Psenak, P., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., 262 Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute 263 Advertisement", RFC 7684, DOI 10.17487/RFC7684, November 264 2015, . 266 [RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and 267 S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and 268 Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752, 269 DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, 270 . 272 [RFC7794] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Decraene, B., Previdi, S., Xu, X., and 273 U. Chunduri, "IS-IS Prefix Attributes for Extended IPv4 274 and IPv6 Reachability", RFC 7794, DOI 10.17487/RFC7794, 275 March 2016, . 277 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 278 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 279 May 2017, . 281 [RFC8362] Lindem, A., Roy, A., Goethals, D., Reddy Vallem, V., and 282 F. Baker, "OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA) 283 Extensibility", RFC 8362, DOI 10.17487/RFC8362, April 284 2018, . 286 [RFC8476] Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and P. Psenak, 287 "Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD) Using OSPF", RFC 8476, 288 DOI 10.17487/RFC8476, December 2018, 289 . 291 [RFC8491] Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and L. Ginsberg, 292 "Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD) Using IS-IS", RFC 8491, 293 DOI 10.17487/RFC8491, November 2018, 294 . 296 [RFC8814] Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Talaulikar, K., Mirsky, G., 297 and N. Triantafillis, "Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD) 298 Using the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State", RFC 8814, 299 DOI 10.17487/RFC8814, August 2020, 300 . 302 Authors' Addresses 304 Xiao Min 305 ZTE Corp. 306 Nanjing 307 China 309 Email: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn 311 Zheng(Sandy) Zhang 312 ZTE Corp. 313 Nanjing 314 China 316 Email: zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn 318 Weiqiang Cheng 319 China Mobile 320 Beijing 321 China 323 Email: chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com