idnits 2.17.1 draft-xzc-lsr-mpls-flc-flrd-01.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 (18 August 2021) is 982 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-01 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7752 (Obsoleted by RFC 9552) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 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: 19 February 2022 W. Cheng 6 China Mobile 7 18 August 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-01 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 19 February 2022. 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/ 47 license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. 48 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 49 and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components 50 extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text 51 as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are 52 provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. 54 Table of Contents 56 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 57 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 58 2. Advertising FLC Using IGP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 2.1. Advertising FLC Using IS-IS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 2.2. Advertising FLC Using OSPFv2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 2.3. Advertising FLC Using OSPFv3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 3. Advertising FRLD Using IGP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 4. Signaling FLC and FRLD in BGP-LS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 68 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 70 1. Introduction 72 As specified in [I-D.ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation], Flow-ID 73 Label (FL) is used for MPLS flow identification and flow-based 74 performance measurement with alternate marking method. 76 Flow-ID Label may appear multiple times in a label stack with 77 variable depth, so both the Flow-ID Label Capability (FLC) and the 78 Flow-ID Readable Label Depth (FRLD) are defined in 79 [I-D.ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation]. 81 Analogous to [RFC9088] and [RFC9089], this document defines a 82 mechanism to signal the FLC and the FRLD using IGP and BGP-LS, 83 specifically, IGP includes IS-IS, OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. 85 1.1. Terminology 87 This memo makes use of the terms defined in 88 [I-D.ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation] and [RFC8491]. 90 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 91 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 92 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 93 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 94 capitals, as shown here. 96 2. Advertising FLC Using IGP 98 Even though FLC is a property of the node, in some cases it is 99 advantageous to associate and advertise the FLC with a prefix, so FLC 100 is advertised with a prefix in this document. 102 If a router has multiple interfaces, the router MUST NOT announce FLC 103 unless all of its interfaces are capable of processing FLs. 105 If the router supports FLs on all of its interfaces, it SHOULD 106 advertise the FLC with every local host prefix it advertises in IGP. 108 2.1. Advertising FLC Using IS-IS 110 Next to the ELC Flag (E-flag) defined in Section 3 of [RFC9088], a 111 new bit FLC Flag (F-flag) is defined, which is Bit 4 in the Prefix 112 Attribute Flags [RFC7794], as shown in Figure 1. 114 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7... 115 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+... 116 |X|R|N|E|F| ... 117 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+... 119 Figure 1: Prefix Attribute Flags 121 F-Flag: FLC Flag (Bit 4) 123 Set for local host prefix of the originating node if it supports 124 FLC on all interfaces. 126 The FLC signaling MUST be preserved when a router propagates a prefix 127 between ISIS levels [RFC5302]. 129 2.2. Advertising FLC Using OSPFv2 131 Next to the ELC Flag (E-flag) defined in Section 3.1 of [RFC9089], a 132 new bit FLC Flag (F-flag) is defined, which is Bit 3 in Flags field 133 of OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV [RFC7684]: 135 0x10 - F-Flag (FLC Flag): Set for local host prefix of the 136 originating node if it supports FLC on all interfaces. 138 The FLC signaling MUST be preserved when an OSPFv2 Area Border Router 139 (ABR) distributes information between areas. To do so, an ABR MUST 140 originate an OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA [RFC7684] including 141 the received FLC setting. 143 2.3. Advertising FLC Using OSPFv3 145 Next to the ELC Flag (E-flag) defined in Section 3.2 of [RFC9089], a 146 new bit FLC Flag (F-flag) is defined, which is Bit 0 in OSPFv3 147 PrefixOptions field [RFC5340]: 149 0x80 - F-Flag (FLC Flag): Set for local host prefix of the 150 originating node if it supports FLC on all interfaces. 152 The FLC signaling MUST be preserved when an OSPFv3 Area Border Router 153 (ABR) distributes information between areas. The setting of the FLC 154 Flag in the Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA [RFC5340] or in the Inter-Area- 155 Prefix TLV [RFC8362], generated by an ABR, MUST be the same as the 156 value the FLC Flag associated with the prefix in the source area. 158 3. Advertising FRLD Using IGP 160 As requested by [RFC8491], IANA has created an IANA-managed registry 161 titled "IGP MSD-Types" to identify MSD-Types. A new MSD-Type, called 162 FRLD-MSD, is defined to advertise the FRLD of a given router. The 163 MSD-Type code 3 is requested to be assigned by IANA for FRLD-MSD. 164 The MSD-Value field is set to the FRLD in the range between 0 to 255. 166 If a router has multiple interfaces with different capabilities of 167 reading the maximum label stack depth, the router MUST advertise the 168 smallest value found across all of its interfaces. 170 For IS-IS, the FRLD is advertised in a Node MSD Sub-TLV [RFC8491] 171 using the FRLD-MSD type. 173 For OSPF including both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3, the FRLD is advertised in 174 a Node MSD TLV [RFC8476] using the FRLD-MSD type. 176 The absence of FRLD-MSD advertisements indicates only that the 177 advertising node does not support advertisement of this capability. 179 4. Signaling FLC and FRLD in BGP-LS 181 The IGP extensions defined in this document can be advertised via 182 BGP-LS (Distribution of Link-State and TE Information Using BGP) 183 [RFC7752] using existing BGP-LS TLVs. 185 The FLC is advertised using the Prefix Attribute Flags TLV as defined 186 in [RFC9085]. 188 The FRLD-MSD is advertised using the Node MSD TLV as defined in 189 [RFC8814]. 191 5. Security Considerations 193 This document does not raise any additional security issues beyond 194 those of the specifications referred to in the list of normative 195 references. 197 6. IANA Considerations 199 This document requests the following allocations from IANA: 201 - Bit 4 in the Bit Values for Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV 202 registry is requested to be assigned to the FLC Flag (F-Flag). 204 - Flag 0x10 in the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Flags registry is 205 requested to be assigned to the FLC Flag (F-Flag). 207 - Bit 0x80 in the "OSPFv3 Prefix Options (8 bits)" registry is 208 requested to be assigned to the FLC Flag (F-Flag). 210 - Type 3 in the IGP MSD-Types registry is requested to be assigned 211 to the FRLD-MSD. 213 7. Acknowledgements 215 TBA. 217 8. Normative References 219 [I-D.ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation] 220 Cheng, W., Min, X., Zhou, T., Dong, X., and Y. Peleg, 221 "Encapsulation For MPLS Performance Measurement with 222 Alternate Marking Method", Work in Progress, Internet- 223 Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-01, 11 224 April 2021, . 227 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 228 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 229 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 230 . 232 [RFC5302] Li, T., Smit, H., and T. Przygienda, "Domain-Wide Prefix 233 Distribution with Two-Level IS-IS", RFC 5302, 234 DOI 10.17487/RFC5302, October 2008, 235 . 237 [RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF 238 for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008, 239 . 241 [RFC7684] Psenak, P., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., 242 Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute 243 Advertisement", RFC 7684, DOI 10.17487/RFC7684, November 244 2015, . 246 [RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and 247 S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and 248 Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752, 249 DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, 250 . 252 [RFC7794] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Decraene, B., Previdi, S., Xu, X., and 253 U. Chunduri, "IS-IS Prefix Attributes for Extended IPv4 254 and IPv6 Reachability", RFC 7794, DOI 10.17487/RFC7794, 255 March 2016, . 257 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 258 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 259 May 2017, . 261 [RFC8362] Lindem, A., Roy, A., Goethals, D., Reddy Vallem, V., and 262 F. Baker, "OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA) 263 Extensibility", RFC 8362, DOI 10.17487/RFC8362, April 264 2018, . 266 [RFC8476] Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and P. Psenak, 267 "Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD) Using OSPF", RFC 8476, 268 DOI 10.17487/RFC8476, December 2018, 269 . 271 [RFC8491] Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and L. Ginsberg, 272 "Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD) Using IS-IS", RFC 8491, 273 DOI 10.17487/RFC8491, November 2018, 274 . 276 [RFC8814] Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Talaulikar, K., Mirsky, G., 277 and N. Triantafillis, "Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD) 278 Using the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State", RFC 8814, 279 DOI 10.17487/RFC8814, August 2020, 280 . 282 [RFC9085] Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler, 283 H., and M. Chen, "Border Gateway Protocol - Link State 284 (BGP-LS) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 9085, 285 DOI 10.17487/RFC9085, August 2021, 286 . 288 [RFC9088] Xu, X., Kini, S., Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., Litkowski, S., 289 and M. Bocci, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability and 290 Entropy Readable Label Depth Using IS-IS", RFC 9088, 291 DOI 10.17487/RFC9088, August 2021, 292 . 294 [RFC9089] Xu, X., Kini, S., Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., Litkowski, S., 295 and M. Bocci, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability and 296 Entropy Readable Label Depth Using OSPF", RFC 9089, 297 DOI 10.17487/RFC9089, August 2021, 298 . 300 Authors' Addresses 302 Xiao Min 303 ZTE Corp. 304 Nanjing 305 China 307 Email: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn 309 Zheng(Sandy) Zhang 310 ZTE Corp. 311 Nanjing 312 China 314 Email: zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn 316 Weiqiang Cheng 317 China Mobile 318 Beijing 319 China 321 Email: chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com