idnits 2.17.1 draft-xzc-lsr-mpls-flc-frld-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 (15 February 2022) is 800 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-17) exists of draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-10 == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-02 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).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: 19 August 2022 W. Cheng 6 China Mobile 7 15 February 2022 9 Signaling Flow-ID Label Capability and Flow-ID Readable Label Depth 10 draft-xzc-lsr-mpls-flc-frld-00 12 Abstract 14 Flow-ID Label (FL) is used for MPLS flow identification and flow- 15 based performance measurement with alternate marking method. The 16 ability to process Flow-ID labels is called Flow-ID Label Capability 17 (FLC), and the capability of reading the maximum label stack depth 18 and performing FL-based performance measurement is called Flow-ID 19 Readable Label Depth (FRLD). This document defines a mechanism to 20 signal the FLC and the FRLD using IGP and BGP-LS. 22 Status of This Memo 24 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 25 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 27 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 28 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 29 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 30 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 32 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 33 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 34 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 35 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 37 This Internet-Draft will expire on 19 August 2022. 39 Copyright Notice 41 Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 42 document authors. All rights reserved. 44 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 45 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ 46 license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. 47 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 48 and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components 49 extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as 50 described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are 51 provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. 53 Table of Contents 55 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 56 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 57 2. Advertising FLC Using IGP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 2.1. Advertising FLC Using IS-IS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 2.2. Advertising FLC Using OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 3. Advertising FRLD Using IGP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 4. Signaling FLC and FRLD in BGP-LS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 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 FLC is a property of the node, so FLC is advertised with a node in 99 this document. 101 If a router has multiple interfaces, the router MUST NOT announce FLC 102 unless all of its interfaces are capable of processing FLs. 104 2.1. Advertising FLC Using IS-IS 106 [RFC8667] defines SR-Capabilities sub-TLV of the IS-IS Router 107 Capability TLV (defined in [RFC7981]). Bit 2 in the Flags field of 108 SR-Capabilities sub-TLV is used as the FLC Flag (F-Flag), as shown in 109 Figure 1. 111 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 112 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 113 |I|V|F| | 114 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 116 Figure 1: Flags field of SR-Capabilities sub-TLV 118 F-Flag: 120 FLC Flag (Bit 2) - Set for the originating node if it supports FLC 121 on all interfaces. 123 2.2. Advertising FLC Using OSPF 125 [RFC8665] defines some SR Capabilities TLVs as top-level TLVs of the 126 Router Information Opaque LSA (defined in [RFC7770]). The SR 127 Capabilities TLVs are applicable to both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 (see also 128 [RFC8666]). Within the SR Capabilities TLVs, the SID/Label Range TLV 129 has a 1-octet Reserved field. Bit 0 in the Reserved field of SID/ 130 Label Range TLV is used as the FLC Flag (F-Flag), as shown in 131 Figure 2. 133 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 134 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 135 |F| | 136 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 138 Figure 2: Reserved field of SID/Label Range TLV 140 F-Flag: 142 FLC Flag (Bit 0) - Set for the originating node if it supports FLC 143 on all interfaces. 145 3. Advertising FRLD Using IGP 147 As requested by [RFC8491], IANA has created an IANA-managed registry 148 titled "IGP MSD-Types" to identify MSD-Types. A new MSD-Type, called 149 FRLD-MSD, is defined to advertise the FRLD of a given router. The 150 MSD-Type code 3 is requested to be assigned by IANA for FRLD-MSD. 151 The MSD-Value field is set to the FRLD in the range between 0 to 255. 153 If a router has multiple interfaces with different capabilities of 154 reading the maximum label stack depth, the router MUST advertise the 155 smallest value found across all of its interfaces. 157 For IS-IS, the FRLD is advertised in a Node MSD Sub-TLV [RFC8491] 158 using the FRLD-MSD type. 160 For OSPF including both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3, the FRLD is advertised in 161 a Node MSD TLV [RFC8476] using the FRLD-MSD type. 163 The absence of FRLD-MSD advertisements indicates only that the 164 advertising node does not support advertisement of this capability. 166 4. Signaling FLC and FRLD in BGP-LS 168 The IGP extensions defined in this document can be advertised via 169 BGP-LS (Distribution of Link-State and Traffic Engineering 170 Information Using BGP) [I-D.ietf-idr-rfc7752bis] using existing BGP- 171 LS TLVs. 173 The FLC is advertised using the SR Capabilities TLV as defined in 174 [RFC9085]. 176 The FRLD-MSD is advertised using the Node MSD TLV as defined in 177 [RFC8814]. 179 5. Security Considerations 181 This document specifies the ability to advertise additional node 182 capabilities using IS-IS, OSPF and BGP-LS. As such, the security 183 considerations as described in the referenced specifications are 184 applicable to this document. 186 Incorrectly setting the F-Flag during origination, propagation, or 187 redistribution may lead to poor or no performance measurement of the 188 MPLS traffic or to the MPLS traffic being discarded on the egress 189 node. 191 Incorrectly setting the FRLD value may lead to poor or no performance 192 measurement of the MPLS traffic. 194 6. IANA Considerations 196 This document requests the following allocation from IANA: 198 * Type 3 in the IGP MSD-Types registry is requested to be assigned 199 to the FRLD-MSD. 201 7. Acknowledgements 203 The authors would like to acknowledge Acee Lindem and Les Ginsberg 204 for their very helpful comments. 206 8. References 208 8.1. Normative References 210 [I-D.ietf-idr-rfc7752bis] 211 Talaulikar, K., "Distribution of Link-State and Traffic 212 Engineering Information Using BGP", Work in Progress, 213 Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-10, 10 November 214 2021, . 217 [I-D.ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation] 218 Cheng, W., Min, X., Zhou, T., Dong, X., and Y. Peleg, 219 "Encapsulation For MPLS Performance Measurement with 220 Alternate Marking Method", Work in Progress, Internet- 221 Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-02, 25 222 October 2021, . 225 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 226 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 227 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 228 . 230 [RFC7770] Lindem, A., Ed., Shen, N., Vasseur, JP., Aggarwal, R., and 231 S. Shaffer, "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional 232 Router Capabilities", RFC 7770, DOI 10.17487/RFC7770, 233 February 2016, . 235 [RFC7981] Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and M. Chen, "IS-IS Extensions 236 for Advertising Router Information", RFC 7981, 237 DOI 10.17487/RFC7981, October 2016, 238 . 240 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 241 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 242 May 2017, . 244 [RFC8476] Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and P. Psenak, 245 "Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD) Using OSPF", RFC 8476, 246 DOI 10.17487/RFC8476, December 2018, 247 . 249 [RFC8491] Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and L. Ginsberg, 250 "Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD) Using IS-IS", RFC 8491, 251 DOI 10.17487/RFC8491, November 2018, 252 . 254 [RFC8665] Psenak, P., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler, 255 H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF 256 Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8665, 257 DOI 10.17487/RFC8665, December 2019, 258 . 260 [RFC8666] Psenak, P., Ed. and S. Previdi, Ed., "OSPFv3 Extensions 261 for Segment Routing", RFC 8666, DOI 10.17487/RFC8666, 262 December 2019, . 264 [RFC8667] Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Ed., Filsfils, C., 265 Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS 266 Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8667, 267 DOI 10.17487/RFC8667, December 2019, 268 . 270 [RFC8814] Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Talaulikar, K., Mirsky, G., 271 and N. Triantafillis, "Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD) 272 Using the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State", RFC 8814, 273 DOI 10.17487/RFC8814, August 2020, 274 . 276 [RFC9085] Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler, 277 H., and M. Chen, "Border Gateway Protocol - Link State 278 (BGP-LS) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 9085, 279 DOI 10.17487/RFC9085, August 2021, 280 . 282 8.2. Informative References 284 [RFC9088] Xu, X., Kini, S., Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., Litkowski, S., 285 and M. Bocci, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability and 286 Entropy Readable Label Depth Using IS-IS", RFC 9088, 287 DOI 10.17487/RFC9088, August 2021, 288 . 290 [RFC9089] Xu, X., Kini, S., Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., Litkowski, S., 291 and M. Bocci, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability and 292 Entropy Readable Label Depth Using OSPF", RFC 9089, 293 DOI 10.17487/RFC9089, August 2021, 294 . 296 Authors' Addresses 298 Xiao Min 299 ZTE Corp. 300 Nanjing 301 China 303 Phone: +86 25 88013062 304 Email: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn 306 Zheng(Sandy) Zhang 307 ZTE Corp. 308 Nanjing 309 China 311 Email: zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn 313 Weiqiang Cheng 314 China Mobile 315 Beijing 316 China 318 Email: chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com