1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
|
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) X. Xu
Request for Comments: 9088 Capitalonline
Category: Standards Track S. Kini
ISSN: 2070-1721
P. Psenak
C. Filsfils
S. Litkowski
Cisco Systems, Inc.
M. Bocci
Nokia
August 2021
Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy Readable Label Depth
Using IS-IS
Abstract
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) has defined a mechanism to load-
balance traffic flows using Entropy Labels (EL). An ingress Label
Switching Router (LSR) cannot insert ELs for packets going into a
given Label Switched Path (LSP) unless an egress LSR has indicated
via signaling that it has the capability to process ELs, referred to
as the Entropy Label Capability (ELC), on that LSP. In addition, it
would be useful for ingress LSRs to know each LSR's capability for
reading the maximum label stack depth and performing EL-based load-
balancing, referred to as Entropy Readable Label Depth (ERLD). This
document defines a mechanism to signal these two capabilities using
IS-IS and Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS).
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9088.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Terminology
3. Advertising ELC Using IS-IS
4. Advertising ERLD Using IS-IS
5. Signaling ELC and ERLD in BGP-LS
6. IANA Considerations
7. Security Considerations
8. References
8.1. Normative References
8.2. Informative References
Acknowledgements
Contributors
Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction
[RFC6790] describes a method to load-balance Multiprotocol Label
Switching (MPLS) traffic flows using Entropy Labels (EL). It also
introduces the concept of Entropy Label Capability (ELC) and defines
the signaling of this capability via MPLS signaling protocols.
Recently, mechanisms have been defined to signal labels via link-
state Interior Gateway Protocols (IGP) such as IS-IS [RFC8667]. This
document defines a mechanism to signal the ELC using IS-IS.
In cases where Segment Routing (SR) is used with the MPLS data plane
(e.g., SR-MPLS [RFC8660]), it would be useful for ingress LSRs to
know each intermediate LSR's capability of reading the maximum label
stack depth and performing EL-based load-balancing. This capability,
referred to as Entropy Readable Label Depth (ERLD) as defined in
[RFC8662], may be used by ingress LSRs to determine the position of
the EL label in the stack, and whether it's necessary to insert
multiple ELs at different positions in the label stack. This
document defines a mechanism to signal the ERLD using IS-IS.
2. Terminology
This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC6790], and [RFC8662].
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Advertising ELC Using IS-IS
Even though ELC is a property of the node, in some cases it is
advantageous to associate and advertise the ELC with a prefix. In a
multi-area network, routers may not know the identity of the prefix
originator in a remote area or may not know the capabilities of such
originator. Similarly, in a multi-domain network, the identity of
the prefix originator and its capabilities may not be known to the
ingress LSR.
Bit 3 in the Prefix Attribute Flags [RFC7794] is used as the ELC Flag
(E-Flag), as shown in Figure 1. If a router has multiple interfaces,
the router MUST NOT announce the ELC for any local host prefixes
unless all of its interfaces are capable of processing ELs. If a
router supports ELs on all of its interfaces, it SHOULD set the ELC
for every local host prefix it advertises in IS-IS.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...
|X|R|N|E| ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...
Figure 1: Prefix Attribute Flags
E-Flag:
ELC Flag (Bit 3) - Set for local host prefix of the originating
node if it supports ELC on all interfaces.
The ELC signaling MUST be preserved when a router propagates a prefix
between IS-IS levels [RFC5302].
When redistributing a prefix between two IS-IS protocol instances or
redistributing from another protocol to an IS-IS protocol instance, a
router SHOULD preserve the ELC signaling for that prefix if it
exists. The exact mechanism used to exchange ELC between protocol
instances running on an Autonomous System Border Router is outside of
the scope of this document.
4. Advertising ERLD Using IS-IS
A new MSD-Type [RFC8491], called ERLD-MSD, is defined to advertise
the ERLD [RFC8662] of a given router. An MSD-Type code 2 has been
assigned by IANA for ERLD-MSD. The MSD-Value field is set to the
ERLD in the range between 0 to 255. The scope of the advertisement
depends on the application. If a router has multiple interfaces with
different capabilities of reading the maximum label stack depth, the
router MUST advertise the smallest value found across all its
interfaces.
The absence of ERLD-MSD advertisements indicates only that the
advertising node does not support advertisement of this capability.
The considerations for advertising the ERLD are specified in
[RFC8662].
If the ERLD-MSD type is received in the Link MSD sub-TLV, it MUST be
ignored.
5. Signaling ELC and ERLD in BGP-LS
The IS-IS extensions defined in this document can be advertised via
BGP-LS (distribution of Link-State and TE information using BGP)
[RFC7752] using existing BGP-LS TLVs.
The ELC is advertised using the Prefix Attribute Flags TLV as defined
in [RFC9085].
The ERLD-MSD is advertised using the Node MSD TLV as defined in
[RFC8814].
6. IANA Considerations
IANA has completed the following actions for this document:
* Bit 3 in the "Bit Values for Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV"
registry has been assigned to the ELC Flag. IANA has updated the
registry to reflect the name used in this document: ELC Flag
(E-Flag).
* Type 2 in the "IGP MSD-Types" registry has been assigned for the
ERLD-MSD. IANA has updated the registry to reflect the name used
in this document: ERLD-MSD.
7. Security Considerations
This document specifies the ability to advertise additional node
capabilities using IS-IS and BGP-LS. As such, the security
considerations as described in [RFC7752], [RFC7794], [RFC7981],
[RFC8491], [RFC8662], [RFC8814], and [RFC9085] are applicable to this
document.
Incorrectly setting the E-Flag during origination, propagation, or
redistribution may lead to poor or no load-balancing of the MPLS
traffic or to MPLS traffic being discarded on the egress node.
Incorrectly setting the ERLD value may lead to poor or no load-
balancing of the MPLS traffic.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5302] Li, T., Smit, H., and T. Przygienda, "Domain-Wide Prefix
Distribution with Two-Level IS-IS", RFC 5302,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5302, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5302>.
[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
[RFC7794] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Decraene, B., Previdi, S., Xu, X., and
U. Chunduri, "IS-IS Prefix Attributes for Extended IPv4
and IPv6 Reachability", RFC 7794, DOI 10.17487/RFC7794,
March 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7794>.
[RFC7981] Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and M. Chen, "IS-IS Extensions
for Advertising Router Information", RFC 7981,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7981, October 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7981>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8491] Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and L. Ginsberg,
"Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD) Using IS-IS", RFC 8491,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8491, November 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8491>.
[RFC8662] Kini, S., Kompella, K., Sivabalan, S., Litkowski, S.,
Shakir, R., and J. Tantsura, "Entropy Label for Source
Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) Tunnels", RFC 8662,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8662, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8662>.
[RFC8814] Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Talaulikar, K., Mirsky, G.,
and N. Triantafillis, "Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD)
Using the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State", RFC 8814,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8814, August 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8814>.
[RFC9085] Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler,
H., and M. Chen, "Border Gateway Protocol - Link State
(BGP-LS) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 9085,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9085, August 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9085>.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660>.
[RFC8667] Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Ed., Filsfils, C.,
Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS
Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8667,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8667, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8667>.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Yimin Shen, George Swallow, Acee
Lindem, Les Ginsberg, Ketan Talaulikar, Jeff Tantsura, Bruno
Decraene, Carlos Pignataro, Wim Hendrickx, and Gunter Van de Velde
for their valuable comments.
Contributors
The following people contributed to the content of this document and
should be considered as coauthors:
Gunter Van de Velde (editor)
Nokia
Antwerp
Belgium
Email: gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com
Wim Henderickx
Nokia
Belgium
Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com
Keyur Patel
Arrcus
United States of America
Email: keyur@arrcus.com
Authors' Addresses
Xiaohu Xu
Capitalonline
Email: xiaohu.xu@capitalonline.net
Sriganesh Kini
Email: sriganeshkini@gmail.com
Peter Psenak
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Eurovea Centre, Central 3
Pribinova Street 10
81109 Bratislava
Slovakia
Email: ppsenak@cisco.com
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Brussels
Belgium
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Stephane Litkowski
Cisco Systems, Inc.
La Rigourdiere
Cesson Sevigne
France
Email: slitkows@cisco.com
Matthew Bocci
Nokia
740 Waterside Drive
Aztec West Business Park
Bristol
BS32 4UF
United Kingdom
Email: matthew.bocci@nokia.com
|
