Signaling Entropy Label
Capability and Entropy Readable Label Depth Using IS-ISAlibaba Incxiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.comsriganeshkini@gmail.comCiscoppsenak@cisco.comCiscocfilsfil@cisco.comOrangestephane.litkowski@orange.comMultiprotocol 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 of processing ELs, referred to as Entropy Label Capability
(ELC), on that tunnel. In addition, it would be useful for ingress LSRs
to know each LSR's capability of 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. These mechanisms are particularly useful, where label
advertisements are done via protocols like IS-IS. describes a method to load-balance
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) traffic flows using Entropy Labels
(EL). "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding" introduces the concept of Entropy Label
Capability (ELC) and defines the signalings 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
. In such
scenario, the defined signaling mechanisms
are inadequate. This draft defines a mechanism to signal the ELC using IS-IS.
This mechanism is useful when the label
advertisement is also done via IS-IS.In addition, in the cases where stacked LSPs are used for whatever
reasons (e.g., SR-MPLS ), 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 may be
used by ingress LSRs to determine whether it's necessary to insert an EL
for a given LSP in the case where there has
already been at least one EL in the label stack .This memo makes use of the terms defined in
and .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 when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.A new MSD-type of the Node MSD sub-TLV , called ERLD is defined to
advertise the ERLD of a given router. As shown in Figure 2, it is
formatted as described in with a new MSD-Type code to
be assigned by IANA (the type code of 2 is desired) and the 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
linecards with different capabilities of reading the maximum label stack
depth, the router MUST advertise the smallest one.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 the 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.
One bit of the "Bit Values for Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV" registry defined in (Bit 3 is desired)
is to be assigned by the IANA for the ELC. If a
router has multiple line cards, the router MUST NOT announce the ELC
for any prefixes that are locally attached unless all of its linecards are capable of
processing ELs. If a router supports ELs on all of its linecards, it SHOULD set the ELC for every local host prefix it advertises in IS-IS.When a router leaks a prefix between two levels (upwards or downwards), it MUST preserve the ELC signalling for this prefix.When redistributing a prefix between two IS-IS protocol instances or redistributed from another protocol to an IS-IS protocol instance, a router SHOULD preserve the ELC signalling for that prefix. The exact mechanism on how to exchange ELC between protocol instances running on an ASBR is outside of the scope of this document and is implementation specific.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.IANA is requested to allocate the E-bit (bit position 3 is desired) from the
"Bit Values for Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV" registry.IANA is requested to allocate a MSD type (the type code of 2 is
desired) from the “IGP MSD Types” registry for ERLD.The security considerations as described in
are applicable to this document. This document does not introduce any new
security risks.