--- 1/draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-06.txt 2018-09-25 00:13:08.348906457 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-07.txt 2018-09-25 00:13:08.368906938 -0700 @@ -1,25 +1,25 @@ OSPF Working Group X. Xu Internet-Draft Alibaba Inc Intended status: Standards Track S. Kini -Expires: February 2, 2019 +Expires: March 29, 2019 S. Sivabalan C. Filsfils Cisco S. Litkowski Orange - August 01, 2018 + September 25, 2018 Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy Readable Label-stack Depth Using OSPF - draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-06 + draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-07 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 tunnel 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 @@ -47,21 +47,21 @@ Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - This Internet-Draft will expire on February 2, 2019. + This Internet-Draft will expire on March 29, 2019. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2018 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 @@ -71,21 +71,21 @@ the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Non-OSPF Functional Capabilities TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Advertising ELC Using OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Advertising ERLD Using OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1. Introduction [RFC6790] describes a method to load balance Multiprotocol Label @@ -163,39 +163,42 @@ One bit of the Non-IGP Functional Capability Bits for is used to indicate the ELC. Assignment of a Non-IGP Functional Capability Bit for the ELC is defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc]. If a router has multiple line cards, the router MUST NOT announce the ELC [RFC6790] unless all of its linecards are capable of processing ELs. + How to apply the ELC advertisement to the inter-area, inter-AS and + inter-protocol scenarios is outside the scope of this document. + 5. Advertising ERLD Using OSPF A new MSD-type of the Node MSD sub-TLV [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd], called ERLD is defined to advertise the ERLD of a given router. The scope of the advertisement depends on the application. Assignment of a MSD-Type for ERLD is defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc]. If a router has multiple linecards with different capabilities of reading the maximum label stack deepth, the router MUST advertise the smallest one. 6. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Yimin Shen, George Swallow, Acee - Lindem, Les Ginsberg, Ketan Talaulikar, Jeff Tantsura and Carlos - Pignataro for their valuable comments. + Lindem, Les Ginsberg, Ketan Talaulikar, Jeff Tantsura , Bruno + Decraene and Carlos Pignataro for their valuable comments. 7. IANA Considerations This document requests IANA to allocate one TLV type from the OSPF RI TLVs registry for the Non-IGP Functional CapabilitiesTLV. 8. Security Considerations The security considerations as described in [RFC7770] is applicable to this document. This document does not introduce any new security @@ -207,22 +210,22 @@ [I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc] Xu, X., Kini, S., Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., and S. Litkowski, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy Readable Label Depth Using IS-IS", draft-ietf-isis-mpls- elc-05 (work in progress), July 2018. [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd] Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and L. Ginsberg, "Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using IS-IS", draft- - ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-13 (work in progress), July - 2018. + ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-16 (work in progress), + September 2018. [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment- routing-extensions-25 (work in progress), April 2018. [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS