--- 1/draft-kini-mpls-spring-entropy-label-01.txt 2014-10-27 11:14:51.943719021 -0700 +++ 2/draft-kini-mpls-spring-entropy-label-02.txt 2014-10-27 11:14:51.971719700 -0700 @@ -1,31 +1,31 @@ Network Working Group S. Kini, Ed. Internet-Draft Ericsson Intended status: Informational K. Kompella -Expires: April 2, 2015 Juniper +Expires: April 28, 2015 Juniper S. Sivabalan Cisco S. Litkowski Orange R. Shakir B.T. X. Xu Huawei W. Hendrickx Alcatel-Lucent J. Tantsura Ericsson - September 29, 2014 + October 25, 2014 Entropy labels for source routed stacked tunnels - draft-kini-mpls-spring-entropy-label-01 + draft-kini-mpls-spring-entropy-label-02 Abstract Source routed tunnel stacking is a technique that can be leveraged to provide a method to steer a packet through a controlled set of segments. This can be applied to the Multi Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) data plane. Entropy label (EL) is a technique used in MPLS to improve load balancing. This document examines and describes how ELs are to be applied to source routed stacked tunnels. @@ -37,21 +37,21 @@ 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 http://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 April 2, 2015. + This Internet-Draft will expire on April 28, 2015. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2014 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 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents @@ -60,35 +60,35 @@ 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 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Abbreviations and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Use-case for multipath load balancing in source stacked - tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 4. Recommended EL solution for SPRING . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 5. Options considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 5.1. Single EL at the bottom of the stack of tunnels . . . . . 5 - 5.2. An EL per tunnel in the stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 5.3. A re-usable EL for a stack of tunnels . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 5.3.1. EL at top of stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 5.4. ELs at readable label stack depths . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 4. Recommended EL solution for SPRING . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 5. Options considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 5.1. Single EL at the bottom of the stack of tunnels . . . . . 6 + 5.2. An EL per tunnel in the stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 5.3. A re-usable EL for a stack of tunnels . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 5.3.1. EL at top of stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 5.4. ELs at readable label stack depths . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1. Introduction The source routed stacked tunnels paradigm is leveraged by techniques such as Segment Routing (SR) [I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing] to steer a packet through a set of segments. This can be directly applied to the MPLS data plane, but it has implications on label stack depth. Clarifying statements on label stack depth have been provided in @@ -101,46 +101,56 @@ Entropy label (EL) [RFC6790] is a technique used in the MPLS data plane to provide entropy for load balancing. When using LSP hierarchies there are implications on how [RFC6790] should be applied. One such issue is addressed by [I-D.ravisingh-mpls-el-for-seamless-mpls] but that is when different levels of the hierarchy are created at different LSRs. The current document addresses the case where the hierarchy is created at a single LSR as required by source stacked tunnels. A use-case requiring load balancing with source stacked tunnels is - given in Section 3. A recommended solution is described in - Section 4. Options that were considered to arrive at the recommended - solution are documented for historical purposes in Section 5. + given in Section 3. A recommended solution is described in Section 4 + keeping in consideration the limitations of implementations when + applying [RFC6790] to deeper label stacks. Options that were + considered to arrive at the recommended solution are documented for + historical purposes in Section 5. 1.1. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. + Although this document is not a protocol specification, the use of + this language clarifies the instructions to protocol designers + producing solutions that satisfy the requirements set out in this + document. + 2. Abbreviations and Terminology EL - Entropy Label ELI - Entropy Label Identifier ELC - Entropy Label Capability SR - Segment Routing ECMP - Equal Cost Multi Paths MPLS - Multiprotocol Label Switching SID - Segment Identifier + RLD - Readable Label Depth + OAM - Operation, Administration and Maintenance + 3. Use-case for multipath load balancing in source stacked tunnels Source stacked tunnels have several use-cases, one of which is service chaining [I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-use-cases]. Consider the service-chaining network in Figure 1 that has MPLS as the data plane. The requirement of the use-case is to create a LSP from source LSR S, apply the services S1, S2 and finally terminate the LSP at destination LSR D. Local load balancing is required across the parallel links between P1 and S1. Local load balancing is also required between the ECMP paths from S1 to S2 i.e., between the @@ -182,55 +192,77 @@ Figure 1: Service chaining use-case 4. Recommended EL solution for SPRING The solution described in this section follows [RFC6790]. An LSR may have a limitation in its ability to read and process the label stack in order to do multipath load balancing. This limitation expressed in terms of the number of label stack entries that the LSR - can read and is henceforth referred to as the Readable Label Depth - (RLD) capability. In order for the EL to occur within the RLD of - LSRs along the path corresponding to a label stack, multiple pairs MAY be inserted. The recommendations for inserting pairs are: + can read is henceforth referred to as the Readable Label Depth (RLD) + capability of that LSR. If an EL does not occur within the RLD of an + LSR in the label stack of the MPLS packet that it receives, then it + would lead to poor load balancing at that LSR. The RLD of an LSR is + a characteristic of the forwarding plane of that LSR's implementation + and determining it is outside the scope of this document. - o pairs MUST be inserted below those labels that are - advertised with ELC. + In order for the EL to occur within the RLD of LSRs along the path + corresponding to a label stack, multiple pairs MAY be + inserted in the label stack as long as the labels below which they + are inserted are entropy label capable. The LSR that inserts pairs MAY have limitations on the number of such pairs that it + can insert and also the depth at which it can insert them. If due to + any limitation, the inserted ELs are at positions such that an LSR + along the path receives an MPLS packet without an EL in the label + stack within that LSR's RLD, then the load balancing performed by + that LSR would be poor. Special attention should be paid when a + forwarding adjacency LSP (FA-LSP) [RFC4206] is used as a link along + the path of a source stacked LSP, since the labels of the FA-LSP + would additionally count towards the depth of the label stack when + calculating the appropriate positions to insert the ELs. The + recommendations for inserting pairs are: o An LSR that is limited in the number of pairs that it - can insert SHOULD prefer to insert such pairs deeper in the stack. + can insert SHOULD insert such pairs deeper in the stack. o An LSR SHOULD try to insert an pair within the RLD of the maximum number of LSRs along the path as it can. o An LSR SHOULD try to insert the minimum number of such pairs while trying to satisfy the above criteria. A sample algorithm to insert ELs is shown below. Implementations can choose any algorithm as long as it follows the above recommendations. -set current EL insertion point to the bottommost EL-capable location -while local-node can push more labels or top of stack has been reached { + Initialize the current EL insertion point to the + bottommost label in the stack that is EL-capable + while local-node can push more labels OR + top of stack has been reached { insert an ELI+EL at current insertion point move insertion point up until current EL is out of RLD AND insertion point is EL-capable set current insertion point to new insertion point } Figure 2: Algorithm to insert pairs in a label stack The RLD can be advertised via protocols and those extensions would be described in a separate document. + The recommendations above are not expected to bring any additional + OAM considerations beyond those described in section 6 of [RFC6790]. + However, the OAM requirements and solutions for source stacked + tunnels are still under discussion and future revisions of this + document will address those if needed. + 5. Options considered 5.1. Single EL at the bottom of the stack of tunnels In this option a single EL is used for the entire label stack. The source LSR S encodes the entropy label (EL) below the labels of all the stacked tunnels. In Figure 1 label stack at LSR S would look like . Note that the notation in [RFC6790] is used to describe the label stack. An issue with this approach is that as the label stack @@ -254,24 +286,24 @@ Choosing this option can lead to a loss of load-balancing using EL in a significant part of the network but that is a critical requirement in a service provider network. 5.2. An EL per tunnel in the stack In this option each tunnel in the stack can be given its own EL. The source LSR pushes an before pushing a tunnel label when load balancing is required to direct traffic on that tunnel. For the same Figure 1 above, the source LSR S encoded label stack would be - where all the ELs can - have the same value. Accessing the EL at an intermediate LSR is - independent of the depth of the label stack and hence independent of - the specific use-case to which the stacked tunnels are applied. A + where all the + ELs can have the same value. Accessing the EL at an intermediate LSR + is independent of the depth of the label stack and hence independent + of the specific use-case to which the stacked tunnels are applied. A drawback is that the depth of the label stack grows significantly, almost 3 times as the number of labels in the label stack. The network design should ensure that source LSRs should have the capability to push such a deep label stack. Also, the bandwidth overhead and potential MTU issues of deep label stacks should be accounted for in the network design. In the case where the RLD is the minimum value (3) for all LSRs, all LSRs are EL capable and the LSR that is inserting pairs has no limit on how many it can insert then this option is the same as @@ -291,29 +323,29 @@ the EL from the outer tunnel when that tunnel is terminated and re- inserting it below the next inner tunnel label during the label swap operation. The LSR that stacks tunnels SHOULD insert an EL below the outermost tunnel. It SHOULD NOT insert ELs for any inner tunnels. Also, the penultimate hop LSR of a segment MUST NOT pop the ELI and EL even though they are exposed as the top labels since the terminating LSR of that segment would re-use the EL for the next segment. For the same Figure 1 above, the source LSR S encoded label stack - would be . At P1 the outgoing label - stack would be after it has load - balanced to one of the links L1 or L2. At S1 the outgoing label - stack would be . At P2 the outgoing label stack - would be and it would load balance to one of the - nexthop LSRs P3 or P4. Accessing the EL at an intermediate LSR (e.g. - P3) is independent of the depth of the label stack and hence - independent of the specific use-case to which the stacked tunnels are - applied. + would be . At P1 the + outgoing label stack would be after it has load balanced to one of the links L1 or L2. At S1 + the outgoing label stack would be . At P2 + the outgoing label stack would be and it + would load balance to one of the nexthop LSRs P3 or P4. Accessing + the EL at an intermediate LSR (e.g. P3) is independent of the depth + of the label stack and hence independent of the specific use-case to + which the stacked tunnels are applied. This option was discounted due to the significant change in label swap operations that would be required for existing hardware. 5.3.1. EL at top of stack A slight variant of the re-usable EL option is to keep the EL at the top of the stack rather than below the tunnel label. In this case each LSR that is not terminating a segment should continue to keep the received EL at the top of the stack when forwarding the packet @@ -353,53 +385,60 @@ The authors would like to thank John Drake and Loa Andersson for their comments. 7. IANA Considerations This memo includes no request to IANA. 8. Security Considerations + This document does not introduce any new security considerations + beyond those already listed in [RFC6790]. + 9. References 9.1. Normative References [I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing] Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Milojevic, I., Shakir, R., Ytti, S., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J., and E. Crabbe, "Segment Routing Architecture", draft-filsfils-spring- segment-routing-04 (work in progress), July 2014. [I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-use-cases] Filsfils, C., Francois, P., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Milojevic, I., Shakir, R., Ytti, S., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J., Kini, S., and E. Crabbe, "Segment Routing Use Cases", draft-filsfils- - spring-segment-routing-use-cases-00 (work in progress), - March 2014. + spring-segment-routing-use-cases-01 (work in progress), + October 2014. [I-D.gredler-spring-mpls] Gredler, H., Rekhter, Y., Jalil, L., Kini, S., and X. Xu, "Supporting Source/Explicitly Routed Tunnels via Stacked LSPs", draft-gredler-spring-mpls-06 (work in progress), May 2014. [I-D.ravisingh-mpls-el-for-seamless-mpls] Singh, R., Shen, Y., and J. Drake, "Entropy label for seamless MPLS", draft-ravisingh-mpls-el-for-seamless- mpls-02 (work in progress), July 2014. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. + [RFC4206] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP) + Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching + (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206, October 2005. + [RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding", RFC 6790, November 2012. [RFC7325] Villamizar, C., Kompella, K., Amante, S., Malis, A., and C. Pignataro, "MPLS Forwarding Compliance and Performance Requirements", RFC 7325, August 2014. 9.2. Informative References