| Internet-Draft | PCEP for Entropy Label Positions | September 2024 |
| Xiong, et al. | Expires 23 March 2025 | [Page] |
Entropy label (EL) can be used in the SR-MPLS data plane to improve load-balancing and multiple Entropy Label Indicator (ELI)/EL pairs may be inserted in the SR-MPLS label stack as per RFC8662.¶
This document proposes a set of extensions for Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) to configure the Entropy Label Positions (ELP) for SR-MPLS networks.¶
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶
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 23 March 2025.¶
Copyright (c) 2024 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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
[RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Computation Protocol (PCEP) which is used between a Path Computation Element (PCE) and a Path Computation Client (PCC) (or other PCE) to enable computation of Multi-protocol Label Switching (MPLS) for Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path (TE LSP). PCEP Extensions for the Stateful PCE Model [RFC8231] describes a set of extensions to PCEP to enable active control of MPLS-TE and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) tunnels. [RFC8281] describes the setup and teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the active stateful PCE model, without the need for local configuration on the PCC, thus allowing for dynamic centralized control of a network.¶
Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source routing paradigm. Segment Routing can be instantiated on MPLS data plane which is referred to as SR-MPLS [RFC8660]. SR-MPLS leverages the MPLS label stack to construct the SR path. PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing [RFC8664] specifies extensions to the PCEP that allow a stateful PCE to compute and initiate TE paths, as well as a PCC to request a path subject to certain constraint(s) and optimization criteria in SR networks.¶
Entropy label (EL) [RFC6790] is a technique used in the MPLS data plane to improve load-balancing. Entropy Label Indicator (ELI) can be immediately preceding an EL in the MPLS label stack. The idea behind the EL is that the ingress router computes a hash based on several fields from a given packet and places the result in an additional label, named "entropy label". Then, this entropy label can be used as part of the hash keys used by an Label Switch Router (LSR). Using the entropy label as part of the hash keys reduces the need for deep packet inspection in the LSR while keeping a good level of entropy in the load-balancing. When the entropy label is used, the keys used in the hashing functions are still a local configuration matter and an LSR may use solely the entropy label or a combination of multiple fields from the incoming packet.¶
[RFC8662] proposes to use entropy labels for SR-MPLS networks and multiple <ELI, EL> pairs SHOULD be inserted in the SR-MPLS label stack. The ingress node may decide the number and place of the ELI/ELs which need to be inserted into the label stack. The Entropy Label Position (ELP) is used to indicate the positions of the ELI/ELs which need to be inserted into the label stack as per [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-srmpls-elp].¶
In some cases, the controller(e.g. PCE) could be used to perform the TE path computation as well as ELP information which is useful for inter-domain scenarios. This document proposes a set of extensions for PCEP to configure the ELP information for SR-MPLS networks.¶
The terminology is defined as [RFC5440], [RFC6790], [RFC8664] 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.¶
[RFC8662] proposes to use entropy labels for SR-MPLS networks. The Entropy Readable Label Depth (ERLD) is defined as the number of labels which means that the router will perform load-balancing using the ELI/EL in [RFC8662] section 4.¶
As described in [RFC8662] section 7.2.1, the ELRD value is an important consideration when inserting ELI/EL and the minimum ELRD must be evaluated for each node along a computed path. This necessary step adds additional complexity in the ELI/EL insertion process and it may not be feasible for an ingress router to compute the appropriate ERLD for each node in the path, since a SR-MPLS path may contain segments the ingress router can resolve such as inter-domain scenarios. As the Figure 1 shown, in SR-MPLS inter-domain scenario, the ingress node of the first domain could not get the ERLD information of other nodes of other domains.¶
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
|PCE-1| |PCE-2| |PCE-3|
+--+--+ +--+--+ +--+--+
| | |
.........+.......... .........+.......... .........+...........
. . . . . .
.+---+ +---+ . . +---+ +---+ . .+---+ +----+ .
.| A |-------| B |------ | C |------| X |-------| Y |------| Z | .
.+---+ +---+ . . +---+ +---+ . .+---+ +----+ .
. SR-AS 1 . . SR-AS 2 . . SR-AS 3 .
.................... .................... .....................
When computing the ELI/EL positions, the PCE MUST take into consideration Maximum SID Depth (MSD) imposition. The PCEs could get the information of all nodes such as MSD (e.g. Base MPLS Imposition MSD (BMI-MSD) or ERLD-MSD) through Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) and can compute the minimum ERLD along the end-to-end path. IS-IS [RFC8491] and OSPF [RFC8476] provide examples of advertisement of the MSD. The ERLD value can be collected via IS-IS [RFC9088], and OSPF [RFC9089]. Moreover, the PCEs also can compute the ELP information including the number and the places of the ELI/ELs. Then the ingress nodes MAY be required to support the capabilities of inserting multiple ELI/ELs and need to advertise the capabilities to the PCEs.¶
This document proposes the extensions for PCE to perform the computation of the end-to-end path as well as the positions of entropy labels in SR-MPLS networks. The ingress nodes can directly insert the ELI/ELs based on the positions.¶
As defined in [RFC8664], PCEP speakers use SR PCE Capability sub-TLV to exchange information about their SR capability when PST=1 in the PST List of the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV carried in Open object. This document defines a new flag (E-flag) for SR PCE Capability sub-TLV.¶
E (ELP Configuration is supported) : A PCE sets this flag bit to 1 carried in Open message to indicate that it supports the computation of SR path with ELP information. A PCC sets this flag to 1 to indicate that it supports the capability of inserting multiple ELI/EL pairs and and supports the results of SR path with ELP from PCE.¶
The LSP Object is defined in Section 7.3 of [RFC8231]. This document defines a new flag (E-flag) for the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV carried in LSP Object as defined in [RFC9357].¶
E (Request for ELP Configuration) : If the bit is set to 1, it indicates that the PCC requests PCE to compute the SR path with ELP information. The PCE SHOULD set this bit to 1 to indicate that the ELP information is included by PCE and encoded in the Path Computation Reply (PCRep) message as per [RFC5440]. And in a stateful PCE model, it also CAN be carried in Path Computation Update Request (PCUpd) message as per [RFC8231] or LSP Initiate Request (PCInitiate) message as per [RFC8281].¶
SR-ERO subobject is used for SR-TE path which consists of one or more SIDs as defined in [RFC8664]. This document defined a new flag (E-flag) for the SR-ERO subobject.¶
E (ELP Configuration) : If this flag is set, the PCC SHOULD insert <ELI, EL> into the position after this SR-ERO subobject, otherwise it SHOULD not insert <ELI, EL> after this segment.¶
A PCC can request the computation of SR path and a PCE may respond with PCRep message. And the SR path can also be initiated by PCE with PCInitiate or PCUpd message in stateful PCE mode. When the E bit in LSP object is set to 1 within the message, it indicates to request the ELP configuration with the SR path. The SR path being received by PCC encoded in SR-ERO, for example, <S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6>, especially S3 and S6 with E-flag set. It indicates that two <ELI, EL> pairs SHOULD be inserted into the label stack of the SR forwarding entry, respectively after the label for S3 and label for S6. With EL information, the label stack for SR-MPLS would be <label1, label2, label3, ELI, EL, label4, label5, label6, ELI, EL>.¶
This document defines a new E bit for entropy label, which do not introduce any new security considerations beyond those already listed in [RFC9357], [RFC8662] and [RFC8664].¶
SR PCE Capability TLV is defined in [RFC8664], and the registry to manage the Flag field of the SR PCE Capability TLV is requested in [RFC8664]. IANA is requested to make allocations from the registry, as follows:¶
| Value | Name | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| TBD1 | ELP Configuration is supported (E) | [this document] |
[RFC9357] defines the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. IANA is requested to make allocations from the Flag field registry, as follows:¶
| Value | Name | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| TBD2 | Request for ELP Configuration (E) | [this document] |
SR-ERO subobject is defined in [RFC8664], and the registry to manage the Flag field of SR-ERO is requested in [RFC8664]. IANA is requested to make allocations from the registry, as follows:¶
| Value | Name | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| TBD3 | ELP Configuration (E) | [this document] |
The authors would like to thank Stephane Litkowski, Dhruv Dhody, Tarek Saad, Zhenbin Li, Jeff Tantsura, Andrew Stone, Xuesong Geng, Ran Chen, Gyan Mishra, Weiqiang Cheng and Samuel Sidor for their review, suggestions and comments to this document.¶