LAG indication
draft-decraene-lsr-lag-indication-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Bruno Decraene , Shraddha Hegde | ||
| Last updated | 2021-04-06 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-decraene-lsr-lag-indication-00
Network Working Group B. Decraene
Internet-Draft Orange
Intended status: Standards Track S. Hegde
Expires: October 8, 2021 Juniper Networks Inc.
April 6, 2021
LAG indication
draft-decraene-lsr-lag-indication-00
Abstract
This document defines a new link flag to advertise that a layer-three
link is composed of multiple layer-two sub-links, such as when this
link is a Link Aggregation Group (LAG). This allows a large single
flow (an elephant flow) to be aware that the link capacity will be
lower than expected as this single flow is not load-balanced across
the multiple layer-two sub-links. A path computation logic may use
that information to route that elephant flow along a different path.
Status of This Memo
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 October 8, 2021.
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
Decraene & Hegde Expires October 8, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LAG indication April 2021
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Protocol extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. IS-IS extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. OSPF extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Operational considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. IS-IS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.2. OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Appendix A. Changes / Author Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
An IP link may be composed a multiple layer two sub-links not visible
to the IGP routing topology. When traffic crossing that IP link is
load-balanced on a per flow basis, a large elephant flow will only
benefit from the capacity of a single sub-link. This is an issue for
the routing logic which only see the aggregated bandwidth of the IP
link, and hence may incorrectly route a large flow over a link which
is incapable of transporting that flow.
This document defines a new link flag to signal that an IP link is a
Link Aggregate Group composed of multiple layer two sub-links. This
flag may be automatically be set by routing nodes connected to such
links, without requiring manual tagging by the network operator. A
path computation logic such as a PCE or a CSPF computation on the
ingress, may use that information to avoid such links for elephant
flows.
1.1. Requirements Language
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119] RFC 8174 [RFC8174] when, and only when, they
appear in all capitals, as shown here.
Decraene & Hegde Expires October 8, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LAG indication April 2021
2. Protocol extensions
2.1. IS-IS extension
To advertise that a layer-three link is composed of multiple layer-
two sub-components this document defines a new bit in the IS-IS link-
attribute sub-TLV RFC 5029 [RFC5029].
L2 LAG (Link Aggregation Group) TBD1. When set, this layer-three
link is composed of multiple layer-two sub-components performing per
flow load balancing.
2.2. OSPF extension
To advertise that a layer-three link is composed of multiple layer-
two sub-components this document defines a new bit in the OSPF Link
Attributes Bits TLV [I-D.ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding].
L2 LAG (Link Aggregation Group) TBD2. When set, this layer-three
link is composed of multiple layer-two sub-components performing per
flow load balancing.
3. Operational considerations
A node supporting this extension SHOULD automatically advertise the
L2 LAG flag for IP links composed of multiple layer-two sub-
components. Configuration knob MAY be provided to override this
default.
In order to handle nodes not supporting this extension, network
operator may need to use an admin group (color) [RFC5305] [RFC7308]
in order to flag those links on legacy nodes.
4. IANA Considerations
4.1. IS-IS
IANA is requested to allocate one bit value from the registry: link-
attribute bit values for sub-TLV 19 of TLV 22 (Extended IS
reachability TLV).
Value Name
---- --------------------------------
TBD1 L2 LAG (Link Aggregation Group)
Figure 1
Decraene & Hegde Expires October 8, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LAG indication April 2021
4.2. OSPF
IANA is requested to allocate one bit number from the registry: OSPF
Link Attributes Sub-TLV Bit Values.
Bit Number Description
---------- --------------------------------
TBD2 L2 LAG (Link Aggregation Group)
Figure 2
5. Security Considerations
This extension advertises additional information and capabilities
about a link.
An attacker having access to this information would gain knowledge
that this link has sub components and that sending a large amount of
traffic via a single flow (hence not a DOS) is more likely to
overload that sub-component. On the other hand, this overloading
would be limited to this specific sub-component and hence not affect
other sub-component.
An attacker been capable of adding this information may gain ability
to change the routing of some flow crossing the links, typically
large elephant flows specifically configured to avoid such link.
An attacker been capable of removing this information may gain the
ability to change the routing and direct a large elephant flow on
this link, which would overload a sub component of this link and
likely create packet drop for this specific flow.
However, in those two cases, the attacker would equally have the
capability to change other routing information such as the link
metric, link usability and any link characteristics. Hence this new
information does not add new security considerations. Besides, as
with others TLV advertisements, the use of a cryptographic
authentication as defined in [RFC5304] or [RFC5310] allows the
authentication of the peer and the integrity of the message and
remove the ability for an attacker to modify such information.
.
6. Acknowledgments
TBD.
Decraene & Hegde Expires October 8, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LAG indication April 2021
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding]
Li, T., Psenak, P., Ginsberg, L., Chen, H., Przygienda,
T., Cooper, D., Jalil, L., Dontula, S., and G. Mishra,
"Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs", draft-ietf-lsr-
dynamic-flooding-08 (work in progress), December 2020.
[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>.
[RFC5029] Vasseur, JP. and S. Previdi, "Definition of an IS-IS Link
Attribute Sub-TLV", RFC 5029, DOI 10.17487/RFC5029,
September 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5029>.
[RFC5304] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5304, DOI 10.17487/RFC5304, October
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5304>.
[RFC5310] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Li, T., Atkinson, R., White, R.,
and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5310, DOI 10.17487/RFC5310, February
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5310>.
[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>.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>.
[RFC7308] Osborne, E., "Extended Administrative Groups in MPLS
Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE)", RFC 7308,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7308, July 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7308>.
Appendix A. Changes / Author Notes
[RFC Editor: Please remove this section before publication]
00: Initial version.
Decraene & Hegde Expires October 8, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LAG indication April 2021
Authors' Addresses
Bruno Decraene
Orange
Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com
Shraddha Hegde
Juniper Networks Inc.
Exora Business Park
Bangalore, KA 560103
India
Email: shraddha@juniper.net
Decraene & Hegde Expires October 8, 2021 [Page 6]