Multi-purpose Special Purpose Label for Forwarding Actions
draft-kompella-mpls-mspl4fa-03
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Kireeti Kompella , Vishnu Pavan Beeram , Tarek Saad , Israel Meilik | ||
| Last updated | 2022-07-10 | ||
| Stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (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-kompella-mpls-mspl4fa-03
MPLS WG K. Kompella
Internet-Draft V.P. Beeram
Intended status: Standards Track T. Saad
Expires: 9 January 2023 Juniper Networks
I. Meilik
Broadcom
8 July 2022
Multi-purpose Special Purpose Label for Forwarding Actions
draft-kompella-mpls-mspl4fa-03
Abstract
The MPLS architecture introduced Special Purpose Labels (SPLs) to
indicate special forwarding actions and offered a few simple
examples, such as Router Alert. In the two decades since the
original architecture was crafted, the range, complexity and sheer
number of such actions has grown; in addition, there now is need for
"associated data" for some of the forwarding actions. Likewise, the
capabilities and scale of forwarding engines has also improved vastly
over the same time period. There is a pressing need to match the
needs with the capabilities to deliver the next generation of MPLS
architecture.
In this memo, we propose an alternate mechanism whereby a single SPL
can encode multiple forwarding actions and carry data (if any)
associated with the actions, some in the label stack and some after
the label stack. This proposal also solves the problem of scarcity
of base SPLs.
As proof of its utility and flexibility, this approach can
immediately address several use cases:
* to carry an Entropy Label for better load balancing;
* to carry a Flow-Aggregate Selector for IETF network slicing;
* to signal that further fast reroute may have harmful consequences;
* to indicate that there is relevant data after the label stack;
* among others.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Kompella, et al. Expires 9 January 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MSPL for FA July 2022
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 9 January 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Revision History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2.1. Changes from -00 to -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2.2. Changes from -01 to -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2.3. Changes from -02 to -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Multi-purpose bSPL: the Forwarding Actions Indicator . . . . 5
2.1. The FAI bSPL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.1. ISD vs PSD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. Format of the FAI label stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.1. The FAI Label Stack Entry (LSE) . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.2. The In-Stack Data Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. Forwarding Action Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1. No Further Fast Re-Route (NFFRR) . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2. Entropy and Slice information (EG) . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Rules for Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. Processing the FAI Flags and the ISD . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. Example of the FAI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Issues to be Resolved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. Preventing FAI From Reaching Top of Stack . . . . . . . . 11
Kompella, et al. Expires 9 January 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MSPL for FA July 2022
5.2. Repeating the FAI at "Readable Stack Depth" . . . . . . . 12
6. PSD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Appendix 1 (normative) Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1. Flow-Aggregate Selector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2. Entropy Label . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.3. No Further Fast Re-Route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Appendix 2 (non-normative): Positioning of the FAI Block . . 13
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11.1. The Forwarding Actions Flag Registry . . . . . . . . . . 13
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
Base Special Purpose Labels (bSPLs) [RFC3031], [RFC7274], [RFC9017]
are a precious commodity; there are only 16 such values, of which 8
have already been allocated. There are currently five requests for
bSPLs that the authors are aware of; this document proposes another
use case for a bSPL, in all consuming nearly all the remaining
values. This document suggests a method whereby a single bSPL can be
used for all the purposes currently requested. This leads to perhaps
the more valuable long-term contribution of this document: an
approach to the definition and use of bSPLs (and SPLs in general)
whereby a single value can be used for multiple purposes, and provide
a flexible yet efficient means of carrying associated data.
1.1. Conventions and Definitions
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.
FAI: Forwarding Actions Indicator
ISD: In-Stack Data
sISD: Standard ISD
uISD: User-Defined ISD
ISDH: In-Stack Data Header
Kompella, et al. Expires 9 January 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MSPL for FA July 2022
LSE: Label stack entry
PSD: Post-Stack Data
SPL: Special-purpose label
bSPL: Base special-purpose label
1.2. Revision History
This section (to be removed before publication) offers highlights
from the draft's revision history.
1.2.1. Changes from -00 to -01
1. This section added.
2. Added a section discussing when data should be put in the LS FAD
vs in the PL FAD.
3. Tweaked the bits in the FAI. Added a field "edist".
4. Elaborated on the use of the H bit and the FAH data.
5. Updated the processing of the LS FAD.
6. Added processing of edist.
7. Updated the FAI example.
8. Updated the Issues section.
1.2.2. Changes from -01 to -02
1. Updated Abstract and Introduction to focus on FAI; moved
description of use cases to separate section.
2. Added terminology.
3. Changed terminology: LS FAD and PL FAD to ISD and PSD,
respectively.
4. Updated text on criteria for putting associated data in ISD.
5. Introduced the terms FAI Block, FFB Block, sISD Block and uISD
Block. Introduced an "end of block" bit, s. Updated flag bits;
updated processing of ISD.
Kompella, et al. Expires 9 January 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MSPL for FA July 2022
6. Removed field edist.
7. Updated the section on preventing the FAI from reaching the Top
of Stack.
8. Updated the section on Readable Stack Depth
1.2.3. Changes from -02 to -03
1. Separated the discussion of the LSE format from the flag
definitions.
2. Replaced continuation bits with explicit length fields for easier
parsing.
2. Multi-purpose bSPL: the Forwarding Actions Indicator
This document proposes the use of a single bSPL to tell routers one
or more forwarding actions they should take on a packet, e.g.:
* to treat a packet according to its flow-aggregate, given its
G-FAS;
* to load balance a packet, given its entropy;
* whether or not to perform fast reroute on a failure
[I-D.kompella-mpls-nffrr];
* whether or not a packet has metadata relevant to intermediate hops
along the path;
* and perhaps other functions in the future.
This bSPL is called the "Forwarding Actions Indicator" (FAI). There
are other suggestions for this name, including "Network Functions
Indicator" and "Network Actions Indicator". We'll let WG consensus
determine the final choice of name, but for now, we'll continue to
use FAI.
The FAI uses the label's TC bits and TTL field to inform the
forwarding plane of the required actions. Each of these actions may
have associated data. This data may be carried in the label stack as
"In-Stack Data" (ISD) or after the label stack as "Post-Stack Data"
(PSD).
Kompella, et al. Expires 9 January 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MSPL for FA July 2022
2.1. The FAI bSPL
The design of the bSPL hinges on two key insights: forwarding engines
do not interpret the TC bits or the TTL field for labels that are not
at the top of the label stack (ToS); nor do they do so for SPLs. For
non-ToS labels, the important bit fields are the label value field
(to compute entropy and identify SPLs) and the End of Stack (S) bit
(to know when the label stack ends). [If you know of a forwarding
engine that looks at other bit fields of labels below the ToS, please
contact the authors.] This means that for a bSPL that will never
appear at the ToS, the TC bits and the TTL bits can be used to carry
additional information. Furthermore, for the ISD, the entire 4-octet
label stack entry, the S bit excepted, can be used to carry data. We
use this technique to make the FAI bSPL multipurpose, and to make the
ISD words compact and efficient.
2.1.1. ISD vs PSD
A pertinent question is when one should put data in the ISD versus in
the PSD. One alternative is to put all such data in the PSD.
However, this would mean that accessing such information would
require finding the End of Stack, and parsing the PSD. For certain
types of data, this would be a severe burden on the packet forwarding
engine. Examples of such data are the Entropy label (needed for
efficient load balancing) and the G-FAS (needed for accurate packet
forwarding). Having any of this data in the PSD would hurt
forwarding performance.
This memo suggests that data that is required for accurate and
optimal forwarding should be put in the ISD, and data that is
optional from a forwarding point of view should be put in the PSD.
Furthermore, each flag bit should have no more than one word of
associated ISD. The EG flag can thus have up to 2 words of
associated data.
By the above criteria, this memo suggests that in-situ OAM data and
the Flow ID be carried in the PSD.
2.2. Format of the FAI label stack
The format of a label stack that includes an FAI has the structure:
Kompella, et al. Expires 9 January 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MSPL for FA July 2022
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| (previous labels) (one or more LSEs) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Forwarding Actions Indicator (one LSE) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| In-Stack Data Header (zero or one LSE) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Forwarding Actions Data (zero to two LSEs) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Standard In-Stack Data (zero or more LSEs) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| User-defined In-Stack Data (zero or more LSEs) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| (other labels) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Post-stack data (zero or more words) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Payload |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The flags and data associated with the FAI come in three forms:
1. Forwarding Actions Flags and Data; these flags are in the FAI
LSE. These are defined in this document.
2. Standard In-Stack Flags and Data; these flags are in the In-Stack
Data Header. These MUST be defined in a Standards-track
document.
3. User-defined In-Stack Flags and Data; these flags are also in the
In-Stack Data Header. These are perforce user-defined and not
subject to standardization.
The format of the PSD is out of scope for this document.
2.2.1. The FAI Label Stack Entry (LSE)
The format of the FAI LSE is:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Forwarding Actions Indicator |I|h|R|S|Flags| Tsize |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Format for the FAI label stack entry
Kompella, et al. Expires 9 January 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MSPL for FA July 2022
The FAI LSE's label value MUST be the IANA allocated value. The
remaining fields are defined as follows:
I: In-Stack Data Header (ISDH) is present (1) or not (0).
h: If set, the PSD contains hop-by-hop information. Every node in
the path SHOULD attempt to process the hop-by-hop information, but
not at the expense of exceeding the processing time budget, which
could cause this (or other) packet(s) to be dropped. If clear, no
hop-by-hop data exists in the PSD: either the PSD is empty, or it
contains only end-to-end data (to be processed by the egress).
R: Reserved for future use (SHOULD be ignored by receivers).
S: MUST be set if the FAI LSE is the end of stack, and clear
otherwise.
Flags: Each bit in the Flags field represents a forwarding action.
Except for the flags defined herein, the semantics of a forwarding
action are out of scope for this document. Each flag is allocated
from the Forwarding Actions Flag Registry (Section 11.1) and is
assigned an index. Flag indices 0 to 2 correspond to bits 24 to
26 within the FAI LSE. Flags continue into the In-Stack Data
Header, if present.
Tsize: This is the total size of the FAI block, i.e., the FAI LSE
and all associated data, in four-octet words.
2.2.2. The In-Stack Data Header
If the I flag is set, the label stack contains an In-Stack Data
Header (ISDH) following a FAI LSE. The format of the ISDH is:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Ssize | sISD Flags | Usize |S| uISD Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Format for the Forwarding Actions Header
The fields in the Forwarding Actions Header are:
Ssize: This is the size of the Standard ISD (sISD) in four-octet
words.
sISD Flags: This is a continuation of the Flags field from the
Kompella, et al. Expires 9 January 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MSPL for FA July 2022
preceeding FAI LSE, i.e., flag indices 3 to 15 correspond to bits
5 to 17 in the ISDH.
Usize: This is the size of the user-defined ISD (uISD) in four-octet
words.
S: MUST be set if the ISDH is the end of stack, and clear otherwise.
uISD Flags: These correspond to user-defined flags, and are not
subject to standardization.
3. Forwarding Action Flags
This document defines the following Forwarding Action Flags.
3.1. No Further Fast Re-Route (NFFRR)
Index: 0
ISD: None
If set, do not perform fast re-route on this traffic.
3.2. Entropy and Slice information (EG)
These are two flags that have joint semantics:
Indices: 1, 2
ISD: 0, 1, or 2 ISD LSEs, depending on the values of the flags:
00: No Entropy or G-FAS present
01: ISD 0 contains 16 bits of Entropy in the high order 16 bits
and 15 bits of G-FAS in the low order 16 bits (S bit excepted).
10: ISD 0 contains 20 bits of Entropy in the high order 20 bits
and 11 bits of G-FAS in the low order 12 bits (S bit excepted).
11: ISD 0 contains the 31-bit Entropy; ISD 1 contains the 31-bit
G-FAS. In ISD 0, the S bit MUST be 0; the packet forwarding
engine may choose to use the S bit as part of the Entropy, as
it doesn't affect the outcome. In ISD 1, the S bit may be 0 or
1.
Kompella, et al. Expires 9 January 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MSPL for FA July 2022
4. Rules for Processing
4.1. Processing the FAI Flags and the ISD
Here's how the Standard ISD is parsed. One must keep track of Ssize
to know when the Standard ISD data ends, and the S bit to know when
the stack ends. The Standard ISD data appears in the order of the
corresponding flags.
It is an error if the label stack ends while there are more ISD words
to process.
1. Set CL ("current label") to the FAI label. LL is the last label
(End of Stack); PL ("payload") is the first 4-octet word of the
payload.
2. If I is 0, there is no associated ISDH; set Ssize = Usize = 0.
Otherwise, note the values of Ssize and Usize; increment CL.
3. Process Forwarding Actions Flags and Data:
1. Process N. CL is unchanged.
2. Process EG:
1. If EG is 00, CL is unchanged.
2. If EG is 01 or 10, increment CL. CL now contains both
G-FAS and Entropy.
3. If EG is 11, CL+1 contains Entropy; CL+2 contains G-FAS.
Increment CL by 2.
4. If I == 1, process sISD Flags; increment CL by 1 for each (upto
Ssize; skip any remaining sISD Flags once Ssize LSEs have been
processed).
5. If I == 1, process uISD Flags; increment CL by 1 for each (upto
Usize).
Note that how the uISD is used is not defined here; this is up to the
user. All that is included here is how a forwarding engine can tell
the size of uISD.
4.2. Example of the FAI
Kompella, et al. Expires 9 January 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MSPL for FA July 2022
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
TC S TTL
----- ---------------
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tunnel Label-1 | TC |0| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tunnel Label-2 | TC |0| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Forwarding Actions Indicator |0|1|0|0|1|0|1|0|0|0|0|1|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Entropy | G-FAS ... |0| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| VPN Label | TC |1| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|b b b b| PSD |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| real payload starts ...
I = 0: there is no ISDH.
h = 1: There is hop-by-hop PSD.
R = 0: Ignore.
N = 1: NFFRR is set.
EG = 01: ISD 0 contains a 16-bit Entropy label and a 15-bit G-FAS.
Tsize = 1: The FAI block consists of 1 LSE beyond the FAI LSE.
Figure 3: Example of FAI + ISD + hop-by-hop PSD
The real payload starts after the PSD.
5. Issues to be Resolved
This section captures issues to be resolved, in this memo and others.
As the issues are fixed, they should be removed from here; ideally,
this section should be empty before publication.
5.1. Preventing FAI From Reaching Top of Stack
As was said earlier, the FAI MUST NOT be at the top of stack, since
its TC and TTL bits have been repurposed. There are two ways to
prevent this. If an LSR X pops a label and the next label is the
FAI, X MUST pop Tsize LSEs to remove the FAI LSE and associated data.
This implies that the LSR MUST be able to recognize the FAI LSE and
at least parse the Tsize field. This can be used in conjunction with
Section 5.2.
Kompella, et al. Expires 9 January 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MSPL for FA July 2022
In case it is desired to preserve the FAI+FAD until the egress, X
should push an explicit NULL (label value 0 or 2) onto the stack
above the FAI, with the correct TC and TTL values.
Other options may be pursued; however, we believe this is an adequate
resolution.
5.2. Repeating the FAI at "Readable Stack Depth"
For LSRs which cannot parse the entire label stack, or would prefer
not to unless needed, it is possible to repeat the FAI at "readable
stack depth" (rsd). Say the rsd is 10 LSEs, and the FAI block
contains 3 LSEs. Then, the FAI block can be repeated every 7 labels,
allowing all forwarding engines in the path to process it. When a
forwarding label is popped and the FAI block exposed, it is deleted
in its entirety, since the same (or potentially different) FAI block
is again within the rsd.
Other options were considered in [RFC8662], Section 10, and are
discussed briefly in Section 8.
6. PSD
Currently, CW, ...
The format of the PSD, whether or not a Control Word is present, and
handling of the first nibble, is outside the scope of this document.
The FAI will not contain details about the contents of the PSD,
besides the single flag on whether or not the PSD contains
information relevant to (most) intermediate hops. It is assumed that
another memo will document the format of the PSD, and that that memo
will provide a means of parsing the PSD (e.g., a TLV structure) and
thus determining its contents.
The PSD memo should also comment on the impact of processing the PSD
on forwarding performance, especially in the case of hop-by-hop info.
7. Appendix 1 (normative) Use Cases
7.1. Flow-Aggregate Selector
Network slicing is an important ongoing effort both for network
design, as well as for standardization, in particular at the IETF
[I-D.nsdt-teas-ns-framework]. A key issue is identifying which slice
a packet belongs to, by means of a "slice selector" carried in the
packet header. [I-D.ietf-teas-ns-ip-mpls] describes several such
methods for MPLS networks, of which the Global Identifier for Flow-
Aggregate Selector (G-FAS) is one of the more practical solutions.
Kompella, et al. Expires 9 January 2023 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MSPL for FA July 2022
This document shows how to realize the G-FAS using a base special
purpose label (bSPL).
In MPLS networks, a G-FAS is a data plane construct identifying
packets belonging to a slice aggregate (the set of packets that
belong to the slice). The G-FAS dictates forwarding actions for the
slice aggregate: QoS behavior and next hop selection. The purpose of
the G-FAS is detailed in [I-D.ietf-teas-ns-ip-mpls]. To embed a
G-FAS in a label stack, one must preface it with a bSPL identifying
it as such. For reasons that will become apparent, this bSPL is
called the Forwarding Actions Indicator (FAI).
7.2. Entropy Label
7.3. No Further Fast Re-Route
8. Appendix 2 (non-normative): Positioning of the FAI Block
9. Contributors
Many thanks to Colby Barth, Chandra Ramachandran and Srihari Sangli
for their contributions to this draft.
10. Acknowledgments
We'd like to acknowledge the helpful discussions with Swamy SRK and
folks from the Broadcom team on the impacts to existing and future
forwarding engines.
11. IANA Considerations
If this draft is deemed useful and adopted as a WG document, the
authors request the allocation of a bSPL for the FAI. We suggest the
early allocation of label 8 for this.
11.1. The Forwarding Actions Flag Registry
A new registry is needed for the allocation of the Forwarding Action
flags. This registry should be called the "Forwarding Action Flags
Registry" within the "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture
(MPLS)" protocol registry. The policy for allocating new flags is
Standards Action. Each flag MUST have a name, a brief description
and the length of the associated ISD. IANA should allocate an index
for each flag, starting with zero.
The initial contents of the registry should contain:
Kompella, et al. Expires 9 January 2023 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MSPL for FA July 2022
+===============================+=========+===============+
| Name | Indices | Reference |
+===============================+=========+===============+
| No Further Fast Re-Route | 0 | This document |
+-------------------------------+---------+---------------+
| Entropy and Slice information | 1, 2 | This document |
+-------------------------------+---------+---------------+
Table 1
12. Security Considerations
A malicious or compromised LSR can insert the FAI and associated data
into a label stack, preventing (for example) FRR from occurring. If
so, protection will not kick in for failures that could have been
protected, and there will be unnecessary packet loss. Similarly,
inserting or removing a Fragmentation Header means that a packet's
contents cannot be accurately reconstructed. Inserting or changing a
G-FAS means that the packet will be misclassified, perhaps leaving or
entering a high-value slice and causing damage.
13. References
13.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-teas-ns-ip-mpls]
Saad, T., Beeram, V. P., Dong, J., Wen, B., Ceccarelli,
D., Halpern, J., Peng, S., Chen, R., Liu, X., Contreras,
L. M., Rokui, R., and L. Jalil, "Realizing Network Slices
in IP/MPLS Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-teas-ns-ip-mpls-00, 16 June 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-teas-ns-ip-
mpls-00.txt>.
[I-D.kompella-mpls-nffrr]
Kompella, K. and W. Lin, "No Further Fast Reroute", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-kompella-mpls-nffrr-03,
8 July 2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-
kompella-mpls-nffrr-03.txt>.
[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>.
Kompella, et al. Expires 9 January 2023 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft MSPL for FA July 2022
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.
[RFC7274] Kompella, K., Andersson, L., and A. Farrel, "Allocating
and Retiring Special-Purpose MPLS Labels", RFC 7274,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7274, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7274>.
[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>.
[RFC9017] Andersson, L., Kompella, K., and A. Farrel, "Special-
Purpose Label Terminology", RFC 9017,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9017, April 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9017>.
13.2. Informative References
[I-D.nsdt-teas-ns-framework]
Gray, E. and J. Drake, "Framework for IETF Network
Slices", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-nsdt-
teas-ns-framework-05, 2 February 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-nsdt-teas-ns-
framework-05.txt>.
[RFC8662] Kini, S., Kompella, K., Sivabalan, S., Litkowski, S.,
Shakir, R., and J. Tantsura, "Entropy Label for Source
Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) Tunnels", RFC 8662,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8662, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8662>.
Authors' Addresses
Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks
1133 Innovation Way
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
United States
Email: kireeti.ietf@gmail.com
Kompella, et al. Expires 9 January 2023 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft MSPL for FA July 2022
Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Juniper Networks
1133 Innovation Way
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
United States
Email: vbeeram@juniper.net
Tarek Saad
Juniper Networks
1133 Innovation Way
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
United States
Email: tsaad@juniper.net
Israel Meilik
Broadcom
Email: israel.meilik@broadcom.com
Kompella, et al. Expires 9 January 2023 [Page 16]