Network Working Group                                        C. Filsfils
Request for Comments: 5640                                  P. Mohapatra
Category: Standards Track                                   C. Pignataro
                                                          Cisco Systems
                                                            August 2009


                  Load-Balancing for Mesh Softwires

Abstract

  Payloads transported over a Softwire mesh service (as defined by BGP
  Encapsulation Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI) information
  exchange) often carry a number of identifiable, distinct flows.  It
  can, in some circumstances, be desirable to distribute these flows
  over the equal cost multiple paths (ECMPs) that exist in the packet
  switched network.  Currently, the payload of a packet entering the
  Softwire can only be interpreted by the ingress and egress routers.
  Thus, the load-balancing decision of a core router is only based on
  the encapsulating header, presenting much less entropy than available
  in the payload or the encapsulated header since the Softwire
  encapsulation acts in a tunneling fashion.  This document describes a
  method for achieving comparable load-balancing efficiency in a
  network carrying Softwire mesh service over Layer Two Tunneling
  Protocol - Version 3 (L2TPv3) over IP or Generic Routing
  Encapsulation (GRE) encapsulation to what would be achieved without
  such encapsulation.

Status of This Memo

  This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
  Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
  improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
  Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
  and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

  Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
  publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
  Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
  and restrictions with respect to this document.





Filsfils, et al.            Standards Track                     [Page 1]

RFC 5640           Load-Balancing for Mesh Softwires         August 2009


Table of Contents

  1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
    1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
  2.  Load-Balancing Block sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
    2.1.  Applicability to Tunnel Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
    2.2.  Encapsulation Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
  3.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
  4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
  5.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
  6.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.  Introduction

  Consider the case of a router R1 that encapsulates a packet P into a
  Softwire bound to router R3.  R2 is a router on the shortest path
  from R1 to R3.  R2's shortest path to R3 involves equal cost multiple
  paths (ECMPs).  The goal is for R2 to be able to choose which path to
  use on the basis of the full entropy of packet P.

  This is achieved by carrying in the encapsulation header a signature
  of the inner header, hence enhancing the entropy of the flows as seen
  by the core routers.  The signature is carried as part of one of the
  fields of the encapsulation header.  To aid with better description
  in the document, we define the generic term "load-balancing field" to
  mean such a value that is specific to an encapsulation type.  For
  example, for L2TPv3-over-IP [RFC3931] encapsulation, the load-
  balancing field is the Session Identifier (Session ID).  For GRE
  [RFC2784] encapsulation, the Key field [RFC2890], if present,
  represents the load-balancing field.  This mechanism assumes that
  core routers base their load-balancing decisions on a flow definition
  that includes the load-balancing field.  This is an obvious and
  generic functionality as, for example, for L2TPv3-over-IP tunnels,
  the Session ID is at the same well-known constant offset as the TCP/
  UDP ports in the encapsulating header.

  The Encapsulation SAFI [RFC5512] is extended such that a contiguous
  block of the load-balancing field is bound to the Softwire advertised
  by a BGP next-hop.  On a per-inner-flow basis, the ingress Provider
  Edge (PE) selects one value of the load-balancing field from the
  block to preserve per-flow ordering and, at the same time, to enhance
  the entropy across flows.

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].



Filsfils, et al.            Standards Track                     [Page 2]

RFC 5640           Load-Balancing for Mesh Softwires         August 2009


2.  Load-Balancing Block sub-TLV

  This document defines a new sub-TLV for use with the Tunnel
  Encapsulation Attribute defined in [RFC5512].  The new sub-TLV is
  referred to as the "Load-Balancing Block sub-TLV" and MAY be included
  in any Encapsulation SAFI UPDATE message where load-balancing is
  desired.

  The sub-TLV type of the Load-Balancing Block sub-TLV is 5.  The sub-
  TLV length is 2 octets.  The value represents the length of the block
  in bits and MUST NOT exceed the size of the load-balancing field.
  This format is very similar to the variable-length subnet masking
  (VLSM) used in IP addresses to allow arbitrary length prefixes.  The
  block is determined by extracting the initial sequence of 'block
  size' bits from the load-balancing field.

  If a load-balancing field is not signaled (e.g., if the encapsulation
  sub-TLV is not included in an advertisement as in the case of GRE
  without a Key), then the Load-Balancing Block sub-TLV MUST NOT be
  included.

  The smaller the value field of the Load-Balancing Block sub-TLV, the
  larger the space for per-flow identification, and hence the better
  entropy for potential load-balancing in the core, as well as, the
  lower the polarization when mapping flows to ECMP paths.  However,
  reducing the load-balancing block size consumes more L2TPv3 Session
  IDs or GRE Keys, resulting in potentially less numbers of supported
  services.  A typical deployment would need to arbitrate between this
  trade-off.

  As an example, assume that there is a Softwire set up between R1 and
  R3 with L2TPv3-over-IP tunnel type.  Assume that R3 encodes the
  Session ID with value 0x1234ABCD in the encapsulation sub-TLV.  It
  also includes the Load-Balancing Block sub-TLV and encodes the value
  24.  This should be interpreted as follows:

  o  If an ingress router does not understand the Load-Balancing Block
     sub-TLV, it continues to use the Session ID 0x1234ABCD and
     encapsulates all packets with that Session ID.

  o  If an ingress router understands the Load-Balancing Block sub-TLV,
     it picks the first 24 bits out of the Session ID (0x1234AB) to be
     used as the block and fills in the lower-order 8 bits with a per-
     flow identifier (e.g., it can be determined based on the inner
     packet's source, destination addresses, and TCP/UDP ports).  This
     selection preserves the per-flow ordering of packets.





Filsfils, et al.            Standards Track                     [Page 3]

RFC 5640           Load-Balancing for Mesh Softwires         August 2009


  This requirement and solution applies equally to GRE where the Key
  plays the same role as the Session ID in L2TPv3.

  Needless to say, if an egress router does not support the Load-
  Balancing Block sub-TLV, the Softwire continues to operate with a
  single load-balancing field with which all ingress routers
  encapsulate.

2.1.  Applicability to Tunnel Types

  The Load-Balancing Block sub-TLV is applicable to tunnel types that
  define a load-balancing field.  This document defines load-balancing
  fields for tunnel types 1 (L2TPv3 over IP) and 2 (GRE) as follows:

  o  L2TPv3 over IP - Session ID.  Special care needs to be taken to
     always create a non-zero Session ID.  When an egress router
     includes a Load-Balancing Block sub-TLV, it MUST encode the
     Session ID field of the encapsulation sub-TLV in a way that
     ensures that the most significant bits of the Session ID, after
     extracting the block, are non-zero.

  o  GRE - GRE Key

  This document does not define a load-balancing field for the IP-in-IP
  tunnel type (tunnel types 7).  Future tunnel types that desire to use
  the Load-Balancing Block sub-TLV MUST define a load-balancing field
  that is part of the encapsulating header.

2.2.  Encapsulation Considerations

  Fields included in the encapsulation header besides the load-
  balancing field are not affected by the Load-Balancing Block sub-TLV.
  All other encapsulation fields are shared between variations of the
  load-balancing field.  For example, for the L2TPv3-over-IP tunnel
  type, if the optional cookie is included in the encapsulation sub-TLV
  by the egress router during Softwire signaling, it applies to all the
  "Session ID" values derived at the ingress router after applying the
  load-balancing block as described in this document.

3.  IANA Considerations

  IANA has assigned the value 5 for the Load-Balancing Block sub-TLV,
  in the BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs registry (number
  space created as part of the publication of [RFC5512]):

      Sub-TLV name                            Value
      -------------                           -----
      Load-Balancing Block                      5



Filsfils, et al.            Standards Track                     [Page 4]

RFC 5640           Load-Balancing for Mesh Softwires         August 2009


4.  Security Considerations

  This document defines a new sub-TLV for the BGP Tunnel Encapsulation
  Attribute.  Security considerations for the BGP Encapsulation SAFI
  and the BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute are covered in [RFC5512].
  There are no additional security risks introduced by this design.

5.  Acknowledgements

  The authors would like to thank Stewart Bryant, Mark Townsley, Rajiv
  Asati, Kireeti Kompella, and Robert Raszuk for their review and
  comments.

6.  Normative References

  [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

  [RFC2784]  Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P.
             Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784,
             March 2000.

  [RFC2890]  Dommety, G., "Key and Sequence Number Extensions to GRE",
             RFC 2890, September 2000.

  [RFC3931]  Lau, J., Townsley, M., and I. Goyret, "Layer Two Tunneling
             Protocol - Version 3 (L2TPv3)", RFC 3931, March 2005.

  [RFC5512]  Mohapatra, P. and E. Rosen, "The BGP Encapsulation
             Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI) and the BGP
             Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", RFC 5512, April 2009.




















Filsfils, et al.            Standards Track                     [Page 5]

RFC 5640           Load-Balancing for Mesh Softwires         August 2009


Authors' Addresses

  Clarence Filsfils
  Cisco Systems
  Brussels,
  Belgium

  EMail: [email protected]


  Pradosh Mohapatra
  Cisco Systems
  170 W. Tasman Drive
  San Jose, CA  95134
  USA

  EMail: [email protected]


  Carlos Pignataro
  Cisco Systems
  7200 Kit Creek Road, PO Box 14987
  Research Triangle Park, NC  27709
  USA

  EMail: [email protected]

























Filsfils, et al.            Standards Track                     [Page 6]


You are viewing proxied material from gopher.rbfh.de. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.