[mpls] Solicit Comments on draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc-00 and draft-xu-ospf-mpls-elc-00

[Xuxiaohu <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

The SPRING SR use case draft (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing-use-cases-02) has explicitly expressed the need for load-balancing MPLS traffic in the SPRING domain.

[RFC6790] has defined a method to load balance MPLS traffic flows using Entropy Labels (EL). According to the specification as defined in [RFC6790], an ingress LSR cannot insert ELs for packets going into a given tunnel unless an egress LSR has indicated via signaling that it can process ELs on that tunnel.  Therefore [RFC6790] defines the signaling of this capability (a.k.a Entropy Label Capability - ELC) via existing label distribution protocols( i.e., LDP, RSVP and BGP). However, in the SPRING domain, the above signaling mechanisms are inadequate since label distribution would be done via link state Interior Gateway Protocols (IGP) (i.e., IS-IS and OSPF) instead of the existing label distribution protocols( i.e., LDP, RSVP and BGP).

This draft (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-mpls-el-capability-signaling-igp-00) describing mechanisms to signal the ELC using OSPF and ISIS has been presented at SPRING and MPLS WG during the last IETF meeting. According to SPRING co-chairs' suggestions, this draft has been separated into two drafts: one is IS-IS specific (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc-00), the other is OSPF specific (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-ospf-mpls-elc-00). Any comments on these two drafts are welcome.

Best regards,
Xiaohu