SRv6 Policy SID List Optimization Advertisement
draft-ali-idr-srv6-policy-sl-opt-distribution-00
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
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 "Active".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Zafar Ali , Changwang Lin , Yisong Liu , Ran Chen , Cheng Li , Rajesh M Venkateswaran , Yuanxiang Qiu | ||
| Last updated | 2025-03-01 | ||
| 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-ali-idr-srv6-policy-sl-opt-distribution-00
IDR Working Group Z. Ali
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track C. Lin
Expires: 2 September 2025 New H3C Technologies
Y. Liu
China Mobile
R. Chen
ZTE Corporation
C. Li
Huawei Technologies
R. Venkateswaran
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Y. Qiu
New H3C Technologies
1 March 2025
SRv6 Policy SID List Optimization Advertisement
draft-ali-idr-srv6-policy-sl-opt-distribution-00
Abstract
In some use cases, an SRv6 policy's SID list ends with the policy
endpoint's node SID, and the traffic steered (over policy) already
ensures that it is taken to the policy endpoint. In such cases, the
SID list can be optimized by excluding the endpoint Node SID when
installing the policy. This draft specifies a BGP-LS extension to
indicate whether the endpoint's node SID is included or excluded in
installing SID list(s) of the Candidate Path (CP) of an SRv6 policy.
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 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
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/.
Ali, et al. Expires 2 September 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Policy SID List Optimization Advert March 2025
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 2 September 2025.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Overview of BGP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction
Segment Routing (SR) [RFC8402] allows a node to steer a packet flow
along any path. A Segment Routing Policy (SR Policy) [RFC8402] is an
ordered list of segments that represent a source-routed policy. The
headend node is said to steer a flow into an SR Policy. The packets
steered into an SR Policy have an ordered list of segments associated
with that SR Policy written into them. Segment Routing Policy
Architecture [RFC9256] updates [RFC8402] as it details the concepts
of SR Policy and steering into an SR Policy. [RFC8986] describes the
representation and processing of this ordered list of segments for
Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6). [I.D.draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-
policy] defines a mechanism to collect the Segment Routing Policy
Ali, et al. Expires 2 September 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Policy SID List Optimization Advert March 2025
information that is locally available in a node and advertise it into
BGP Link-State (BGP-LS) updates.
The SRv6 policy SID list may end with the policy endpoint's Node SID
or the penultimate hop adjacency SID. If the computed SID list ends
with the policy endpoint's node SID and the overlay SID in the
steered traffic (over policy) already ensures that the traffic is
taken to the policy endpoint with the same intent, the SRv6 policy
endpoint device needs to process back-to-back local node SIDs.
Examples of overlay SID containing the local node SID are a service
SID, a binding SID for transit policies, an EPE SID, etc. From a
compression efficiency viewpoint, carrying back-to-back end-point
node SID is inefficient. The SID list in the packet can be optimized
by excluding the end-point node SID when installing the policy. End-
point node SID exclusion improves the compression efficiency and
makes packet processing more efficient for the policy endpoint.
Excluding the policy endpoint's node SID is possible in most use
cases, but not all. For example, if the SRv6 policy is used to carry
MPLS traffic, as described in [I-D.draft-agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-
interworking], it is not possible to exclude the policy endpoint's
node SID. Specifically, the endpoint's node SID inclusion or
exclusion is a policy attribute.
This draft specifies a BGP-LS extension to indicate whether the
endpoint's node SID is included or excluded in installing SID list(s)
of the Candidate Path (CP) of an SRv6 policy.
2. 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 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Terminology
Headend node: Packet flows are steered into an SR Policy on a node
where it is instantiated called a headend node [RFC9256].
SR: Segment Routing.
SID: Segment Identifier.
SRv6: Segment Routing over IPv6 data plane.
Ali, et al. Expires 2 September 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Policy SID List Optimization Advert March 2025
4. Overview of BGP Extensions
N-flag (endpoint node SID iNclusion flag) in the SR Candidate Path
State TLV specified in [I-D- draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy] is
proposed to indicate whether the endpoint node SID is included or
excluded in installing SID list(s) of the Candidate Path (CP). The
flag is applicable only to SR policies with SRv6 data plane. The
flag MUST NOT be set and MUST be ignored for SR policies with SR-MPLS
data plane.
N (endpoint node SID iNclusion flag) - 1 bit (Bit Position TBD1):
* If set to 1 indictaes the endpoint node SID is included when
installing the SRv6 Policy SID list(s) used to carry the data
traffic.
* If set to 0 indictaes the endpoint node SID is not included when
installing the SRv6 Policy SID list(s) used to carry the data
traffic.
5. Security Considerations
TBA
6. IANA Considerations
TBA
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
Ali, et al. Expires 2 September 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Policy SID List Optimization Advert March 2025
[RFC8986] Filsfils, C., Ed., Camarillo, P., Ed., Leddy, J., Voyer,
D., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing over IPv6
(SRv6) Network Programming", RFC 8986,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8986, February 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8986>.
[RFC9012] Patel, K., Van de Velde, G., Sangli, S., and J. Scudder,
"The BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", RFC 9012,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9012, April 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9012>.
[RFC9256] Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Voyer, D., Bogdanov,
A., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture",
RFC 9256, DOI 10.17487/RFC9256, July 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9256>.
7.2. Informative References
Appendix A. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Ketan Talaulikar for the review
comments.
Authors' Addresses
Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: zali@cisco.com
Changwang Lin
New H3C Technologies
Email: linchangwang.04414@h3c.com
Yisong Liu
China Mobile
Email: liuyisong@chinamobile.com
Ran Chen
ZTE Corporation
Email: chen.ran@zte.com.cn
Cheng Li
Huawei Technologies
Email: c.l@huawei.com
Ali, et al. Expires 2 September 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Policy SID List Optimization Advert March 2025
Rajesh M Venkateswaran
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: rmelarco@cisco.com
Yuanxiang Qiu
New H3C Technologies
Email: qiuyuanxiang@h3c.com
Ali, et al. Expires 2 September 2025 [Page 6]