Validity of SR Policy Candidate Path
draft-chen-spring-sr-policy-cp-validity-00

SPRING Working Group                                             R. Chen
Internet-Draft                                                   D. Zhao
Intended status: Standards Track                         ZTE Corporation
Expires: 6 January 2024                                     L. Changwang
                                                    New H3C Technologies
                                                             5 July 2023

                  Validity of SR Policy Candidate Path
               draft-chen-spring-sr-policy-cp-validity-00

Abstract

   SR Policy architecture are specified in [RFC9256] .  An SR Policy
   comprises one or more candidate paths (CP) of which at a given time
   one and only one may be active (i.e., installed in forwarding and
   usable for steering of traffic).  Each CP in turn may have one or
   more SID-List of which one or more may be active; when multiple SID-
   List are active then traffic is load balanced over them.  However, a
   candidate path is valid when at least one SID-List is active.  This
   candidate path validity criterion cannot meet the needs of some
   scenarios.

   This document defines the new candidate path validity criterion.

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 8 January 2024.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Chen, et al.             Expires 8 January 2024                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft    Validity of SR Policy Candidate Path         July 2023

   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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Motivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   4.  Validity of a Candidate Path  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   8.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5

1.  Introduction

   SR Policy architecture are specified in [RFC9256].  An SR Policy
   comprises one or more candidate paths (CP) of which at a given time
   one and only one may be active (i.e., installed in forwarding and
   usable for steering of traffic).  Each CP in turn may have one or
   more SID-List of which one or more may be active; when multiple SID-
   List are active then traffic is load balanced over them.  However, a
   candidate path is valid when at least one SID-List is active.  This
   candidate path validity criterion cannot meet the needs of some
   scenarios.

   This document defines the new candidate path validity criterion.

2.  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].

3.  Motivation

   The candidate path validity criterion defined in [RFC9256] can't meet
   the needs of the following scenarios:

Chen, et al.             Expires 8 January 2024                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft    Validity of SR Policy Candidate Path         July 2023

                                        +----------------------+
                              +---------| SL1(Weight 1, 100MB) |
      +----------------+      |         +----------------------+
      |  CP1 (200MB)   |------+
      +----------------+      |         +----------------------+
                              +---------| SL2(Weight 1, 100MB) |
                                        +----------------------+

                                  Figure 1

   The SR Policy POL1 has two candidate paths: CP1 and CP2, and CP1 is
   the active candidate path (it is valid and has the highest
   Preference).  The two segment lists (SL1 and SL2) of CP1 are
   installed as the forwarding instantiation of SR Policy POL1.

   The CP1 carries a total of 200MB of traffic.  Within the POL1, the
   flow-based hashing over its each SL with a ratio 50%, that is each SL
   carry 100MB of traffic.  At this time, if one of the Segment Lists is
   invalids, the remaining Segment List cannot carry 200MB of traffic.
   However, the CP1 is still active.

4.  Validity of a Candidate Path

   A headend may be informed about the validity control parameters of a
   candidate path for an SR Policy <Color, Endpoint> by various means
   including: via configuration, PCEP, or BGP.  The detailed protocol
   extension will be described in a separate document.

   This document defines the following validity control parameters under
   candidate Path to control the validity judgment of candidate Path:

   *  valid SL quantity: 8-bit value, The value is 1-0xff.

      Indicates the minimum number of valid segment Lists under the
      active candidate path.  When the number of valid segment Lists
      under candidate path is greater than or equal to this field, the
      candidate path is considered valid.

      0xff indicates that the candidate path is considered valid only if
      all the segment Lists are valid.

   *  valid SL weight: 32-bit value, The value is 0-0xffffffff.

      Indicates the minimum value of the sum of the weights of the valid
      segment List under the active candidate Path.

Chen, et al.             Expires 8 January 2024                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft    Validity of SR Policy Candidate Path         July 2023

      When the sum of the weights of the valid segment Lists under the
      candidate path is greater than or equal to this field, the
      candidate Path is considered valid.

      0 indicates no requirement for weight.

      0xffffffff indicates that the candidate path is considered valid
      only if all the segment Lists are valid.

   *  valid SL weight ratio: 8-bit value, The value is 0-100.

      WTV: The sum weights of the valid segment list under the active
      CP.

      WTA: The sum weights of all the segment lists under the active CP.

      Indicates the minimum proportion WTV/WTA.

      When WTV/WTA is greater than or equal to this field, the candidate
      Path is considered valid.

      0 indicates no requirement on weight proportion.

      100 indicates that the candidate path is considered valid only if
      all the segment lists are valid.

   Candidate path is considered valid only when all three validity
   control parameters are satisfied.

5.  IANA Considerations

   TBD.

6.  Security Considerations

   TBD.

7.  Acknowledgements

   TBD.

8.  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>.

Chen, et al.             Expires 8 January 2024                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft    Validity of SR Policy Candidate Path         July 2023

   [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>.

Authors' Addresses

   Ran Chen
   ZTE Corporation
   Nanjing
   China
   Email: chen.ran@zte.com.cn

   Detao Zhao
   ZTE Corporation
   Nanjing
   China
   Email: zhao.detao@zte.com.cn

   Changwang Lin
   New H3C Technologies
   Beijing
   China
   Email: linchangwang.04414@h3c.com

Chen, et al.             Expires 8 January 2024                 [Page 5]