SR Policy Group
draft-cheng-spring-sr-policy-group-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 | Weiqiang Cheng , Liyan Gong , Changwang Lin , Yuanxiang Qiu , Yawei Zhang , Ran Chen , Yanrong Liang | ||
Last updated | 2022-10-24 | ||
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-cheng-spring-sr-policy-group-00
SPRING Working Group W. Cheng Internet Draft L. Gong Intended status: Standards Track China Mobile Expires: April 27, 2023 C. Lin Y. Qiu New H3C Y.Wei Huawei Ran.Chen ZTE R. Liang Ruijie Networks October 24, 2022 SR Policy Group draft-cheng-spring-sr-policy-group-00 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), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. 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." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html This Internet-Draft will expire on April 27 2023. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. Gong, et al. Expire April, 2023 [Page 1] Internet-Draft SR Policy Group October 2022 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Abstract Segment Routing is a source routing paradigm that explicitly indicates the forwarding path for packets at the ingress node. An SR Policy is associated with one or more candidate paths, and each candidate path is either dynamic, explicit or composite. This document describes SR policy Group in MPLS and IPv6 environments. Table of Contents 1. Introduction ................................................ 2 2. Terminology ................................................. 3 3. SR Policy Group ............................................. 4 3.1. Identification of SR Policy Group ...................... 4 3.2. Constituent Parent SR policy ........................... 5 3.3. Steering into SR Policy Group .......................... 6 3.4. Summary ................................................ 7 4. SR Policy Group Use Cases ................................... 9 4.1. SR Policy Group in L3VPN over TE Scenarios ............. 9 5. IANA Considerations ........................................ 12 6. Security Considerations .................................... 12 7. References ................................................. 12 7.1. Normative References .................................. 12 7.2. Informative References ................................ 13 8. Acknowledgments ............................................ 13 Authors' Addresses ............................................ 14 1. Introduction Segment routing (SR) [RFC8402] is a source routing paradigm that explicitly indicates the forwarding path for packets at the ingress node. The ingress node steers packets into a specific path according to the Segment Routing Policy (SR Policy) as defined in [RFC9256]. In order to distribute SR policies to the headend, [I-D.ietf-idr- segment-routing-te-policy] specifies a mechanism by using BGP. Gong, et al. Expires April, 2023 [Page 2] Internet-Draft SR Policy Group October 2022 An SR Policy is associated with one or more candidate paths. A composite candidate path acts as a container for grouping SR Policies. As described in [RFC9256], the composite candidate path construct enables combination of SR Policies, each with explicit candidate paths and or dynamic candidate paths with potentially different optimization objectives and constraints, for load-balanced steering of packet flows over its constituent SR Policies. For convenience, the composite candidate path formed by the combination of SR policies is called Parent SR policy in [I-D.jiang-spring- parent-sr-policy-use-cases]. This document describes SR Policy Group in MPLS and IPv6 environments. 2. Terminology The definitions of the basic terms are identical to those found in Segment Routing Architecture [RFC8402], Segment Routing Policy Architecture [RFC9256]. SR policy As described in [RFC9256], the general concept of SR Policy provides a framework that enables the instantiation of an ordered list of segments on a node for implementing a source routing policy for the steering of traffic for a specific purpose (e.g., for a specific Service Level Agreement (SLA)) from that node. An SR Policy is a forwarding path that meets the specified forwarding requirements. Parent SR Policy A Parent SR Policy represents a composite candidate path, which is a group of SR policies that meet different service objectives and have the same destination endpoint address. As described in [RFC9256],the following criteria apply for inclusion of constituent SR Policies using a composite candidatepath under a parent SR Policy: * The endpoints of the constituent SR Policies and the parent SR Policy MUST be identical. * The colors of each of the constituent SR Policies and the parent SR Policy MUST be different. * The constituent SR Policies MUST NOT use composite candidate paths. Different flows(match flows in its ingress interfaces (upon any field such as Ethernet destination/source/VLAN/TOS or IP Gong, et al. Expires April, 2023 [Page 3] Internet-Draft SR Policy Group October 2022 destination/source/Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP), or transport ports etc.) bound to the same endpoint, and color them with an internal per-packet forwarding-class variable, which are steered on different constituent SR Policies. SR Policy Group: An SR policy Group represents a set of paths with different forwarding requirements. It is composited by different parent SR policies which have the same color but different destiontion endpoints. It establish the mapping relationship between the flow characteristics and the color value of the SR Policy, and guide the flows with different SLA requirements to the SR Policy with different colors. 3. SR Policy Group SR Policy Group provides a framework that enables the instantiation of a set of paths to different destination endpoints with the same service forwarding model.It implements a source routing policy to steer the service traffic from different source endpoints for a specific purpose (e.g., for a specific SLA). Referring to RFC9256 and [I-D.jiang-spring-parent-sr-policy-use- cases], the Parent SR policy represents a composite candidate path, which is a group of SR policies with the same destination endpoint address. The Ingress node specifies the service characteristics and maps different services to different colors. In the Parent SR policy, configure multiple constituent SR policies. The services with different characteristics are forwarded through the constituent SR policies of different colors. Based on the Parent SR policy, a SR Policy Group can be built using Parent SR Policy. This section defines the key aspects and constituents of an SR Policy Group. 3.1. Identification of SR Policy Group An SR Policy Group MUST be identified through a color attribute. According to the service quality requirements, a unified service forwarding model is planned for nodes to determine the forwarding path of service flow. The traffic with the same service forwarding model from different source endpoints to different destination endpoints uses the same SR Policy Group. The color is an unsigned non-zero 32-bit integer value that associates the SR Policy Group with a service forwarding model (e.g., Gong, et al. Expires April, 2023 [Page 4] Internet-Draft SR Policy Group October 2022 A set of SLA attributes). Different service qualities use different Color values. The color value identifying the SR Policy Group corresponds to the Color attribute of the BGP route published by the endpoint. The destination endpoint publishes the BGP route and indicates which SR Policy Group path the header node should use to send packets to it through the Color attribute in the route. In the Policy Group, establish the mapping relationship between the flow characteristics and the color value of the SR Policy path, and guide the business flows with different SLA requirements to the SR Policy path with different colors. 3.2. Constituent Parent SR policy An SR Policy Group is associated with one or more constituent Parent SR Policies. Referring to RFC9256, the Parent SR policy is a group of SR policies with the same destination endpoint address. The hierarchical relationship between SR policy group, Parent SR policy and SR policy is shown in the figure below. Service forwarding Service model to specified Path of forwarding model destination endpoint specified service +-----------------+ +------------------+ +-------------------+ | | | | | | | SR Policy Group |--->| Parent SR Policy |---->| SR policy | | (Color) | |(Color, Endpoint) | | (Service path's | | | | | | Color, Endpoint) | +-----------------+ +------------------+ +-------------------+ Figure 1 The parent SR policy can be generated through static configuration, or dynamically generated when the destination endpoint accesses based on the service forwarding requirements specified by the SR policy group. The following criteria apply for inclusion of constituent Parent SR Policies under a SR Policy Group: A SR Policy Group contains one or more Parent SR policies. The colors of SR Policy group and its each constituent Parent SR Policy MUST be identical. Gong, et al. Expires April, 2023 [Page 5] Internet-Draft SR Policy Group October 2022 The colors of SR Policy group and its each constituent SR Policy of echo constituent Parent SR Policies MUST be different. The destination endpoint addresses of the Parent SR policy in the SR policy group can be the same or different. There can only be one Parent SR Policy with the same source end and the same destination end in the SR Policy group. 3.3. Steering into SR Policy Group The process of guiding traffic forwarding through the SR Policy Group is as follows: The destination endpoint publishes a BGP route with the specified Color extended community attribute. Get the color extended community attribute in the received BGP route. Match the color attribute value of the received BGP route with the SR Policy Group. Searches for a SR Policy Group with color matching the color extended community attribute. Searches for a Parent SR Policy with endpoint address matching the next hop in the BGP route, and recurses the BGP route to the parent SR policy. The Ingress node can match flow characteristics in its ingress interfaces (upon any field such as Ethernet destination/source/VLAN/TOS or IP destination/source/DSCP or transport ports or application attribute etc.) and color them with an internal per-packet forwarding-class variable. According to the forwarding-class variable the ingress node selects a matching SR policy in the Parent SR policy. An SR Policy Group can be instantiated with SR Policies which are associated with different set of network resources (i.e. NRPs), based on SR policy group, it is also a network slice deployment scheme for single user and multiple services. When different services are forwarded through different SR policy paths, different network resources can be used. After associating the SR policy with the network slice, different network slices can be used for forwarding different traffic of the same user. Gong, et al. Expires April, 2023 [Page 6] Internet-Draft SR Policy Group October 2022 3.4. Summary In summary, the information model is the following: SR Policy Group PG-1 <Color = 1> Parent SR Policy PP-1<Color = 1, Endpoint = E1> Service Service-1 mapping-to color 100 Service Service-2 mapping-to color 200 Service Service-3 mapping-to color 300 SR Policy POL1 <Headend = H1, Color = 100, Endpoint = E1> Candidate Path CP1 <Protocol-Origin = 20, Originator = 64511:192.0.2.1, Discriminator = 1> Preference 200 Priority 10 Segment List 1 <SID11...SID1i> SR Policy POL2 <Headend = H1, Color = 200, Endpoint = E1> Candidate Path CP1 <Protocol-Origin = 20, Originator = 64511:192.0.2.1, Discriminator = 2> Preference 200 Priority 10 Segment List 1 <SID21...SID2i> SR Policy POL3 <Headend = H1, Color = 300, Endpoint = E1> Candidate Path CP1 <Protocol-Origin = 20, Originator = 64511:192.0.2.1, Discriminator = 3> Preference 200 Priority 10 Segment List 1 <SID31...SID3i> Parent SR Policy PP-2<Color = 1, Endpoint = E2> Service Service-1 mapping-to color 100 Service Service-2 mapping-to color 200 Gong, et al. Expires April, 2023 [Page 7] Internet-Draft SR Policy Group October 2022 Service Service-3 mapping-to color 300 SR Policy POL4 <Headend = H1, Color = 100, Endpoint = E2> Candidate Path CP1 <Protocol-Origin = 20, Originator = 64511:192.0.2.1, Discriminator = 4> Preference 200 Priority 10 Segment List 1 <SID41...SID4i> SR Policy POL5 <Headend = H1, Color = 200, Endpoint = E2> Candidate Path CP1 <Protocol-Origin = 20, Originator = 64511:192.0.2.1, Discriminator = 5> Preference 200 Priority 10 Segment List 1 <SID51...SID5i> SR Policy POL6 <Headend = H1, Color = 300, Endpoint = E1> Candidate Path CP1 <Protocol-Origin = 20, Originator = 64511:192.0.2.1, Discriminator = 6> Preference 200 Priority 10 Segment List 1 <SID61...SID6i> The SR Policy Group PG-1 is identified by color. It has two constituent Parent SR Policies: PP-1 and PP-2. Each is identified by a tuple <Headend, Color, Endpoint>. The SR Parent Policy PP-1 is identified by the tuple <Headend = H1, Color = 1, Endpoint = E1>. It has three constituent SR Policies: SR Policy POL1 SR Policy POL2 and SR Policy POL3. The SR Policy POL1 is identified by the tuple <Headend = H1,Color = 100, Endpoint = E1>. It has one candidate paths: CP1. The SR Policy POL2 is identified by the tuple <Headend = H1,Color = 200, Endpoint = E1>. It has one candidate paths: CP1. The SR Policy POL3 is identified by the tuple <Headend = H1,Color = 300, Endpoint = E1>. It has one candidate paths: CP1. Gong, et al. Expires April, 2023 [Page 8] Internet-Draft SR Policy Group October 2022 The SR Parent Policy PP-2 is identified by the tuple <Headend = H1, Color = 1, Endpoint = E2>. It has three constituent SR Policies: SR Policy POL4 SR Policy POL5 and SR Policy POL6. The SR Policy POL4 is identified by the tuple <Headend = H1,Color = 100, Endpoint = E2>. It has one candidate paths: CP1. The SR Policy POL2 is identified by the tuple <Headend = H1,Color = 200, Endpoint = E2>. It has one candidate paths: CP1. The SR Policy POL6 is identified by the tuple <Headend = H1,Color = 300, Endpoint = E2>. It has one candidate paths: CP1. According to the service forwarding quality requirements, three forwarding paths, Color 100, Color 200 and Color 300, are planned in advance. The service forwarding model of PP-1 is adopted for the destination endpoint E1. According to service characteristics. Services to E1 are divided into three categories: service-1, service-2 and service- 3. The service-1 service is forwarded according to the SR Policy POL1 path of Color 100. The service-2 service is forwarded according to the SR Policy POL2 path of Color 200. The services of service-3 are forwarded according to the SR Policy POL3 path of Color 300. The destination endpoint E2 also uses the same service forwarding model. The traffic to E1 is differentiated in the same way, and the traffic is sent to E2 according to the SR policy path of Color 100, 200, and 300. 4. SR Policy Group Use Cases 4.1. SR Policy Group in L3VPN over TE Scenarios In the L3VPN over TE application scenario shown in Figure 2, VPN users are connected to the SRv6 network. Controller defines SR Policy Group for each VPN tenant. Different VPNs use different SR Policy Groups with different colors. The Ingress node generates different Parent SRv6 policies as required according to the destination endpoint address dynamically. Since user's traffic of different services between two endpoints has different requirements for forwarding quality, identify the service type according to the DSCP of the packet, and steer the flow to the corresponding SR Policy, which is forwarded through different network slices. The path constituting the SR Policy is calculated by the controller and distributed to the Ingress node. Gong, et al. Expires April, 2023 [Page 9] Internet-Draft SR Policy Group October 2022 +------------+ | Controller | +------------+ / \ / \ .----. / \ .----. ( VPN1 )\ / \ /( VPN1 ) '----' \ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ / '----' + A +-----+ B +-----+ C +-----+ D + /+-+-+ +-+-+ +-+-+ +-+-+ .----. / | | | | ( VPN2 )/ | | | | .----. '----' | | | | /( VPN1 ) +-+-+ +-+-+ +-+-+ +-+-+ / '----' + E |-----+ F +-----+ G +-----+ H + .----. / +---+ +---+ +-+-+ +---+ \ .----. ( VPN1 )/ \( VPN2 ) '----' '----' Figure 2 L3VPN over TE application scenario VPN1 uses SR Policy group 1 identified by Color 100. Plan the forwarding path for VPN1 traffic, and allocate different sets of network resources for network slices as blow: Slice 1: Voice service of VIP users. Low delay forwarding is required, and the DSCP range of the packet is 1~10. The controller calculates the low delay path for the voice traffic of VIP users, and maps the DSCP 1~10 to Color 500. The voice traffic of VIP users is forwarded through the constituent SR policy (Color 500) of the Parent SRv6 Policy (Color 100) corresponding to VPN1. Slice 2: Other services of VIP users. The DSCP range of the packet is 11~20, and low delay is not required. However, compared with the packet of ordinary users, the traffic of VIP users should be forwarded first. The controller calculates the SR Policy path and maps the DSCP 11~20 to Color 501. Other traffic of VIP users are forwarded along the constituent SR policy (Color 501) of the Parent SRv6 policy (color 100) corresponding to VPN1. Slice 3: Services of ordinary users. Low latency forwarding and priority forwarding are not required. The controller calculates the SR Policy path and maps all DSCP values outside the range of 1 to 20 to Color 502. The service traffic of ordinary users are forwarded along the constituent SR policy (Color 502) of the Parent SRv6 policy (color 100) corresponding to VPN1. Gong, et al. Expires April, 2023 [Page 10] Internet-Draft SR Policy Group October 2022 SRv6 Network .-------------------. .-------. | | .-------. / \ <==|======Slice-1======|==> / \ ( VPN1 )<==|======Slice-2======|==> ( VPN1 ) \ / <==|======Slice-3======|==> \ / '-------' | | '-------' | SR Policy Group 1 | | (Color 100) | '-------------------' Figure 4 SR Policy Group for VPN1 The traffic of VPN1 from A to D of Slice 1 will be forwarded based on the SR policy (Headend=A, Color=500, Endpoint=D) of Parent SR policy (Color=100, Endpoint=D) of SR Policy Group1. Similarly the traffic of VPN1 from A to H of Slice 1 will be forwarded based on the SR policy (Headend=A, Color=500, Endpoint=H) of Parent SR policy (Color=100, Endpoint=H) of SR Policy Group1. VPN2 uses SR Policy Group 2 identified by Color 101. Plan the forwarding path for VPN2 traffic. Different sets of network resources are further allocated for the network slices as blow: Slice 4: Voice service. Low latency forwarding is required. The DSCP range of the packet is 1 to 10. The controller calculates the low delay path for voice service and maps the DSCP 1~10 to Color 600. The voice traffic is forwarded through the constituent SR policy (Color 600) of the Parent SRv6 Policy (color 101) corresponding to VPN2. Slice 5: Non voice services. No special forwarding quality requirements. The controller calculates the SR Policy path and maps all DSCP values outside the range of 1 to 10 to Color 601. Non voice service messages are forwarded along the constituent SR policy (Color 601) of the Parent SR policy (color 101) corresponding to VPN2. Gong, et al. Expires April, 2023 [Page 11] Internet-Draft SR Policy Group October 2022 SRv6 Network .-------------------. .-------. | | .-------. / \ <==|======Slice-4======|==> / \ ( VPN2 ) | | ( VPN2 ) \ / <==|======Slice-5======|==> \ / '-------' | | '-------' | SR Policy Group 2 | | (Color 101) | '-------------------' Figure 5 SR Policy Group for VPN2 The traffic of VPN2 from A to H of Slice 4 will be forwarded based on the SR policy (Headend=A, Color=600, Endpoint=H) of Parent SR policy (Color=101, Endpoint=H) of SR Policy Group2. Because there are many access endpoints and each endpoint may act as an entry node, compared with the traditional method of distributing service forwarding policies on each Ingress node, the above SR Policy Group can greatly simplify the configuration of VPN access endpoints and effectively improve the efficiency of network deployment and operation and maintenance. 5. IANA Considerations This document has no IANA actions. 6. Security Considerations This document presents use cases to be considered by the deployment of SR Policy. It does not introduce any security considerations. 7. References 7.1. Normative References [RFC9256] Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", RFC9256, DOI 10.17487/RFC9256, July 2022, <https://www.rfc- editor.org/info/rfc9256>. [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>. Gong, et al. Expires April, 2023 [Page 12] Internet-Draft SR Policy Group October 2022 [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Mattes, P., Rosen, E., Jain, D., and S. Lin, "Advertising Segment Routing Policies in BGP", draft- ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-18 (work in progress), June 2022. [I-D.jiang-spring-parent-sr-policy-use-cases] Jiang, W., Cheng, W., Lin, C. and Qiu, Y., "Use Cases for Parent SR Policy", draft-jiang-spring-parent-sr-policy-use-cases-00 (work in progress), July 2022. 7.2. Informative References TBD 8. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the following for their valuable contributions of this document: TBD Gong, et al. Expires April, 2023 [Page 13] Internet-Draft SR Policy Group October 2022 Authors' Addresses Weiqiang Cheng China Mobile Email: chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com Liyan Gong China Mobile Email: gongliyan@chinamobile.com Changwang Lin New H3C Technologies Email: linchangwang.04414@h3c.com Yuanxiang Qiu New H3C Technologies Email: qiuyuanxiang@h3c.com YaWei Zhang Huawei Technologies Email: zhangyawei@huawei.com Ran Chen ZTE Corporation Email: chen.ran@zte.com.cn Yanrong Liang Ruijie Networks Email: liangyanrong@ruijie.com.cn Gong, et al. Expires April, 2023 [Page 14] Internet-Draft SR Policy Group October 2022 Gong, et al. Expires April, 2023 [Page 15]