Gateway Auto-Discovery and Route Advertisement for Segment Routing Enabled Domain Interconnection
draft-drake-bess-datacenter-gateway-05
|
| Document |
Type |
|
Active Internet-Draft (individual)
|
|
Last updated |
|
2017-09-19
|
|
Stream |
|
(None)
|
|
Intended RFC status |
|
(None)
|
|
Formats |
|
plain text
xml
pdf
html
bibtex
|
| Stream |
Stream state |
|
(No stream defined) |
|
Consensus Boilerplate |
|
Unknown
|
|
RFC Editor Note |
|
(None)
|
| IESG |
IESG state |
|
I-D Exists
|
|
Telechat date |
|
|
|
Responsible AD |
|
(None)
|
|
Send notices to |
|
(None)
|
BESS Working Group J. Drake
Internet-Draft A. Farrel
Intended status: Standards Track E. Rosen
Expires: March 23, 2018 Juniper Networks
K. Patel
Arrcus, Inc.
L. Jalil
Verizon
September 19, 2017
Gateway Auto-Discovery and Route Advertisement for Segment Routing
Enabled Domain Interconnection
draft-drake-bess-datacenter-gateway-05
Abstract
Data centers have become critical components of the infrastructure
used by network operators to provide services to their customers.
Data centers are attached to the Internet or a backbone network by
gateway routers. One data center typically has more than one gateway
for commercial, load balancing, and resiliency reasons.
Segment routing is a popular protocol mechanism for operating within
a data center, but also for steering traffic that flows between two
data center sites. In order that one data center site may load
balance the traffic it sends to another data center site it needs to
know the complete set of gateway routers at the remote data center,
the points of connection from those gateways to the backbone network,
and the connectivity across the backbone network.
Segment routing may also be operated in other domains, such as access
networks. Those domains also need to be connected across backbone
networks through gateways.
This document defines a mechanism using the BGP Tunnel Encapsulation
attribute to allow each gateway router to advertise the routes to the
prefixes in the segment routing domains to which it provides access,
and also to advertise on behalf of each other gateway to the same
segment routing domain.
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 [RFC2119].
Drake, et al. Expires March 23, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SR DC Gateways September 2017
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 March 23, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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 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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. SR Domain Gateway Auto-Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Relationship to BGP Link State and Egress Peer Engineering . 6
4. Advertising an SR Domain Route Externally . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Show full document text