LISP Colored Engineered Underlays
draft-dukes-lisp-colored-engineered-underlays-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2017-03-11
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)
Network Working Group                                           D. Dukes
Internet-Draft                                                 J. Arango
Intended status: Standards Track                           Cisco Systems
Expires: September 12, 2017                               March 11, 2017

                   LISP Colored Engineered Underlays
          draft-dukes-lisp-colored-engineered-underlays-00.txt

Abstract

   This document defines a LISP control plane extension that associates
   a locator record with a color that can be used to select an
   engineered underlay path to the corresponding RLOC.

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 http://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 September 12, 2017.

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
   (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.

Dukes & Arango         Expires September 12, 2017               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft      LISP Colored Engineered Underlays         March 2017

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Color LCAF  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     6.1.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     6.2.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5

1.  Introduction

   LISP [RFC6830] provides reachability to overlay addresses called
   Endpoint Indentifiers (EIDs) via one or more underlay addresses
   called Routing Locators (RLOCs).  For each destination RLOC, it may
   be desirable for the control plane to select one of potentially
   multiple underlay paths.

   For traffic traversing an Ingress Transit Router (ITR) to an Egress
   Transit Router (ETR), the ITR may be able to reach a particular ETR
   RLOC through multiple underlay paths available via one or more
   locally connected service providers.  Furthermore, the ITR may be
   able to select which of these paths per provider to use, for example
   different paths may have unique bandwidth and latency metrics making
   them more or less suitable for traffic destined to some EIDs.  When
   the ITR requests and obtains an EID mapping, it needs to know how to
   choose an underlay path for each remote RLOC.  If the ETR can provide
   a hint in terms of an opaque color attribute for each RLOC that the
   EID maps to, then the ITR would be able to select a policy matching
   that (color, RLOC) tuple to satisfy the needs of the application or
   endpoint associated with this particular EID.  The expected use of
   the (color,RLOC) tuple is to select a Segment Routing policy as
   defined in [I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-policy].

   This draft specifies an LCAF type [RFC8060] that encodes the color
   for each RLOC in an EID mapping record.  The ITR MAY use the color to
   determine the underlay path to reach the EID via the corresponding
   RLOC.

   A locator record now has an RLOC and color, and both fields are part
   of the comparison to determine if two locator records are the same.

   The definition of how the color is chosen or configured at the ETR,
   or how policies are distributed and configured at the ITR is outside
   the scope of this document.

Dukes & Arango         Expires September 12, 2017               [Page 2]
Show full document text