Segment Routing Use Cases
draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing-use-cases-00
| The information below is for an old version of the document |
| Document |
Type |
|
Active Internet-Draft (individual)
|
|
Authors |
|
Clarence Filsfils
,
Stefano Previdi
,
Ahmed Bashandy
,
Bruno Decraene
,
Stephane Litkowski
,
Martin Horneffer
,
Igor Milojevic
,
Rob Shakir
,
Saku Ytti
,
Wim Henderickx
,
Jeff Tantsura
,
Edward Crabbe
|
|
Last updated |
|
2013-06-28
|
|
Replaced by |
|
draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-use-cases
|
|
Stream |
|
(None)
|
|
Intended RFC status |
|
(None)
|
|
Formats |
|
pdf
htmlized (tools)
htmlized
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 C. Filsfils, Ed.
Internet-Draft S. Previdi, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track A. Bashandy
Expires: December 30, 2013 Cisco Systems, Inc.
B. Decraene
S. Litkowski
Orange
M. Horneffer
Deutsche Telekom
I. Milojevic
Telekom Srbija
R. Shakir
British Telecom
S. Ytti
TDC Oy
W. Henderickx
Alcatel-Lucent
J. Tantsura
Ericsson
E. Crabbe
Google, Inc.
June 28, 2013
Segment Routing Use Cases
draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing-use-cases-00
Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source routing and tunneling
paradigms. A node steers a packet through a controlled set of
instructions, called segments, by prepending the packet with an SR
header. A segment can represent any instruction, topological or
service-based. A segment can have a local semantic to an SR node or
global within an SR domain. SR allows to enforce a flow through any
topological path and service chain while maintaining per-flow state
only at the ingress node to the SR domain.
The Segment Routing architecture can be directly applied to the MPLS
dataplane with no change on the forwarding plane. It requires minor
extension to the existing link-state routing protocols. Segment
Routing can also be applied to IPv6 with a new type of routing
extension header.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
Filsfils, et al. Expires December 30, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing Use Cases June 2013
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
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 December 30, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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.
Filsfils, et al. Expires December 30, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing Use Cases June 2013
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.1. Companion Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. IGP-based MPLS Tunneling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. FRR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Protecting a resource along the path of a Node Segment . . 7
3.2. Protecting an adjacency segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Protecting a node segment upon the failure of its
Show full document text