Problem statement for Inter-domain Intent-aware Routing using Color
draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color-03
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Shraddha Hegde , Dhananjaya Rao , Jim Uttaro , Alex Bogdanov , Luay Jalil | ||
| Last updated | 2023-10-23 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (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-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color-03
SPRING S. Hegde
Internet-Draft Juniper Networks Inc.
Intended status: Informational D. Rao
Expires: 25 April 2024 Cisco Systems
J. Uttaro
Independent Contributor
A. Bogdanov
BT
L. Jalil
Verizon
23 October 2023
Problem statement for Inter-domain Intent-aware Routing using Color
draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color-03
Abstract
This draft describes the scope, set of use-cases and requirements for
a distributed routing based solution to establish end-to-end intent-
aware paths spanning multi-domain packet networks. The document
focuses on BGP given its predominant use in inter-domain routing
deployments, however the requirements may also apply to other
solutions.
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].
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 25 April 2024.
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 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 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Typical large scale network deployment scenarios . . . . . . 4
2.1. 5G access networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. WAN networks for Content distribution . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. Data Center Inter-connect Networks . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Use Cases for Inter-domain Intent-based Transport . . . . . . 7
3.1. Inter-domain Data Sovereignty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Inter-domain Low-Latency Services . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Inter-domain Service Function Chaining . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4. Inter-domain Multicast Use cases . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Deployment use cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Network Domains under different administration . . . . . 9
5. Intent-Aware Routing Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. Color . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3. Colored Service Route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.4. Intent-Aware Route using Color . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.5. Service Route Automated Steering on intent-aware route
using color . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.6. Inter-Domain intent-aware routing using colors with SR
Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.7. Motivation for a BGP-based intent-aware routing solution
using colors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.8. BGP Intent-Aware Routing using Color . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.9. Architectural consistency among intent-aware routing
solutions using colors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Technical Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1. Intent Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1.1. Transport Network Intent Requirements . . . . . . . . 15
6.1.2. VPN (Service Layer) Network Intent Requirements . . . 23
6.1.3. Multicast Intent Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
6.2. Traffic Steering Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.3. Deployment Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.3.1. Multi-domain deployment designs . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.3.2. Scalability Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
6.3.3. Network Availability Requirements . . . . . . . . . . 40
6.3.4. BGP Protocol Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
6.3.5. OAM Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
7. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
11. Co-authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
12. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
1. Introduction
Evolving trends in wireless access technology, cloud applications,
virtualization, and network consolidation all contribute to the
increasing demands being placed on a common packet network. In order
to meet these demands, a given network will need to scale
horizontally in terms of its bandwidth, absolute number of nodes, and
geographical extent. The same network will need to extend vertically
in terms of the different services and variety of intent that it
needs to simultaneously support.
In order to operate networks with large numbers of devices, network
operators organize networks into multiple smaller network domains.
Each network domain typically runs an IGP which has complete
visibility within its own domain, but limited visibility outside of
its domain. Network operators will continue to use multiple domains
to scale horizontally. In MPLS based networks BGP-LU (RFC8277) has
been widely deployed for providing reachability across multiple
domains.
The evolving network requirements (e.g. 5G, native cloud) in such a
multi-domain network requires the establishment of paths that span
multiple domains or AS's while maintaining specific transport
characteristics or intent (e.g. bandwidth, latency). There is also a
need to provide flexible, scalable, and reliable end-to-end
connectivity for multiple services across the network domains.
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
1.1. Objectives
This document describes requirements for scalable, intent-aware
reachability across multiple domains.
The base problem that it focuses on is the BGP-based delivery of an
intent across several transport domains, however the requirements may
also apply to other distributed solutions.
The problem space is then widened to include any intent (including
Network Function Virtualization (NFV) chains and their location), any
data plane and the application of intent-based routing to the
Service/VPN routes.
It is intended that the requirements enable the design of technology
and protocol extensions that address the widest application, while
ensuring consistency and compatibility with existing deployed
solutions.
2. Typical large scale network deployment scenarios
This section describes a few typical deployment scenarios that
involve large-scale multi-domain network designs and use of various
topology, IGP and BGP routing models. While the examples use
specific types of deployments for illustration, neither the use-cases
nor the network designs are limited to any particular provider
deployment.
2.1. 5G access networks
Service Provider networks can contain many nodes distributed over a
large geographic area. 5G networks can include as many as one million
nodes, with the majority of those being radio access nodes. Radio
and access nodes may be constrained by their memory and processing
capabilities.
Such transport networks use multiple domains to support scalability.
For this analysis, we consider a representative network design with
four level of hierarchy: access domains, pre-aggregation domains,
aggregation domains and a core. (See Figure 1). The separation of
domains internal to the service provider can be performed by using
either IGP or BGP.
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
+-------+ +-------+ +------+ +------+
| | | | | | | |
+--+ P-AGG1+---+ AGG1 +---+ ABR1 +---+ LSR1 +--> to ABR
/ | | /| | | | | |
+----+/ +-------+\/ +-------+ +------+ /+------+
| AN | /\ \/
+----+\ +-------+ \+-------+ +------+/\ +------+
\ | | | | | | \| |
+--+ P-AGG2+---+ AGG2 +---+ ABR2 +---+ LSR2 +--> to ABR
| | | | | | | |
+-------+ +-------+ +------+ +------+
ISIS L1 ISIS L2 ISIS L2
|-Access-|--Aggregation Domain--|---------Core-----------------|
Figure 1: 5G network
5G networks support a variety of service use cases that may require
end to-end network slicing. In certain cases, the end-to-end
connectivity requires the ability to forward over intent-aware paths,
such as paths delivering low-delay. The inter-domain routing
solution should support the establishment of end to end paths that
address specific intent requirements, as well as support multiple
such paths to address slicing requirements.
2.2. WAN networks for Content distribution
Networks built for providing delivery of content are geographically
distributed by design to provide connectivity in multiple regions and
sharing of data across regions.
As these WAN networks grow beyond several thousand nodes, they are
divided into multiple IGP domains for scale and reliability. An
illustration is provided in in Figure 2.
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+
| | | | | |
| ABR1 ABR2 ABR3 ABR4 |
| | | | | |
PE1+ D1 +-----+ D2 +-----+ D3 +PE2
| | | | | |
| ABR11 ABR22 ABR33 ABR44 |
| | | | | |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+
|-ISIS1-| |-ISIS2-| |-ISIS3-|
Figure 2: Content distribution WAN Example
These large WAN networks often cross national boundaries. In order
to meet data sovereignty requirements, operators need to maintain
strict control over end-to-end traffic-engineered (TE) paths. A
distributed inter-domain solution should be able to create highly
constrained inter domain TE paths in a scalable manner.
Some deployments may use a controller to acquire the topologies of
multiple domains and build end-to-end constrained paths. This
approach can be scaled with hierarchical controllers. However, there
is still a risk of a loss of network connectivity to one or more
controllers, which could lead to a failure to satisfy the strict
requirements of data sovereignty. The network should be able to have
pre-established TE paths end-to-end that don't rely on controllers,
to address these failure scenarios.
2.3. Data Center Inter-connect Networks
Distributed data centers are playing an increasingly important role
in providing access to information and applications. Geographically
diverse data centers are usually connected via a high speed, reliable
and secure DC WAN core network.
One variation of a DCI topology is shown in .Figure 3.
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+
| ASBR1 ASBR2 ASBR3 ASBR4 |
| | | DC WAN| | |
PE1+ DC1 +-----+ CORE +-----+ DC2 +PE2
| ASBR11 ASBR22 ASBR33 ASBR44 |
| | | | | |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+
|-ISIS1-| |-ISIS2-| |-ISIS3-|
Figure 3: DCI Network
In many DC WAN deployments, applications require end-to-end path
diversity and end-to-end low latency paths.
Another consideration in DC WAN deployments is the choice of
encapsulation technologies. Some deployments use the same tunneling
mechanism within the DC and DCI networks, while other deployments use
different mechanisms in each. It is important for a solution to
provide flexibility in choice of tunneling mechanisms across domains.
3. Use Cases for Inter-domain Intent-based Transport
The use cases for inter-domain intent-based packet transport
described in this section are intended to provide motivation for the
requirements that follow. They apply to all the different deployment
scenarios described above.
3.1. Inter-domain Data Sovereignty
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
| | | +-+ AS2 | | |
| A1+--+A2 | | A3+--+A4 |
PE1+ AS1 | | |Z| | | AS3 +PE3
| A5+--+A6 | | A7+--+A8 |
| | | +-+ | | |
+--A13--A15-+ +-A17--A19--+ +-----------+
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
+--A14--A16-+ +-A18--A20--+
| | | |
| A9+--+A10 |
PE4+ AS4 | | AS5 |
| A11+-+A12 |
| | | |
+-----------+ +-----------+
Figure 4: Multi domain Network
Figure 4 depicts an example of a WAN with multiple ASes, where each
AS serves a continent. Certain traffic from PE1 (in AS1) to PE3 (in
AS3) must not traverse country Z in AS2. However, all paths from AS1
to AS3 traverse AS 2. The inter-domain solution should provide end-
to-end path creation that traverses AS 2 but avoids country Z.
In other networks, the domain to avoid may encompass an entire AS.
3.2. Inter-domain Low-Latency Services
Service provider networks running L2 and L3VPNs carry traffic for
particular VPNs on low-latency paths that traverse multiple domains.
3.3. Inter-domain Service Function Chaining
RFC7665 defines service function chaining as an ordered set of
service functions and automated steering of traffic through this set
of service functions. There could be a variety of service functions
such as firewalls, parental control, CGNAT etc. In 5G networks these
functions may be completely virtualized or could be a mix of
virtualized functions and physical appliances. It is required that
the inter-domain solution caters to the service function chaining
requirements. The service functions may be virtualized and spread
across different data centers attached to different domains.
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
3.4. Inter-domain Multicast Use cases
Multicast services such as IPTV and multicast VPN also need to be
supported across a multi-domain service provider network.
+---------+---------+---------+
| | | |
S1 ABR1 ABR2 R1
| Metro1 | Core | Metro2 |
| | | |
S2 ABR11 ABR22 R2
| | | |
+---------+---------+---------+
|-ISIS1-| |-ISIS2-| |-ISIS3-|
Figure 5: Multicast use cases
Figure 5 shows a simplified multi-domain network supporting
multicast. Multicast sources S1 and S2 are in a different domain
from the receivers R1 and R2. The solution should support
establishment of intent-aware multicast distribution trees (P
tunnels) across the domains and steer customer multicast streams on
it. It should maintain the scaling properties of a multi-domain
architecture by avoiding leaking of RPF routing state into the IGP
domains.
4. Deployment use cases
4.1. Network Domains under different administration
+-----------+ +-----------+
| ASBR1 ASBR2 |
| | | |
PE1+ AS1 +----------------+ AS2 +PE2
| ASBR11 ASBR22 |
| | | |
+-----------+ +-----------+
Figure 6: Networks with inconsistent intent mappings
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
In diagram Figure 5 above, AS1 and AS2 may be operating as closely
coordinated but independent administrative domains, and still require
end-to-end paths across the two ASes to deliver services. This
scenario could be a result of a merger. It is possible that AS1 and
AS2 may have assigned different values for the same intent.
In some cases, organizations may continue to use option A or option B
[RFC4364] style interconnectivity in which case the inter-domain
solution should satisfy intent of the path on inter-domain links for
the service prefixes. In other cases, organizations may prefer to
use option C style connectivity from PE1 to PE2.
An inter-domain solution should provide effective mechanisms to
translate intent across domains without requiring renumbering of the
intent mapping.
5. Intent-Aware Routing Framework
This section describes the basic concepts, terminologies and
architectural principles that define intent-aware routing and the
protocols and technologies that currently support it. The goal of
this section is to establish the requirement for consistency with
existing deployed solutions and describe the framework for it.
The figure below is used as reference.
+-----------------------------------+
|----+ +----|
| E1 | | E2 |- V/v with C
|----+ +----|
+-----------------------------------+
Figure 7: Intent-aware routing using color reference topology
5.1. Intent
Intent in routing may be any combination of the following behaviors:
* Topology path selection (e.g. minimize metric, avoid resource)
* NFV service insertion (e.g. service chain steering)
* Per-hop behavior (e.g. QoS for 5G slice)
An intent-aware routed path may be within a single network domain or
across multiple domains.
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
5.2. Color
Color is a 32-bit numerical value that is associated with an intent,
as defined in [RFC9256]
5.3. Colored Service Route
An Egress PE E2 colors a BGP service (e.g. VPN) route V/v to
indicate the particular intent that E2 requests for the traffic bound
to V/v. The color (C) is encoded as a BGP Color Extended community
[RFC9012].
5.4. Intent-Aware Route using Color
(C, E2) represents a intent-aware route to E2 which satisfies the
intent associated with color C.
Multiple technologies already provide intent-aware paths in solutions
that are widely deployed.
* SR Policy [RFC9256]
* IGP Flex-Algo [RFC9350]
In the context of large-scale SR-MPLS networks, SR Policy is
applicable to both intra-domain and inter-domain deployments; whereas
IGP Flex-Algo is better suited to intra-domain scenarios.
5.5. Service Route Automated Steering on intent-aware route using color
An ingress PE E1 automatically steers V-destined packets onto a
intent-aware path bound to (C, E2). If several such paths exist, a
preference scheme is used to select the best path: E.g. IGP Flex-
Algo first, then SR Policy.
5.6. Inter-Domain intent-aware routing using colors with SR Policy
If E1 and E2 are in different domains, E1 may request an SR-PCE in
its domain for a path to (C, E2). The SR-PCE (or a set of them)
computes the end-to-end path and installs it at E1 as an SR Policy.
The end-to-end intent-aware path may seamlessly cross multiple
domains.
5.7. Motivation for a BGP-based intent-aware routing solution using
colors
While the following requirements may be covered with an SR Policy
solution, an operator may prefer a BGP-based solution due to:
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
* Operational familiarity and expectation of incremental evolution
from an existing Seamless-MPLS/BGP-LU inter-domain deployment
[I-D.ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls]
* Expectation of higher scale with BGP
* Expectation of a familiar operational trust model between BGP
domains (peering policy)
5.8. BGP Intent-Aware Routing using Color
A BGP Intent-Aware Routing solution signals intent-aware routes to
reach a given destination (e.g. E2). (C, E2) represents a BGP hop-
by-hop distributed route that builds an inter-domain intent-aware
path to E2 for color C.
5.9. Architectural consistency among intent-aware routing solutions
using colors
As seen above, multiple technologies exist that provide intent aware
routing in a network. A BGP based solution must be compliant with
the existing principles that apply to them.
A deployment model that provides consistency is as follows:
* Service routes are colored using BGP Color Extended-Community to
request intent [RFC9256]
- V/v via E, colored with C
* Colored service routes are automatically steered on an appropriate
intent-aware path using color
- V/v via E with C is steered via (E, C)
- (E, C) provided by any intent-aware technology or protocol
* Intent-aware routes may resolve recursively via other intent-aware
routes
- (E, C) via N recursively resolves via (N, C)
Here is a brief example that illustrates these principles.
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
+----------------+ +----------------+ +----------------+
| | | | | | V/v with C1
|----+ +----+ +----+ +----|/
| E1 | | N1 | | N2 | | E2 |\
|----+ +----+ +----+ +----| W/w with C2
| | | | | |
| Domain 1 | | Domain 2 | | Domain 3 |
+----------------+ +----------------+ +----------------+
Figure 8: Inter-domain intent-aware routing using color reference
topology
In the figure above, all the nodes are part of an inter-domain
network under a single authority and with a consistent color-to-
intent mapping:
* Color C1 is mapped to "low delay"
- Flex-Algo FA1 is mapped to "low delay" and hence to C1 in each
domain
* Color C2 is mapped to "low delay and avoid resource R"
- Flex-Algo FA2 is mapped to "low delay and avoid resource R" and
hence to C2 in each domain
E1 receives two BGP colored service routes from E2:
- V/v with BGP Color Extended community C1
- W/w with BGP Color Extended community C2
E1 has the following inter-domain intent-aware paths using color:
* (E2, C1) provided by BGP which recursively resolves via intra-
domain intent-aware paths:
- (N1, C1) provided by IGP FA1 in Domain1
- (N2, C1) provided by SR Policy bound to color C1 in Domain2
* (E2, C2) provided by SR Policy
E1 automatically steers the received colored service routes as
follows:
- V/v via (E2, C1) provided by BGP intent-aware route using color
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
- W/w via (E2, C2) provided by SR Policy
The example illustrates the benefits provided by leveraging the
architectural principles:
* Seamless co-existence of multiple intent-aware technologies, e.g.
BGP and SR Policy
- V/v is steered on BGP intent-aware path
- W/w is steered on SR Policy intent-aware path
* Seamless and complementary interworking between different intent-
aware technologies
- V/v is steered on a BGP intent-aware path that is itself
resolved within domain 2 onto an SR Policy bound to the color
of V/v
* Another benefit that can be extrapolated from the example is that
intent-aware routes from different technologies may serve as
alternative paths for the same intent.
6. Technical Requirements
6.1. Intent Requirements
The BGP Intent-Aware routing solution must support the following
intents bound to a color:
* Minimization of a cost metric vs a latency metric
- Minimization of different metric types, static and dynamic
* Exclusion/Inclusion of SRLG and/or Link Affinity and/or minimum
MTU/number of hops
* Bandwidth management
* In the inter-domain context, exclusion/inclusion of entire
domains, and border routers
* Inclusion of one or several virtual network function chains
- Located in a regional domain and/or core domain, in a DC
* Localization of the virtual network function chains
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
- Some functions may be desired in the regional DC or vice versa
Subsequent sections elaborate on these requirements.
6.1.1. Transport Network Intent Requirements
The requirements described in this document are mostly applicable to
network under a single administrative domain that are organized into
multiple network domains. The requirements are also applicable to
multi-AS networks with closely cooperating administration.
The network diagram below illustrates the reference network topology
used in this section
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
.....|S-RR1| ............. |S-RR2| ............... |S-RR3| ...
: +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ :
: :
: :
: :
+--:--------------+ +-----------------+ +--------------:--+
| : | | | | : |
| : |-------| |-------| : |
| : +---| D=20 |---+ +---| D=25 |---+ : |
| : |121|-------|211| |231|-------|321| : |
| : +---| \ / |---+ +---| \ / |---+ : |
|----+ | \ / | | \ / | +----|
|PE11| | V | | V | |PE31|
|----+ | / \ | | / \ | +----|
| +---| / \ |---+ +---| / \ |---+ |
|----+ |122|-------|212| |232|-------|322| +----|
|PE12| +---| D=15 |---+ +---| D=10 |---+ |PE32|
|----+ | | | | +----|
| Domain 1 | | Domain 2 | | Domain 3 |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+ +-----------------+
Figure 9: Transport Network Intent Requirements Reference Diagram
The following network design assumptions apply to the reference
topology above, as an example:
* Independent ISIS/OSPF SR instance in each domain.
* eBGP peering link between ASBRs (121-211, 121-212, 122-211,
122-212, 231-321, 231-322, 232-321 and 232-322).
* Peering links have equal cost metric.
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
* Peering links have delay configured or measured as shown by "D".
D=50 for cross peering links.
* The cross links between ASBRs share the same risk.
* The top parallel link between 121-211 shares same risk with the
link 122-212.
* The top parallel link between 231-321 shares same risk with the
link 232-322.
* VPN service is running from PE31, PE32 to PE11, PE12 via service
RRs (S-RRn in figure).
Intent-aware inter-domain routing information to end point E with
intent C is represented using (C,E). The notation used is a
representation of the intent-aware route using color, and does not
indicate a specific protocol encoding.
The following sections illustrate requirements and provide detailed
examples for several intent types.
6.1.1.1. Minimization of end-to-end metric
Various metric types can be advertised within an IGP domain and
minimum metric paths can be computed within IGP domain, with Flex-
Algo [RFC9350] for instance.
The BGP solution should allow the establishment of inter-domain
intent-aware paths with low values of a metric type, accumulated over
the end-to-end path.
In the reference topology of Figure 9
- Each domain has Algo 0 and Flex Algo 128
- Algo 0 is for minimum cost metric(cost optimized).
- Flex Algo 128 definition is for minimum delay (low latency).
* Cost Optimized end-to-end path
- Color C1 - Minimum cost intent.
- Intent-aware route for C1 sets up path(s) between PEs for end-
to-end minimum cost.
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
- These paths traverse over intra-domain Algo 0 in each domain
and account for the peering link cost between ASBRs.
- Example: PE11 learns (C1, PE31) intent-aware route via several
equal paths:
o One such path is through FA0 to node 121, links 121-211, FA0
to 231, link 231-321, FA0 to PE31
o Another such path is through FA0 to node 122, link 122-212,
FA0 to 232, link 232-322, FA0 to PE31.
+ PE11 may load-balance among these paths
- On PE11, VPN routes from PE31 colored with C1 are steered via
(C1, PE31) intent-aware route.
* Latency Optimized End-to-end path
- Color C2 - Minimum latency intent.
- BGP Intent-aware route for C2 advertises path(s) between PEs
for end-to-end minimum delay.
- These paths traverse over intra-domain Flex-Algo 128 in each
domain and account for the peering link delay between ASBRs.
- Example: PE11 learns (C2, PE31) intent-aware route and best
path is through FA128 to node 122, link 122-212, FA128 to 232,
link 232-322, FA128 to PE31.
- On PE11, VPN routes from PE31 colored with C2 are steered via
(C2, PE31) intent-aware route.
6.1.1.2. Exclusion/inclusion of link affinity
The Intent-aware BGP routing solution should allow the establishment
of inter-domain paths that satisfy link affinity inclusion/exclusion
constraints. The link affinity constraints should also be satisfied
for inter-domain links, such as those between ASBRs.
Using the reference topology of Figure 7 for the example below:
* Color C3 - Intent to Minimize cost metric and avoid purple links
* Each domain has Flex Algo 129 and some links have purple affinity.
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
* Flex Algo 129 definition is set to minimum cost metric and avoid
purple links (within domain).
* Peering cross links are colored purple by policy.
* BGP intent-aware route for C3 sets up paths between PEs for
minimum end-to-end cost and avoiding purple link affinity.
* These paths traverse over intra domain Flex Algo 129 in each
domain and accounts for peering link cost between ASBR and
avoiding purple links.
* Example: PE11 learns (C3, PE31) intent-aware route via 2 paths.
- First path is through FA 129 to node 121, link 121-211, FA129
to 231, link 231-321, FA129 to PE31.
- Second path is through FA129 to node 122, link 122-212, FA129
to 232, link 232-322, FA129 to PE31.
* On PE11, VPN routes from PE31 colored with C3 are steered via (C3,
PE31) intent-aware route.
6.1.1.3. Exclusion/inclusion of nodes
Support creating an inter-domain path that includes or excludes a
certain set of nodes in each domain.
Mechanisms used to achieve the node inclusion/exclusion constraints
within different domains should be independent.
For example, an RSVP-based domain may use link affinities to achieve
node exclusion constraints, while an SR-based domain may use Flex-
Algo, which natively supports excluding nodes.
The example below describes the details for Figure 9
* Color C4 - Intent to Minimize cost metric and avoid nodes
- Each domain has Flex Algo 129 and Flex-Algo 129 is not enabled
on nodes 121,211,231,321
- Flex Algo 129 definition is set to minimum cost metric
* Intent-aware route for C4 sets up paths between PEs for minimum
end-to-end cost and avoiding specific nodes.
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
* These paths traverse over intra domain Flex Algo 129 in each
domain and accounts for peering link cost between ASBR and
avoiding specific nodes.
* Example: PE11 learns (C4, PE31) intent-aware route via 1 path.
- The path is through FA129 to node 122, link 122-212, FA129 to
232,link 232-322, FA129 to PE31.
* On PE11, VPN routes colored with C4 are steered via (C4, PE31)
intent-aware route.
6.1.1.4. Diverse Paths
Support the creation of node- and link-diverse inter-domain paths.
The intra-domain portion of the end-to-end paths should make use of
existing mechanisms for computing and instantiating diverse paths
within a domain.
Inter-domain links (such as those connecting ASBRs) should also be
taken into account for diverse inter-domain paths.
Support creation of inter-domain diverse paths that avoid shared risk
links.
The example below describes the details for Figure 8
* Color C5 and C6 - Intent to create diverse paths avoiding common
node, link and shared risk
- Each domain has SRLG aware diverse path built as below
- Domain 1: Color C5 -> PE11,121
- Color C6 -> PE12,122
- Domain 2: Color C5 -> 211,231
- Color C6 -> 212,232
- Domain 3: Color C5 -> 321,PE31
- Color C6 -> 322,PE32
- Shared risk among inter-domain links is as described in the
topology description
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
o Intent-aware diverse paths represented by C5 and C6 setup in
each domain
o Local policies on inter-domain links to avoid common shared
risk for intent C5 and C6
o Example: PE11 learns (C5, PE31) intent-aware route via 1
path.
- The path is through PE11,121-211 (bottom link), 231-321 (bottom
link), PE31
o Example: PE12 learns (C6, PE32) intent-aware route via1
path.
- The path is through PE12,122,212, 232,322, PE32
* On PE11, VPN routes colored with C5 are steered via (C5, PE31)
Intent-aware route.
* On PE12, VPN routes colored with C6 are steered via (C6, PE32)
intent-aware route.
6.1.1.5. Applicability of intent to a subset of domains
Support creation of paths with certain intents applicable to only a
subset of domains.
No constraint specific state on internal nodes where intent is not
applicable.
The example below describes the details for Figure 9
* Color C7 to exclude purple links
- Purple links exist only in domain 2
- Intra-domain Intent-aware paths in domain 2 via 211,231
- Intra-domain paths for C7 not created in Domain 1 and Domain 3
* On PE11, VPN routes colored with C7 are steered via (C7, PE31)
intent-aware route.
- Intent-aware route (C7,PE31) uses best effort paths in Domain1
and Domain3
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
- Intent-aware route (C7,PE31) uses intra-domain intent-aware
path C7 in Domain2
6.1.1.6. Exclusion/inclusion of domain
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
....|S-RR1|.............. |S-RR2| .............. |S-RR3| ....
: +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ :
: :
: +----------------+ :
: | | :
+--:--------------+ |---+ +---| +--------------:--+
| : | |---|211| |241|---| | : |
| : | | |---+ +---| | | : |
| : +---| | | Domain 2 | | |---+ : |
| : |121|---| +----------------+ |---|421| : |
| : +---| |---+ : |
|----+ | | +----|
|PE11| | | |PE41|
|----+ | | +----|
| +---| |---+ |
| |131|---| +----------------+ |---|431| |
| +---| | | | | |---+ |
| | | |---+ +---| | | |
| Domain 1 | |---|311| |341|---| | Domain 4 |
+-----------------+ |---+ +---| +-----------------+
| Domain 3 |
+----------------+
Figure 10: Domain Exclusion Diagram
Color C4 - Avoid sending selected traffic via Domain 3
* VPN routes advertised from PEs with Color C4
* Intent-aware route for Color C4 should only set up paths between
PE11 and PE41 that exclude Domain 3
6.1.1.7. Virtual network function chains in local and core domains
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
____ ____
/ \ / \
| NFV1 | | NFV2 |
\ / \ /
+---------------------+ +--------------------+ +-------------------+
| |E11| | | |E21| | | |
| +---+ | | +---+ | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|----+ +------+ +------+ +----|
|PE11| | 121 | | 231 | |PE31|
|----+ +------+ +------+ +----|
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Domain 1 | | Domain 2 | | Domain 3 |
+---------------------+ +--------------------+ +-------------------+
Figure 11: Transport NFV Diagram
* Color intent
- C5 - Routing via min-cost paths
- C6 - Routing via a local NFV service chain situated at E11
- C7 - Routing via a centrally located NFV service chain situated
at E21
* Forwarding of packets from PE11 towards PE31:
- (C5, PE31) mapped packets are sent via nodes 121, 231 to PE31
- (C6, PE31) mapped packets are sent to E11 and then post-
service chain, via 121, 231 to PE31
- (C7, PE31) mapped packets are sent via 121 to E21 and then
post-service chain, via 231 to PE31
E11 and E21 MAY be involved in inter-domain signaling in order to
send service traffic towards PEs in remote domains. Different
functions may be collocated at the same network node. (For example,
PE functionality and NFV attachment functionality may be collocated.)
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
6.1.2. VPN (Service Layer) Network Intent Requirements
This section describes requirements and reference use-cases for
extending intent-aware routing to the VPN (Service) layer.
The solution should:
* Extend the signaling of intent awareness end-to-end to the
customer domain: CE site to CE site across provider networks.
Specific goals are to:
- Provide ability for a CE to select paths through specific PEs
for a given intent
o Example-1: Certain intent in transport not available via
specific PEs
o Example-2: Certain CE-PE connection does not support
specific intent
o Example-3: Customer Site access via certain CE node does not
support specific intent. For instance, link connecting a
specific CE to a DC hosting loss-sensitive service may have
better quality than a link from another CE
- Provide ability for a CE node to send traffic indicating a
specific intent (via suitable encapsulation) to the PE for
optimal steering.
o Provide ability for a PE node to apply filtering and other
security mechanisms and authentication for the incoming
encapsulated packets
o Provide ability for a PE node to apply traffic policing and
shaping mechanisms to the received encapsulated packets.
o The PE-CE link and the transport domains can be in different
color domains.
- Intent-aware routing may extend further into customer networks
towards the network edge, closer to applications that originate
traffic
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
o Applications or hosts that do not participate in routing can
indicate the intent desired for an emitted traffic flow by
setting appropriate DSCP values in the packet header. This
enables the ingress intent-aware routing device to perform
the necessary classification and traffic steering
(Section 6.2)
* Support intent aware routing for multiple service (VPN)
interworking models
- IBGP and Inter-AS Option C models are inherently supported
since they natively extend from PE to PE. Additional models to
be supported are:
o Inter-AS Option A
o Inter-AS Option B
o GW based interworking (L3VPN, EVPN)
- Co-existence with legacy PEs and CEs in a L3VPN network
o Intent-aware routing capable PEs co-exist with other PEs
that are not capable
o Intent-aware routing capable PEs simultaneously interact
with both capable CEs and legacy CEs
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
The network diagram below illustrates the reference network
topology used in this section for VPN Intent-aware routing
using Color
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
| ....|S-RR|.... | | ....|S-RR|..... |
| : +----+ : | | : +----+ : |
| : : : : | | : : : : |
|----+ : : +---| D=20 |---+ : : +----|
/|PE11| : : |121|-----------|211| : : |PE21|\
D=25/ |----+ : : +---| X X |---+ : : +----| \ D=25
/ | : : | X X | : : | \ V/24
CE1 | : : | X D=50| : : | CE2
X | : : | X X | : : | X
D=15 X |----+ : : +---| X X |---+ : : +----| X D=10
X|PE12|...: :...|2122|-----------|2132|...: :...|PE22|X
|----+ +---| D=10 |---+ +----|
| | | |
| AS 1 | | AS 2 |
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
Figure 12: VPN (Service) intent routing reference topology
The following network design assumptions apply to the reference
topology above, as an example:
* eBGP peering link between VPN ASBRs 121-211, 121-212, 122-211,
122-212
* VPN service runs between PEs in each AS via service RRs to local
VPN ASBRs. Between ASBRs, its VPN IAS-Option-B i.e. next hop
self.
* CE1 is dual homed to PE11,PE12. CE2 is dual homed to PE21, PE22.
* Peering links have equal cost metric
* Peering links have delay configured or measured as shown by "D"
The following sections illustrate a few examples of intent use-cases
applicable to VPN routes.
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
6.1.2.1. Minimization of end-to-end metric
This use-case extends the transport use-case from Minimization of
end-to-end metric section to further to establish e2e paths with low
values of a metric type between CEs attached to different PEs,
additionally taking the metrics on the PE-CE links and inter-ASBR
links into account.
* In the reference topology of VPN service intent topology, each AS
has Flex Algo 0 and 128. Flex Algo 0 is for minimumcost metric
(cost optimized) while Flex Algo 128 definition is for minimum
delay (low latency)
* Cost Optimized end-to-end (CE-CE) path
- Color C1 - Minimum cost intent.
- On CE1, flows requiring cost optimized paths to V/24 are
steered over (C1, V/24) intent-aware route using color.
o This needs BGP intent-aware route between PE-CE for V/24
prefix and color C1 awareness.
o It also needs BGP VPN Intent-aware route between PEs and
ASBRs for V/24 prefix with VPN RD and color C1 awareness
(C1, RD:V/24)
o CE1 may learn (C1, V/24) route through several equal cost
paths. For example:
+ One path is through link CE1-PE11, FA0 to 121, link
121-211, FA0 to PE21 and link PE21-CE2.
+ Another such path is through CE1-PE12, FA0 to node 122,
link 122-212, FA0 to PE22, link PE22-CE2.
o CE1 may load-balance among these paths
* Latency optimized end-to-end (CE-CE) path
- Color C2 - Minimum latency intent
- On CE1, flows requiring low latency paths to prefix V/24 are
steered over (C2, V/24) intent-aware route using color.
o This needs BGP intent-aware route between PE-CE for V/24
prefix and color C2 awareness.
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
o It also needs BGP VPN intent-aware route between PEs and
ASBR for V/24 prefix with VPN RD and color C2 awareness
o Paths traverse over intra-domain Flex Algo 128 in each AS
and accounts for inter ASBR link delays and PE-CE link
delays.
o CE1 learns (C2, V/24) BGP intent-aware best route using
color through link CE1-PE12, FA128 to 122, link 122-212,
FA128 to PE22 and link PE22-CE2 between PE-CE for V/24
prefix and color C2 awareness.
6.1.2.1.1. Exclusion/inclusion of link affinity
* Color C3 - Intent to minimize cost metric and avoid purple links
* In the reference topology of Figure 6 Each AS has Flex Algo 129
and some links have purple affinity. Flex Algo 129 definition is
set to minimum cost metric and avoid purple links (within AS).
ASBR cross links are colored purple by policy. Bottom PE-CE links
are colored purple as well by policy
* On CE1, flows requiring minimum cost path avoiding purple links to
V/24 are steered over (C3, V/24) BGP intent-aware route using
color
CE1 learns (C3, V/24) route through link CE1-PE11, FA129 to 121, link
121-211, FA129 to PE21 and link PE21-CE2.
6.1.2.2. Virtual network function chains in local and core domains
The below diagram represents a typical service function chaining
deployment with NFV services deployed in the service layer. The
transport layer is not aware of the services in this model.
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
+-----+
........................|S-RR | .................
: +-----+ ........... :
: : :
: : :
: ___ ___ ___ : :
: / \ / \ / \ : :
:| S1 | | S2 | | S3 | : :
: \ / \ / \ / : :
+-:---------------+ +--------------+ +------:----:--+
| : |E11| |E12| | | |E21| | | : : |
| : +---+ +---+ | | +---+ | | : +----| (V1/24,C1)
| : | | | | : |PE31|--CE2
| V | | | | : +----|
|----+ +------+ +------+ : |
CE1--|PE11| | 121 | | 231 | : |
|----+ +------+ +------+ : +----| (V2/24/C2)
| | | | | :..|PE32|--CE3
| | | | | +----|
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Domain 1 | | Domain 2 | | Domain 3 |
+-----------------+ +--------------+ +--------------+
Figure 13: Virtual Network Functions Reference Topology
* Color intent
- C1 - Routing via NFV service chain comprising of [S1, S2]
attached to E11 and E12
- C2 - Routing via NFV service [S3] attached to E21
* CE1, CE2, CE3 are sites of VPN1. S1, S2 and S3 are service VNFs
in VPN1
* Prefix V1/24 colored with C1 from CE2, and advertised as RD:V1/24
with C1 by PE31 to PE11 via S-RR
* Prefix V2/24 colored with C2 from CE3, and advertised as RD:V2/24
with C2 by PE32 to PE11 via SS-RR
* From PE11:
- [V1/24, C1] mapped packets are sent via S1, S2 and then routed
to PE31, CE2
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
- [V2/24, C2] mapped packets are sent via S3 and then routed to
PE32, CE3
6.1.3. Multicast Intent Requirements
This section describes the intent requirements for the multicast
traffic. In principle all the intent requirements described in
section Section 6.1.1 can apply to multicast traffic as well. The
intent requirements as currently seen from actual usecases have been
listed here.
* Ability to create multicast distribution trees that minimize
latency metric
* Ability to create multicast distribution trees that avoid nodes
located in certain geographical region
* Ability to create multicast distribution trees that that provide
bandwidth guarantees within as well as across domains
* Ability to create multicast distribution trees that use subset of
the topology
6.2. Traffic Steering Requirements
Traffic arriving at an ingress PE for a colored service route gets
steered into an intent-aware path to the egress PE. Section 5
illustrates the automated steering mechanism, driven through Color
Extended Community in the service route.
* Flexible traffic steering is required, with support for different
types:
- Per-Destination Steering: Incoming packets are steered based on
the destination address of the packets
- Per-Flow Steering: Incoming packets are steered based on the
destination address of the packets and additional fields in the
packet header
o DSCP for IPv4/IPv6 packets and EXP for MPLS packets
o 5-tuple IP flow (Source address, destination address, source
port, destination port and protocol fields).
- The Per-Flow Steering enables different flows for the same
destination to be steered into different paths – for example,
one flow into an intent-aware path and another into a best-
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
effort path; or two different flows steered into paths of two
different intents. Section 8.6 of RFC 9256 describes the
operation of per-flow steering in detail.
* When no path that fulfills the desired intent is available:
- An option of ordered fallback should be supported
o via one or more alternative intents; or via a best-effort
path.
- An option of not using a fallback path for the service route
should also be supported.
- Fallback scheme per service route should be supported
o Fallback schemes should be decoupled from primary. For
example, different service routes using same primary but
different fallback schemes
- An indication that the route followed a less preferred path due
to fallback may be given to a CE by modifying/adding suitable
BGP attribute through policy.
* Above steering mechanisms should be supported for any service,
including L2/L3 VPNs and Internet/global routing.
6.3. Deployment Requirements
The solution must support the representative deployment designs and
associated deployment requirements described in the following sub
sections.
6.3.1. Multi-domain deployment designs
This section describes four different ways that multi-domain networks
could be organized. This is a representation of most common
deployments and not an exhaustive coverage.
6.3.1.1. Multiple IGP domains within a single AS, inter-connected at
border nodes
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
+-----+
.............................. |S-RR | .........................
: +-----+ :
: :
: :
+--:----iBGP---------+ +----------iBGP------+ +---------iBGP----:--+
| : | | | | : |
| : | | | | : |
| : +------+ +------+ : |
| : | 121 | | 231 | : |
| . +------+ +------+ : |
|----+ | | | | +----|
|PE11| | | | | |PE31|
|----+ | | | | +----|
| +------+ +------+ |
| | 122 | | 232 | |
| +------+ +------+ |
| | | | | |
| AS1 (Domain 1) | | AS1(Domain 2) | | AS1(Domain 3) |
+--------------------+ +--------------------+ +--------------------+
Figure 14: Transport Multiple Domains Network Diagram
The above diagram shows three different IGP domains, Domain1, Domain2
and Domain3 inter-connected at the ABRs 121,122,231,232.
This single-AS network uses I-BGP sessions, with ABRs acting as
inline route reflectors to PEs.
Note that the IGP design included here and in other models below is
illustrative. In practice, there may be multiple areas/levels or
multiple IGP instances.
6.3.1.2. Multiple IGP domains within a single AS, with iBGP between
border nodes
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
....|S-RR1| .............. |S-RR2| ................ |S-RR3| ....
: +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ :
: :
: :
+--:--iBGP---------+ iBGP +--------iBGP------+ iBGP +--------iBGP--:--+
| : | | | | : |
| : | | | | : |
| : +---| |---+ +---| |---+ : |
| : |121|------|211| |231|------|321| : |
| : +---| |---+ +---| |---+ : |
|----+ | \ / | | \ / | +----|
|PE11| | X | | X | |PE31|
|----+ | / \ | | / \ | +----|
| +---| |---+ +---| |---+ |
| |122|------|212| |232|------|322| |
| +---| |---+ +---| |---+ |
| | | | | |
| AS1(Domain 1) | | AS1(Domain 2) | | AS1(Domain 3) |
+------------------+ +------------------+ +-----------------+
Figure 15: Transport Multiple Domains with iBGP Network Diagram
The above diagram shows a single AS1 with three different IGP
domains, Domain1, Domain2, and Domain3.
121,122,211,212,231,232,321,322 are border nodes for the IGP domains
and they participate in only one IGP domain.
In this design, domain inter-connect is via iBGP peering links
between Area border nodes. ABRs act as inline route reflectors to
PEs.
6.3.1.3. Multiple ASes inter-connected with E-BGP between border nodes
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
....|S-RR1| .............. |S-RR2| ................ |S-RR3| ....
: +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ :
: :
: :
+--:--iBGP---------+ eBGP +--------iBGP------+ eBGP +--------iBGP--:--+
| : | | | | : |
| : | | | | : |
| : +---| |---+ +---| |---+ : |
| : |121|------|211| |231|------|321| : |
| : +---| |---+ +---| |---+ : |
|----+ | \ / | | \ / | +----|
|PE11| | X | | X | |PE31|
|----+ | / \ | | / \ | +----|
| +---| |---+ +---| |---+ |
| |122|------|212| |232|------|322| |
| +---| |---+ +---| |---+ |
| | | | | |
| AS1(Domain 1) | | AS2(Domain 2) | | AS3(Domain 3) |
+------------------+ +------------------+ +-----------------+
Figure 16: Transport Multiple Domains with eBGP Network Diagram
The above diagram shows three different ASes (AS1, AS2 and AS3.)
121,122, 211, 212, 231,232, 321,322 are border nodes between the
ASes.
In this design, domain inter-connect is via eBGP peering links
between AS border nodes. The ASBR also runs I-BGP sessions with
other ASBRs or RRs in the same AS.
6.3.1.4. Multiple sites with same AS connected via different core AS
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
+-----+
.............................. |S-RR | .........................
: +-----+ :
: :
: :
+--:----eBGP---------+ +-----iBGP-----------+ +---eBGP----------:--+
| : | | | | : |
| : | | | | : |
| : +------+ +------+ : |
| : | 121 | | 231 | : |
| . +------+ +------+ : |
|----+ | | | | +----|
|PE11| | | | | |PE31|
|----+ | | | | +----|
| +------+ +------+ |
| | 122 | | 232 | |
| +------+ +------+ |
| | | | | |
| AS1(Domain 1) | | AS2(Domain 2) | | AS1(Domain 3) |
+--------------------+ +--------------------+ +--------------------+
Figure 17: Transport Multiple Domains with same AS Network Diagram
121,122,231,232 belong to AS2 only. AS1 and AS2 domains may run
multi-instance IGP or different levels/areas.
This topology uses I-BGP sessions to some clients and E-BGP sessions
to other nodes. When an RR is used between PEs in AS1 and ABRs in
AS2, it will have iBGP sessions to clients in same AS and e-BGP
sessions to nodes in other AS.
6.3.1.5. AS Confederations
BGP confederations [RFC 5065] allows the division of a public AS into
multiple sub-ASes, usually with private identifiers. The solution
should support BGP based intent-aware paths within the sub-AS or
across the sub-ASes of the confederation, in any of the network
designs described in sections 5.4.1.1 to section 5.4.1.4.
6.3.1.6. Transport Technologies
6.3.1.6.1. Unicast transport
The solution must support the following:
* End-to-end paths crossing transport domains that use different
technologies and encapsulations, such as:
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
- LDP-MPLS
- RSVP-TE-MPLS
- SR-MPLS
- SRv6
- SR-TE (MPLS and SRv6)
- IGP Flex-Algo (MPLS and SRv6)
- Native IPv4/IPv6 forwarding (networks without MPLS enabled
* Note:
- All MPLS/SR-MPLS deployments may be IPv4/IPv6 or dual-stack
- SR-TE includes color-only and other policies as defined in
[RFC9256]
* Interworking between domains with different encapsulations (e.g.
SR-MPLS and SRv6)
* Different transport encapsulations simultaneously within a domain,
for co-existence and migration
6.3.1.6.2. Multicast transport
A routing solution for end-to-end intent-aware paths should support
multicast as well as unicast. An End-to-end multicast path crossing
multiple transport domains may use different encapsulation
mechanisms, such as:
* mLDP
* RSVP-TE P2MP
* SR-MPLS Tree SIDs
* SRv6 Tree SIDs
* Native IPv4/IPv6 forwarding (networks without MPLS enabled
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
6.3.1.7. Co-existence, compatibility and interworking with existing
intent-aware routing solutions
The BGP intent-aware routing solution MUST be compliant with the
intent-aware routing framework described in Section 5. Specifically,
* It MUST support service routes using Color Extended-Community to
request intent as defined in [RFC9256]
* It MUST support automated steering of colored service routes on a
BGP intent-aware path using color
* Intent-aware routes MAY resolve recursively via other intent-aware
routes provided by any solution
6.3.1.8. Co-existence and Interworking with BGP-LU
BGP-LU [RFC8277] is widely deployed to provide inter-domain best-
effort connectivity across different domains. The BGP intent-aware
routing solution should support:
* Establishment of best-effort paths by using a color to represent
best-effort intent, to avoid the need to deploy both technologies
* Co-existence of inter-domain BGP-LU and BGP intent aware routing
in a network
* Support interworking of BGP-LU and BGP intent-aware network
domains.
6.3.1.9. Domains with different intent granularity
All domains in a network may not support the same number and granular
definition of colors. However, the maximum granularity of colors
should be provided for end to end paths that are set up for steering
of a colored service route, with mapping from a more granular color
to a less granular color where needed.
6.3.1.10. Domains with non-congruent Color-to-intent Mappings
As illustrated in Section 4.1, network domains under different
administrative control may assign different colors to represent the
same intent.
A color domain represents a collection of one or more network (IGP/
BGP) domains with a single, consistent set of color-to-intent
mappings.
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
Color for a given intent may need to be re-mapped across a color
domain boundary. The solution should support efficient color re-
mapping for intent-aware routes that are propagated to a different
color domain.
6.3.1.11. Color-to-intent coordination
It may be useful to have a few well-defined common intents with well-
known color values assigned that can be used across multiple operator
networks. Such a scheme can provide a consistent service definition
to customers that use paths for such intents from multiple operators.
This scheme does not preclude operators from defining intents with
similar characteristics and assigning other color values.
It may additionally be useful to have a reserved range of color
values for requirements that may arise in future.
However, it should also be noted that color assignments have been
used in customer deployments for a while now. Coordination and care
will be necessary for defining a range that does not conflict with
current deployments.
6.3.1.12. Co-existence with alternative solutions
Section 5 describes co-existence and interworking of the BGP intent
aware routing solution with other existing intent-aware solutions.
Controller based approaches or other distributed TE solutions can
also address the use-cases in this document.
The intent-aware routing solution should coexist with such
alternative solutions.
* It should allow traffic to use paths created by an alternative
solution.
* It should allow part of the inter-domain path to be created by an
alternative solution.
* The routing solution may be used to provide backup paths for a
primary path created by an alternative solution, or vice versa.
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
6.3.2. Scalability Requirements
6.3.2.1. Scale Requirements
* Support a massive scaled transport network
- Number of Remote PE's: >= 300k
- Number of Colors C: >= 5
* Support a scalable MPLS dataplane solution
* Constraints that need to be addressed:
- Typical inter-domain MPLS network designs (e.g. Seamless-MPLS)
build hop-by-hop stitched MPLS LSPs towards every PE in the
network. For the scale above, the number of forwarding entries
required to represent each remote PE for each color will exceed
the 1M MPLS label space limit.
- PE and transit nodes may be devices with low FIB capacity.
- Additionally, they may also have constraints on packet
processing (e.g, label ops, number of labels pushed)
* To address these constraints:
- The solution must support hierarchy in the forwarding plane
E.g. via a label stack or a list of segments, such that no
single node needs to support a data-plane scaling in the order
of (Remote PE * C)
- The solution should minimize state on border nodes in order to
reduce label and FIB resource consumption, while taking into
account packet processing constraints.
* Support ability to abstract the topology and network events from
remote domains - for scale, stability and faster convergence.
- E.g. contain the control plane propagation of a failure event
for an ABR within its attached upstream domain.
* Support an Emulated-PULL model for the BGP signaling
PE nodes may be devices with limited CPU and memory. The state on a
PE should be restricted to transport endpoints that it needs for
service steering.
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
BGP Signaling is natively a PUSH model.
For comparison, the SR-PCE solution natively supports a PULL model:
when PE1 installs a VPN route V/v via (C, PE2), PE1 requests its
serving SR-PCE to compute the SR Policy to (C, PE2). I.e. PE1 does
not learn unneeded SR policies.
Emulated-PULL refers to the ability for a BGP node PE1 to "subscribe"
to (C, PE2) route such that only paths for (C, PE2) are signaled to
PE1.
The requirements for an Emulated-PULL solution are as follows:
* The subscription and related filtering solution must apply to any
BGP node.
* For transport routes, this means
- Ability for a node (e.g. PE/ABR/ASBR) to signal interest for
routes of specific colors.
- Ability for a node (e.g ABR/ASBR) to propagate the subscription
message.
- PEs may choose to only learn routes that they need – e.g.
remote VPN endpoints (PEs/VPN ASBRs) or transit nodes (ABRs/
transport ASBRs).
- ABR/ASBRs also only learn and propagate routes for which nodes
within the local domain have expressed interest.
- The requirements for VPN routes will be updated in the future
version of the document.
* Automation of the subscription/filter route
- Similar to the SR-PCE solution, when an ingress PE1 installs
VPN V/v via (C, PE2), PE1 originates its subscription/filter
route for (C, PE2).
* Efficient propagation and processing of subscription/filter
routes.
- Ability to summarize the endpoints and thus request a number of
endpoints for a particular intent in a single subscription
route.
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
* The solution may be optional for networks that do not have the
large scaling requirements.
6.3.2.2. Scale Analysis
This section will be updated in the future revision of the document.
6.3.3. Network Availability Requirements
* A BGP intent-aware routing solution should provide high network
availability for typical deployment topologies, with minimum loss
of connectivity in different network failure scenarios.
* The network failure scenarios, applicable technologies and design
options described in [I-D.ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls] should be used
as a reference.
* In the Seamless-MPLS reference topology in section 5.4.1.1 :
- Failure of intra-domain links should limit loss of connectivity
(LoC) to under 50ms. E.g., PE11 to a P node (not shown), 121
to a P node in Domain1 or Domain2)
- Failure of an intra-domain node (P node in any domain) should
limit LoC to under 50ms
- Failure of an ABR node (e.g. 121, 231) should limit LoC to
under 1sec, or under 50ms depending on the network deployment
scenario.
- Failure of a remote PE node (e.g. PE31) should limit LoC to
under 1sec, or under 50ms depending on the network deployment
scenario and specific service failover requirements
* In the Inter-AS Option C VPN reference topology in
Section 5.4.1.3:
- Failure of intra-domain links should limit LoC to under 50ms.
E.g., PE11 to a P node (not shown), 121 to a P node in Domain1
or Domain2)
- Failure of an intra-domain node (P node in any domain) should
limit LoC to under 50ms
- Failure of an ASBR node (e.g. 121, 211) should limit LoC to
under 1sec, or under 50ms depending on the network deployment
scenario.
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
- Failure of a remote PE node (e.g. PE31) should limit LoC to
under 1sec, or under 50ms depending on the network deployment
scenario and specific service failover requirements
- Failure of an external link (e.g. 121-211) should limit LoC to
under 1sec, or under 50ms depending on the network deployment
scenario.
* The solution should explore and describe additional techniques and
design options that are applicable to further improve handling of
the failure cases listed above.
6.3.4. BGP Protocol Requirements
This section summarizes the key protocol requirements that should be
addressed by the intent-aware BGP routing solution. While the
context for several requirements has been discussed earlier in the
document, this section emphasizes aspects pertinent to the protocol
design.
The solution should support the following:
* Signaling and distribution of different Intent-aware routes to
reach a participating node, e.g. a PE. Intent must be indicated
by the notion of a Color as defined in [RFC9256]
- Signal different instances of a prefix, one route per color
- Signal intent (color) associated with each route
- At any BGP hop, allow propagating the best path selected for
each route, or additional paths
- Generate routes sourced from IGP-FA, SR-TE Policies, RSVP-TE
and BGP-LU from a domain
* Path selection for Intent-aware routes
- Accumulation of intent specific metric at each BGP hop and
compare the accumulated metric across all received paths at
intermediate hops and at an ingress PE.
- Ability to load balance among multiple received paths at
intermediate BGP hops and at an ingress PE
- Backup path installation for fast convergence at intermediate
BGP hops and at an ingress PE
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
* Validation of received paths
- Resolvability of next-hop in control plane
- Availability of encapsulation in data plane
* Next-hop resolution for BGP Intent-aware route
- Flexibility to use different intra-domain and inter-domain
mechanisms, both intent-aware and traditional
o IGP-FA, SR-TE, RSVP-TE, IGP, BGP-LU etc.
- Recursive resolution over other BGP Intent-Aware routes
- Recursive resolution via alternative color or best-effort paths
when a particular intent is not available in a domain
* Flexible, efficient, extensible protocol definition
- As an example for context, currently deployed mechanisms such
as BGP-LU (RFC 8277) were designed for MPLS, hence only signal
per prefix label(s) in NLRI. However, RFC9012 and RFC8669 have
described extensions to BGP to signal multiple encapsulations,
though in BGP attributes. The target deployments for intent-
aware routing need to support additional transport as described
in section 6.3.1.6.1. In addition, they also need to support a
significantly higher targeted scale as described in scaling
requirements.
- Hence, the protocol definition should
o Support efficient signaling of different transport
encapsulations
o Support efficient signaling multiple encapsulations for co-
existence and migration between encapsulations
o Accommodate efficiency of processing and future
extensibility
* Separation of transport and VPN service semantics
- Allow for different route distribution planes or processing for
service vs transport routes
* Signaling across domains with different color mappings for a given
intent
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
6.3.5. OAM Requirements
OAM in each domain should be function independently. This allows for
more flexible evolution of the network.
Basic MPLS OAM mechanisms described in [RFC8029] should be supported
for MPLS based solutions deployments. Extensions defined in
[RFC8287] should be supported.
Mechanisms described in [RFC 9259] should be supported for SRv6 based
deployments.
End-to-end ping and traceroute procedures should be supported.
The ability to validate the path inside each domain should be
supported.
Statistics for inter-domain intent-based transport paths should be
supported on a per intent-aware path basis on the ingress PE nodes
and as needed on egress and border nodes.
7. Backward Compatibility
This section will be updated in the future version of the document.
8. Security Considerations
This section will be updated in the future version of the document.
9. IANA Considerations
This section will be updated in the future version of the document.
10. Acknowledgements
The authors would especially like to thank Joel Halpern for his
guidance on the collaboration work that has produced this document
and feedback on many aspects of the problem statement.
We would like to thank Daniel Voyer, Robert Raszuk, Kireeti Kompella,
Ron Bonica, Krzysztof Szarkowicz, Julian Lucek, Ram Santhanakrishnan,
Stephane Litkowski, Andrew Alston for discussions and inputs.
We also express our appreciation to Hannes Gredler, Simon Spraggs,
Jose Liste and Jiri Chaloupka for discussions that have helped
provide input to the problem statement.
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
Many thanks to Colby Barth, John Scudder, Kamran Raza, Kris
Michelson, Huaimo Chen for their review and valuable suggestions.
Many thanks to Qassim Badat for valuable inputs on multicast
requirements.
11. Co-authors
1. Srihari Sangli
Juniper Networks Inc.
ssangli@juniper.net
2. Swadesh Agrawal
Cisco Systems
swaagraw@cisco.com
3. Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems
cfilsfils@cisco.com
4. Ketan Talaulikar
Cisco Systems
ketan.ietf@gmail.com
5. Keyur Patel
Arrcus, Inc
keyur@arrcus.com
6. Bruno Decraene
Orange
bruno.decraene@orange.com
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
7. Xiaohu Xu
China Mobile
13910161692@qq.com
8. Arkadiy Gulko
EdwardJones
arkadiy.gulko@edwardjones.com
9. Mazen Khaddam
Cox communications
mazen.khaddam@cox.com
10. Luis M. Contreras
Telefonica
luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com
11. Dirk Steinberg
Lapishills Consulting Limited
dirk@lapishills.com
12. Jim Guichard
Futurewei
james.n.guichard@futurewei.com
13. Wim Henderickx
Nokia
wim.henderickx@nokia.com
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
14. Chris Bowers
Independent Contributor
12. Contributors
1.Kaliraj Vairavakkalai
Juniper Networks
kaliraj@juniper.net
2. Jeffrey Zhang
Juniper Networks
zzhang@juniper.net
13. References
13.1. 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>.
13.2. Informative References
[I-D.dskc-bess-bgp-car]
Rao, D., Agrawal, S., Filsfils, C., Steinberg, D., Jalil,
L., Su, Y., Decraene, B., Guichard, J., Talaulikar, K.,
Patel, K., Wang, H., and J. Uttaro, "BGP Color-Aware
Routing (CAR)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
dskc-bess-bgp-car-05, 6 July 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dskc-bess-
bgp-car-05>.
[I-D.dskc-bess-bgp-car-problem-statement]
Rao, D., Agrawal, S., Filsfils, C., Decraene, B.,
Steinberg, D., Jalil, L., Guichard, J., Talaulikar, K.,
Patel, K., and W. Henderickx, "BGP Color-Aware Routing
Problem Statement", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-problem-statement-05, 26 May 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dskc-bess-
bgp-car-problem-statement-05>.
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
[I-D.filsfils-spring-sr-policy-considerations]
Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Król, P. G., Horneffer, M.,
and P. Mattes, "SR Policy Implementation and Deployment
Considerations", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
filsfils-spring-sr-policy-considerations-09, 24 April
2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
filsfils-spring-sr-policy-considerations-09>.
[I-D.hegde-rtgwg-egress-protection-sr-networks]
Hegde, S., Lin, W., and S. Peng, "Egress Protection for
Segment Routing (SR) networks", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-hegde-rtgwg-egress-protection-sr-
networks-02, 2 March 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hegde-rtgwg-
egress-protection-sr-networks-02>.
[I-D.hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-paths]
Hegde, S., Bowers, C., Litkowski, S., Xu, X., and F. Xu,
"Node Protection for SR-TE Paths", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-
te-paths-07, 30 July 2020,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hegde-spring-
node-protection-for-sr-te-paths-07>.
[I-D.hegde-spring-seamless-sr-architecture]
Hegde, S., Bowers, C., Xu, X., Gulko, A., Bogdanov, A.,
Uttaro, J., Jalil, L., Khaddam, M., and A. Alston,
"Seamless Segment Routing Architecture", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-hegde-spring-seamless-sr-
architecture-00, 22 February 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hegde-spring-
seamless-sr-architecture-00>.
[I-D.ietf-idr-performance-routing]
Xu, X., Hegde, S., Talaulikar, K., Boucadair, M., and C.
Jacquenet, "Performance-based BGP Routing Mechanism", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-performance-
routing-03, 22 December 2020,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-
performance-routing-03>.
[I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Mattes, P., and
D. Jain, "Advertising Segment Routing Policies in BGP",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-segment-
routing-te-policy-25, 26 September 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-
segment-routing-te-policy-25>.
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
[I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con]
Hegde, S., Britto, W., Shetty, R., Decraene, B., Psenak,
P., and T. Li, "Flexible Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay,
Metrics and Constraints", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-07, 26 September
2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-07>.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls]
Leymann, N., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Konstantynowicz,
M., and D. Steinberg, "Seamless MPLS Architecture", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-seamless-
mpls-07, 28 June 2014,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-
seamless-mpls-07>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp]
Koldychev, M., Sivabalan, S., Barth, C., Peng, S., and H.
Bidgoli, "PCEP extension to support Segment Routing Policy
Candidate Paths", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12, 24 July 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-
segment-routing-policy-cp-12>.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa]
Litkowski, S., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Francois, P.,
Decraene, B., and D. Voyer, "Topology Independent Fast
Reroute using Segment Routing", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-
11, 30 June 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-11>.
[I-D.kaliraj-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes]
Vairavakkalai, K., Venkataraman, N., Rajagopalan, B.,
Mishra, G. S., Khaddam, M., Xu, X., Szarecki, R. J.,
Gowda, D. J., Yadlapalli, C., and I. Means, "BGP Classful
Transport Planes", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-kaliraj-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes-17, 30
June 2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
kaliraj-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes-17>.
[I-D.voyer-pim-sr-p2mp-policy]
Voyer, D., Filsfils, C., Parekh, R., Bidgoli, H., and Z.
J. Zhang, "Segment Routing Point-to-Multipoint Policy",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-voyer-pim-sr-p2mp-
policy-02, 10 July 2020,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-voyer-pim-sr-
p2mp-policy-02>.
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
[I-D.zzhang-bess-bgp-multicast]
Zhang, Z. J., Giuliano, L., Patel, K., Wijnands, I.,
Mishra, M. P., and A. Gulko, "BGP Based Multicast", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-zzhang-bess-bgp-
multicast-03, 29 October 2019,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-zzhang-bess-
bgp-multicast-03>.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>.
[RFC3906] Shen, N. and H. Smit, "Calculating Interior Gateway
Protocol (IGP) Routes Over Traffic Engineering Tunnels",
RFC 3906, DOI 10.17487/RFC3906, October 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3906>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis",
RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>.
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.
[RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>.
[RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of
BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying
and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design
Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>.
[RFC7311] Mohapatra, P., Fernando, R., Rosen, E., and J. Uttaro,
"The Accumulated IGP Metric Attribute for BGP", RFC 7311,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7311, August 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7311>.
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
[RFC7471] Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., Atlas, A., and S.
Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Extensions", RFC 7471, DOI 10.17487/RFC7471, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7471>.
[RFC7911] Walton, D., Retana, A., Chen, E., and J. Scudder,
"Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP", RFC 7911,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7911, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7911>.
[RFC8570] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Giacalone, S., Ward,
D., Drake, J., and Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE)
Metric Extensions", RFC 8570, DOI 10.17487/RFC8570, March
2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8570>.
[RFC9012] Patel, K., Van de Velde, G., Sangli, S., and J. Scudder,
"The BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", RFC 9012,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9012, April 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9012>.
[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>.
[RFC9350] Psenak, P., Ed., Hegde, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K.,
and A. Gulko, "IGP Flexible Algorithm", RFC 9350,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9350, February 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9350>.
Authors' Addresses
Shraddha Hegde (Editor)
Juniper Networks Inc.
Exora Business Park
Bangalore 560103
KA
India
Email: shraddha@juniper.net
Dhananjaya Rao (Editor)
Cisco Systems
United States of America
Email: dhrao@cisco.com
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft Intent-aware Routing using Color October 2023
James Uttaro
Independent Contributor
Email: juttaro@ieee.org
Alex Bogdanov
BT
Email: alex.bogdanov@bt.com
Luay Jalil
Verizon
Email: luay.jalil@verizon.com
Hegde, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 51]