Segment Routing Proxy Forwarding
draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding-01

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2019-03-04
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text 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                                              Z. Hu
Internet-Draft                                                   H. Chen
Intended status: Standards Track                                  J. Yao
Expires: September 5, 2019                           Huawei Technologies
                                                               C. Bowers
                                                        Juniper Networks
                                                           March 4, 2019

                    Segment Routing Proxy Forwarding
          draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding-01

Abstract

   Segment Routing Traffic Engineering (SR-TE) supports the creation of
   explicit paths using segment lists containing adjacency-sids, node-
   sids, anycast-sids, and binding-sids.  When the segment list defining
   an SR-TE path contains a node-sid, and the node fails, the network
   may no longer be able to properly forward traffic on that SR-TE path.
   [I-D.bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa] and
   [I-D.hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-paths] describe a
   mechanism that allows local repair actions on the direct neighbors of
   the failed node to temporarily route traffic to the node immediately
   following the failed node on the SR-TE path segment list.  However,
   once the IGP shortest paths have converged, the local repair
   mechanism is no longer sufficient to continue forwarding traffic
   using the original segment list of the SR-TE path, since the non-
   neighbors of the failed node will no longer have a route to reach the
   failed node.  This document describes a mechanism that allows traffic
   to continue to be forwarded on an SR-TE path for an extended period
   of time after the failure of a node used in the path's segment list.

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/.

Hu, et al.              Expires September 5, 2019               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft             SR Proxy Forwarding                March 2019

   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 5, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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.  Extensions to IGP for Proxy Forwarding  . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Extensions to OSPF  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.1.1.  Advertising Proxy Forwarding  . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.1.2.  Advertising Binding Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.2.  Extensions to IS-IS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       2.2.1.  Advertising Proxy Forwarding  . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       2.2.2.  Advertising Binding Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   3.  Building Proxy Forwarding Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     3.1.  Advertising Proxy Forwarding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     3.2.  Building Proxy Forwarding Table . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   4.  Node Protection for Segment List  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     4.1.  Next Segment is an Adjacency Segment  . . . . . . . . . .  16
     4.2.  Next Segment is a Node Segment  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     4.3.  Next Segment is a Binding Segment . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
Show full document text