Skip to main content

SR Policies Extensions for Path Segment and Bidirectional Path in BGP-LS
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment-02

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (idr WG)
Authors Cheng Li , Zhenbin Li , Yongqing Zhu , Weiqiang Cheng , Ketan Talaulikar
Last updated 2022-01-25
Replaces draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment
Stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text html xml htmlized pdfized bibtex
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment-02
Interdomain Routing Working Group                                  C. Li
Internet-Draft                                                     Z. Li
Intended status: Standards Track                     Huawei Technologies
Expires: July 30, 2022                                            Y. Zhu
                                                           China Telecom
                                                                W. Cheng
                                                            China Mobile
                                                          K.  Talaulikar
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                        January 26, 2022

SR Policies Extensions for Path Segment and Bidirectional Path in BGP-LS
            draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment-02

Abstract

   This document specifies the way of collecting configuration and
   states of SR policies carrying Path Segment and bidirectional path
   information by using BPG-LS.  Such information can be used by
   external conponents for many use cases such as performance
   measurement, path re-optimization and end-to-end protection.

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 July 30, 2022.

Li, et al.                Expires July 30, 2022                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft  Path ID and Bi-directional Path in BGP-LS   January 2022

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2022 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Carrying SR Path Sub-TLVs in BGP-LS . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  SR Path Segment Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Reverse Segment List Sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  Operations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.1.  BGP-LS TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

1.  Introduction

   Segment routing (SR) [RFC8402] is a source routing paradigm that
   allows the ingress node steers packets into a specific path according
   to the Segment Routing Policy
   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].

   However, the SR Policies defined in
   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] only supports unidirectional
   SR paths and there is no path ID in a Segment List to identify an SR
   path.  For identifying an SR path and supporting bidirectional path
   [I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment], new policies carrying Path
   Segment and bidirectional path information are defined in
   [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-segment], as well as the extensions to
   BGP to distribute new SR policies.  The Path Segment can be a Path

Li, et al.                Expires July 30, 2022                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft  Path ID and Bi-directional Path in BGP-LS   January 2022

   Segment in SR-MPLS [I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment] and SRv6
   [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment], or other IDs that can identify a
   path.

   In many network scenarios, the configuration and state of each TE
   Policy is required by a controller which allows the network operator
   to optimize several functions and operations through the use of a
   controller aware of both topology and state information
   [I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution].

   To collect the TE Policy information that is locally available in a
   router, [I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution] describes a new mechanism
   by using BGP-LS update messages.

   Based on the mechanism defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution],
   this document describes a mechanism to distribute configuration and
   states of the new SR policies defined in
   [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-segment] to external components using
   BGP-LS.

2.  Terminology

   This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC8402] and
   [I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution].

3.  Carrying SR Path Sub-TLVs in BGP-LS

   A mechanism to collect states of SR Policies via BGP-LS is proposed
   by [I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution].  The characteristics of an SR
   policy can be described by a TE Policy State TLV, which is carried in
   the optional non-transitive BGP Attribute "LINK_STATE Attribute"
   defined in [RFC7752].  The TE Policy State TLV contains several sub-
   TLVs such as SR TE Policy sub-TLVs.

   [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-segment] defines the BGP extensions for
   Path Segment.  The encoding is shown below.

Li, et al.                Expires July 30, 2022                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft  Path ID and Bi-directional Path in BGP-LS   January 2022

      SR Policy SAFI NLRI: <Distinguisher, Policy-Color, Endpoint>
      Attributes:
         Tunnel Encaps Attribute (23)
            Tunnel Type: SR Policy
                Binding SID
                Preference
                Priority
                Policy Name
                Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP)
                Segment List
                    Weight
                    Path Segment
                    Segment
                    Segment
                    ...
                Segment List
                    Weight
                    Path Segment
                    Segment
                    Segment
                    ...
                ...

           Figure 1. Path Segment in SR policy

   Also, [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-segment] defines SR policy
   extensions for bidirectional SR path, the encoding is shown below:

Li, et al.                Expires July 30, 2022                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft  Path ID and Bi-directional Path in BGP-LS   January 2022

       SR Policy SAFI NLRI: <Distinguisher, Policy-Color, Endpoint>
           Attributes: Tunnel Encaps Attribute (23)
           Tunnel Type: SR Policy
               Binding SID
               Preference
               Priority
               Policy Name
               Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP)
               Segment List
                   Weight
                   Path Segment
                   Segment
                   Segment
                   ...
                   Reverse Segment List
                       Weight
                       Path Segment
                       Segment
                       Segment
                       ...

             Figure 2. SR policy for Bidirectional path

   In order to collect configuration and states of unidirectional and
   bidirectional SR policies defined in
   [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-segment], this document defines new sub-
   TLVs in SR TE Policy sub-TLVs.

3.1.  SR Path Segment Sub-TLV

   This section defines the SR Path Segment sub-TLV to describe a Path
   Segment, and it can be included in the Segment List sub-TLV as
   defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution] . An SR Path Segment
   sub-TLV can be associated with an SR path specified by a Segment List
   sub-TLV.  Multiple Path Segment MAY be included in a Segment List for
   different use cases.  When all the SID Lists within a candidate path
   share the same Path Segment ID, the Path Segment can be used to
   collect the aggregated information of the candidate path.  The format
   of Path Segment TLV is shown below.

Li, et al.                Expires July 30, 2022                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft  Path ID and Bi-directional Path in BGP-LS   January 2022

     0                   1                   2                   3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |              Type           |             Length              |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |              Flag           |             Reserved            |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                   Path Segment ID (4 or 16 octets)            |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     //   Sub-TLVs (variable)                                       //
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                      Figure 3. Path Segment sub-TLV

   Where,

   o  Type: to be assigned by IANA.

   o  Length: the total length of the value field not including Type and
      Length fields.

   o  Flags: 2 octet field that indicates attribute and status of the
      Path Segment.  The following bit positions are defined.  Other
      bits SHOULD be cleared by originator and MUST be ignored by
      receiver.

          0                   1
          0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |D|B| |L|                       |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Where:

   o

      *  D-Flag : Indicates the dataplane for the BSIDs, it is set when
         Path Segment ID is a 16-octet SRv6 SID unset when the Path
         Segment ID is a 4-octet SR/MPLS label value.

      *  B-Flag: This flag, when set, indicates the presence of the SRv6
         Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure encoding specified in
         [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext].  It MUST be ignored when D-flag
         is unset.  They indicate the SRv6 Endpoint behavior and SID
         structure for the Path Segment ID value in the TLV.

      *  L-Flag: Local flag.  Set when the Path Segment has local
         significance on an SR node.

Li, et al.                Expires July 30, 2022                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft  Path ID and Bi-directional Path in BGP-LS   January 2022

   o  RESERVED: 2 octets.  SHOULD be set to 0 by originator and MUST be
      ignored by receiver.

   o  Path Segment ID: It indicates the Path Segment ID value based on
      the status flags.

   The SRv6 Endpoint Behavior TLV (1250) and the SRv6 SID Structure TLV
   (1252) defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext] are used as sub-TLVs
   of the SR Path Segment Sub-TLV to optionally indicate the SRv6
   Endpoint behavior and SID structure for the Binding SID value in the
   TLV when the Path Segment is an SRv6 Path Segment.

3.2.  Reverse Segment List Sub-TLV

   In some scenarios like mobile backhaul transport network, there are
   requirements to support bidirectional path.  In SR, a bidirectional
   path can be represented as a binding of two unidirectional SR paths
   [I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment].  An SR policy carrying SR
   bidirectional path information is expressed in Figure 2.
   [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-segment] defines a new sub-TLV to
   describe a reversed SR path of an SID list.

   This section defines a Reverse Segment List sub-TLV to specify a
   reverse SR path associated with the path specified by the Segment
   List, and it reuses the format of SR Segment List TLV defined in
   [I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution]:

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |              Type             |             Length            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |              Flags            |           RESERVED            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |             MTID              |   Algorithm   |    RESERVED   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                        Weight (4 octets)                      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |   sub-TLVs (variable)                                        //
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

              Figure 5. Reverse Segment List Sub-TLV

   All fields, except the type are defined in
   [I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution], and this TLV reuses it directly.
   The Type of this TLV is TBA.

Li, et al.                Expires July 30, 2022                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft  Path ID and Bi-directional Path in BGP-LS   January 2022

   The SR Segment sub-TLV [I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution] MUST be
   included as an ordered set of sub-TLVs within the SR Segment List TLV
   when the SID-List is not empty.  A SID-List may be empty in certain
   cases (e.g.  for a dynamic path) where the headend has not yet
   performed the computation and hence not derived the segments required
   for the path; in such cases, the SR Segment List TLV SHOULD NOT
   include any SR Segment sub-TLVs [I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution].

   Note: currently, only one reverse SID list is supported, so the
   weight field CAN be ignored when processing.  However, multiple
   reverse SID list MAY be supported in the future, and the use case of
   supporting this still need to be discussed.

4.  Operations

   The operations procedures of [RFC7752] can apply to this document.

   Typically but not limited to, the uni/bidirectional SR policies
   carrying path identification information can be distributed by the
   ingress node.

   Generally, BGP-LS is used for collecting link states and
   synchronizing with the external component.  The consumer of the uni/
   bidirectional SR policies carrying path identification information is
   not BGP LS process by itself, and it can be any applications such as
   performance measurement [I-D.gandhi-spring-udp-pm] and path re-
   coputation or re-optimization, etc.  The operation of sending
   information to other precesses is out of scope of this document.

5.  IANA Considerations

5.1.  BGP-LS TLVs

   IANA maintains a registry called "Border Gateway Protocol - Link
   State (BGP-LS) Parameters" with a sub-registry called "Node Anchor,
   Link Descriptor and Link Attribute TLVs".  The following TLV
   codepoints are suggested (for early allocation by IANA):

          Codepoint   Description                           Reference
          -------------------------------------------------------------
          TBA        Path Segment sub-TLV                  This document
          TBA        Reverse Segment List sub-TLV          This document

Li, et al.                Expires July 30, 2022                 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft  Path ID and Bi-directional Path in BGP-LS   January 2022

6.  Security Considerations

   TBA

7.  Contributors

      Mach(Guoyi) Chen
      Huawei Technologies
      Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
      Beijing  100095
      China

      Email: Mach.chen@huawei.com

      Jie Dong
      Huawei Technologies
      Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
      Beijing  100095
      China

      Email: jie.dong@huawei.com

      James N Guichard
      Futurewei Technologies
      2330 Central Express Way
      Santa Clara
      USA

      Email: james.n.guichard@futurewei.com

8.  Acknowledgements

   Many thanks to Shraddha Hedge for her detailed review and
   professional comments.

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext]
              Dawra, G., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Chen, M.,
              Bernier, D., and B. Decraene, "BGP Link State Extensions
              for SRv6", draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-09 (work in
              progress), November 2021.

Li, et al.                Expires July 30, 2022                 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft  Path ID and Bi-directional Path in BGP-LS   January 2022

   [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]
              Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Mattes, P.,
              Jain, D., and S. Lin, "Advertising Segment Routing
              Policies in BGP", draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-
              policy-14 (work in progress), November 2021.

   [I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution]
              Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Dong, J., Chen, M., Gredler,
              H., and J. Tantsura, "Distribution of Traffic Engineering
              (TE) Policies and State using BGP-LS", draft-ietf-idr-te-
              lsp-distribution-16 (work in progress), October 2021.

   [I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment]
              Cheng, W., Li, H., Chen, M., Gandhi, R., and R. Zigler,
              "Path Segment in MPLS Based Segment Routing Network",
              draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment-07 (work in progress),
              December 2021.

   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
              Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
              P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft-
              ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-14 (work in progress),
              October 2021.

   [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment]
              Li, C., Cheng, W., Chen, M., Dhody, D., and Y. Zhu, "Path
              Segment for SRv6 (Segment Routing in IPv6)", draft-ietf-
              spring-srv6-path-segment-03 (work in progress), November
              2021.

   [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>.

   [RFC7752]  Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
              S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
              Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.

   [RFC8402]  Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
              Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
              Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
              July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.

Li, et al.                Expires July 30, 2022                [Page 10]
Internet-Draft  Path ID and Bi-directional Path in BGP-LS   January 2022

9.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.gandhi-spring-udp-pm]
              Gandhi, R., Filsfils, C., Voyer, D., Salsano, S., Ventre,
              P. L., and M. Chen, "UDP Path for In-band Performance
              Measurement for Segment Routing Networks", draft-gandhi-
              spring-udp-pm-02 (work in progress), September 2018.

   [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-segment]
              Li, C., Li, Z., Yin, Y., Cheng, W., and K. Talaulikar, "SR
              Policy Extensions for Path Segment and Bidirectional
              Path", draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-05 (work in
              progress), January 2022.

   [I-D.ietf-mpls-bfd-directed]
              Mirsky, G., Tantsura, J., Varlashkin, I., and M. Chen,
              "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Directed Return
              Path for MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", draft-ietf-
              mpls-bfd-directed-18 (work in progress), August 2021.

Authors' Addresses

   Cheng Li
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
   Beijing  100095
   China

   Email: c.l@huawei.com

   Zhenbin Li
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
   Beijing  100095
   China

   Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com

   Yongqing Zhu
   China Telecom
   109 West Zhongshan Ave
   Guangzhou
   China

   Email: zhuyq8@chinatelecom.cn

Li, et al.                Expires July 30, 2022                [Page 11]
Internet-Draft  Path ID and Bi-directional Path in BGP-LS   January 2022

   Weiqiang Cheng
   China Mobile
   Beijing
   China

   Email: chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com

   Ketan Talaulikar
   Cisco Systems

   Email: ketant.ietf@gmail.com

Li, et al.                Expires July 30, 2022                [Page 12]