Flowspec Indirection-id Redirect
draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-03

IDR Working Group                                   G. Van de Velde, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                     Nokia
Intended status: Standards Track                                K. Patel
Expires: June 23, 2018                                            Arrcus
                                                                   Z. Li
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                       December 20, 2017

                    Flowspec Indirection-id Redirect
                draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-03

Abstract

   This document defines a new extended community known as flowspec
   redirect-to-indirection-id.  This extended community triggers
   advanced redirection capabilities to flowspec clients.  When
   activated, this flowspec extended community is used by a flowspec
   client to find the corresponding next-hop information within a
   indirection-id mapping table.

   The functionality detailed in this document allows a network
   controller to decouple the BGP flowspec redirection instruction from
   the selected redirection path itself.

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 [1].

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 June 23, 2018.

Van de Velde, et al.      Expires June 23, 2018                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft      Flowspec Indirection-id Redirect       December 2017

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (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.  indirection-id and indirection-id table . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Use Case Scenarios  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Redirection shortest Path tunnel  . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.2.  Redirection to path-engineered tunnels  . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.3.  Redirection to complex dynamically constructed tunnels  .   5
   4.  redirect-to-indirection-id Community  . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Redirect using localised indirection-id mapping table . . . .   8
   6.  Validation Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   9.  Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

1.  Introduction

   Flowspec is an extension to BGP that allows for the dissemination of
   traffic flow specification rules.  This has many possible
   applications but the primary one for many network operators is the
   distribution of traffic filtering actions for DDoS mitigation.  The
   flow-spec standard RFC5575 [2] defines a redirect-to-VRF action for
   policy-based forwarding, but this mechanism is not always sufficient,
   particularly if the redirected traffic needs to be steered onto an
   explicite path.

   Every flowspec policy route is effectively a rule, consisting of two
   parts.  The first part, encoded in the NLRI field, provides

Van de Velde, et al.      Expires June 23, 2018                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft      Flowspec Indirection-id Redirect       December 2017

   information about the traffic matching the policy rule. the second
   part, encoded in one or more BGP extended communities, provides
   policy instructions for traffic handling on the flowspec client.  The
   flowspec standard RFC5575 [2] defines widely-used filter actions such
   as discard and rate limit; it also defines a redirect-to-VRF action
   for policy-based forwarding.  Using the redirect-to-VRF action to
   steer traffic towards an alternate destination is useful for DDoS
   mitigation, however using this methodology can be cumbersome when
   there is need to steer the traffic onto an explicitely defined
   traffic path.

   This draft specifies a redirect-to-indirection-id flowspec action
   making use of a 32-bit indirection-id using a new extended community.
   Each indirection-id serves as anchor point, for policy-based
   forwarding onto an explicite path by a flowspec client.

2.  indirection-id and indirection-id table

   The indirection-id is a 32-bit unsigned number, used as anchor point
   on a flowspec client for policy-based forwarding onto an explicite
   path by a flowspec client.

   The indirection-id table is the table construct of indirection-id
   values, ordered by indirection-id type.  Each entry in this table
   contains policy-based forwarding instructions.

   The configuration of the indirection-id table on a flowspec client is
   localised on each router and MAY happen out-of-band from BGP
   flowspec.  For some use-case scenarios the indirection-id type
   provides additional (maybe even fully sufficient) context for a
   flowspec client for policy based forwarding, making a localized
   indirection-id table obsolete.  For example, when the indirection-id
   refers to a MPLS segment routing node-id [6], then the indirection-id
   provides sufficient information for a segment routing lookup on the
   flowspec client.

3.  Use Case Scenarios

   This section describes a few use-case scenarios when deploying
   redirect-to-indirection-id.

3.1.  Redirection shortest Path tunnel

   Description:

   The first use-case describes an example where a single flowspec route
   is sent from a BGP flowspec controller to many BGP flowspec clients.
   This BGP flowspec route carries the redirect-to-indirection-id to all

Van de Velde, et al.      Expires June 23, 2018                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft      Flowspec Indirection-id Redirect       December 2017

   flowspec clients to redirect matching dataflows onto a shortest-path
   tunnel pointing towards a single remote destination.

   In this first use-case scenario, each flowspec client receives
   flowspec routes.  The received flowspec routes have the extended
   redirect-to-indirection-id community attached.  Each redirect-to-
   indirection-id community embeds two relevant components: (1) 32-bit
   indirection-id and (2) indirection-id type.  These two components
   provide the flowspec client with sufficient information for policy
   based forwarding to steer and encapsulate the data-packet accordingly
   to a shortest path tunnel to a remote end-point.

   Requirements:

   For redirect to shortest path tunnel it is required that the tunnel
   MUST be operational and allow packets to be steered over the shortest
   path between tunnel head- and tail-end.

   Example: Indirection-ID community types to be used:

   o  0 (localised ID): When the intent is to use a localised
      Indirection-id table, configured through out-of-band procedures.

   o  1 or 2 (Node ID's): This type can be used when the goal is to use
      MPLS based Segment Routing towards a remote destination.  In this
      use-case scenario the flowspec rule contains a SR (Segment
      Routing) node SID to steer traffic towards.

3.2.  Redirection to path-engineered tunnels

   Description:

   The second use-case describes an example where a single flowspec
   route is sent from a BGP flowspec controller to many BGP flowspec
   clients.  This BGP flowspec route carries policy information to steer
   traffic upon a path-engineered tunnel.  It is assumed that the path
   engineered tunnels are configured using out-of-band from BGP
   flowspec.

   Segment Routing Example:

   For this example the indirection-id type points towards a Segment
   Routing Binding SID.  The Binding SID is a segment identifier value
   (as per segment routing definitions in [I-D.draft-ietf-spring-
   segment-routing] [6]) used to associate an explicit path.  The
   Binding SID and corresponding path engineered tunnel may for example
   be setup by a controller using BGP as specified in [I-D.sreekantiah-
   idr-segment-routing-te] [5] or alternatly by using PCEP as detailed

Van de Velde, et al.      Expires June 23, 2018                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft      Flowspec Indirection-id Redirect       December 2017

   in draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing [7].  To conclude, when a BGP
   speaker at some point in time receives a flow-spec route with an
   extended 'redirect-to-indirection-id' community, it installs a
   policy-based forwarding rule to redirect packets onto an explicit
   path associated with the corresponding Binding SID.  The encoding of
   the Binding SID within the redirect-to-indirection-id extended
   community is specified in section 4.

   Requirements:

   For redirect to path engineered tunnels it is required that the
   tunnel MUST be operational and allow packets to be steered over the
   engineered path between tunnel head- and tail-end.

   Example: Indirection-ID community types to be used:

   o  0 (localised ID): When the intent is to policy-based steer traffic
      using Indirection.  The engineered path is configured through out-
      of-band procedures and uses the 32-bit Indirection-id as local
      anchor point on the local flowspec client.

   o  2 or 3 (Binding Segment ID's): This type can be used when the goal
      is to use MPLS based Segment Routing towards an out-of-band
      configured explicite path.

   o  5 (Tunnel ID): When the intent is to policy-based steer traffic
      using a global tunnel-id.  The engineered path is configured
      through out-of-band procedures and uses the 32-bit Indirection-id
      as global anchor point on the local flowspec client.

3.3.  Redirection to complex dynamically constructed tunnels

   Description:

   A third use-case describes the application and redirection towards
   complex dynamically constructed tunnels.  For this use-case a BGP
   flowspec controller injects a single flowspec route with two unique
   'redirect-to-indirection-id' communities attached, each community
   tagged with a different Sequence-ID (S-ID).  A flowspec client may
   use the Sequence-ID (S-ID) to sequence the flowspec redirect
   information.  A common use-case scenario would for example be the
   dynamic construction of Segment Routing Central Egress Path
   Engineered tunnel [4] or next-next-hop tunnels.

   Segment Routing Example:

   i.e. a classic Segment Routing example using complex tunnels is found
   in DDoS mitigation and traffic offload.  Suspicious traffic (e.g.

Van de Velde, et al.      Expires June 23, 2018                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft      Flowspec Indirection-id Redirect       December 2017

   dirty traffic flows) may be policy-based routed into a purpose built
   Segment Routing Central Egress Path Engineered tunnel [4].  For this
   complex dynamic redirect tunnel construction, a first redirect-to-
   indirection-id (i.e.  S-ID=0) may be used to redirect traffic into a
   tunnel towards a particular egress router, while a second redirect-
   to-indirection-id (i.e.  S-ID=1) is used to steer traffic beyond the
   particular egress router towards a pre-identified interface/peer.
   From data-plane perspective, the principles documented by [4] are
   valid for this use case scenario.

   Requirements:

   To achieve redirection towards complex dynamically constructed
   tunnels, various indirection-id communities are imposed upon the
   flowspec route and are sequenced using the Sequence ID (S-ID).  For
   redirect to complex dynamic engineered tunnels it is required that
   the tunnel MUST be operational and allow packets to be steered over
   the engineered path between tunnel head- and tail-end.

   Example: Indirection-ID community types to be used:

   o  0 (localised ID) with S-ID: When the intent is to construct a
      dynamic engineered tunnel, then a sequence of localised
      indirection-ids may be used.  The Sequence ID (S-ID) MUST be used
      to sequence multiple redirect-to-indirection-id actions to
      construct a more complex path engineered tunnel.  The construction
      of the localised indirection-id table is done out-of-band and is
      outside scope of this document.

4.  redirect-to-indirection-id Community

   This document defines a new BGP extended community known as a
   Redirect-to-indirection-id extended community.  This extended
   community is a new transitive extended community with the Type and
   the Sub-Type field to be assigned by IANA.  The format of this
   extended community is show in Figure 1.

      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          | Sub-Type      | Flags(1 octet)| Indirection ID|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Generalized indirection_id                   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                                 Figure 1

Van de Velde, et al.      Expires June 23, 2018                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft      Flowspec Indirection-id Redirect       December 2017

   The meaning of the extended community fields are as follows:

   Type: 1 octet to be assigned by IANA.

   Sub-Type: 1 octet to be assigned by IANA.

   Flags: 1 octet field.  Following Flags are defined.

                              0             1
                              0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
                             +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                             | RES | S-ID  |C|
                             +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                                 Figure 2

   The least-significant Flag bit is defined as the 'C' (or copy) bit.
   When the 'C' bit is set the redirection applies to copies of the
   matching packets and not to the original traffic stream.

   The 'S-ID' field identifies a 4 bit Sequence ID field.  This field is
   used to provide a flowspec client an indication how and where to
   sequence the received indirection-ids.  The Sequence ID value 0
   indicates that Sequence ID field is NOT set and SHOULD be ignored.  A
   single flowspec rule MUST NOT have more as one indirection-id per
   S-ID.  On a flowspec client the indirection-id with lowest S-ID MUST
   be imposed first for any given flowspec entry.

   All bits other than the 'C' and 'S-ID' bits MUST be set to 0 by the
   originating BGP speaker and ignored by receiving BGP speakers.

   Indirection ID: 1 octet value.  This draft defines following
   indirection-id Types:

      0 - Localised ID (The flowspec client uses the received
      indirection-id to lookup forwarding information within the
      localised indirection-id table.  The allocation and programming of
      the localised indirection-id table is outside scope of the
      document)

      1 - Node ID with SID/index in MPLS-based Segment Routing (This
      means indirection-id is mapped to an MPLS label using the index as
      a global offset in the SID/label space)

Van de Velde, et al.      Expires June 23, 2018                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft      Flowspec Indirection-id Redirect       December 2017

      2 - Node ID with SID/label in MPLS-based Segment Routing (This
      means indirection-id is mapped to an MPLS label using the label as
      global label)

      3 - Binding Segment ID with SID/index in MPLS-based Segment
      Routing (This means indirection-id is mapped to an MPLS binding
      label using the index as a global offset in the SID/label space)
      [I-D.draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing] [6]

      4 - Binding Segment ID with SID/label in MPLS-based Segment
      Routing (This means indirection-id is mapped to an MPLS binding
      label using the index as a global offset in the SID/label space)
      [I-D.draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing] [6]

      5 - Tunnel ID (Tunnel ID is a global value in a network single
      administrative domain identifying tunnel information.  The
      allocation of the Tunnel ID is out of the scope of the document.)

5.  Redirect using localised indirection-id mapping table

   When a BGP flowspec client receives a flowspec policy route with a
   redirect-to-indirection-id extended community attached and the route
   represents the best BGP path, it will install a flowspec policy-based
   forwarding rule matching the tupples described by the flowpsec NLRI
   field and consequently redirects the flow (C=0) or copies the flow
   (C=1) using the information identified by the 'redirect-to-
   indirection-id' community.

6.  Validation Procedures

   The validation check described in RFC5575 [2] and revised in [3]
   SHOULD be applied by default by a flowspec client, for received
   flowspec policy routes containing a 'redirect-to-indirection-id'
   extended community.  This means that a flow-spec route with a
   destination prefix subcomponent SHOULD NOT be accepted from an EBGP
   peer unless that peer also advertised the best path for the matching
   unicast route.

   While it MUST NOT happen, and is seen as invalid combination, it is
   possible from a semantics perspective to have multiple clashing
   redirect actions defined within a single flowspec rule.  For best and
   consistant with legacy implementations, the redirect functionality as
   documented by RFC5575 MUST NOT be broken, and hence when a clash
   occurs, then RFC5575 based redirect MUST take priority.
   Additionally, if the 'redirect-to-indirection-id' does not result in
   a valid redirection, then the flowspec rule MUST be processed as if
   the 'redirect-to-indirection-id' community was not attached to the
   flowspec route and MUST provide an indication within the BGP routing

Van de Velde, et al.      Expires June 23, 2018                 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft      Flowspec Indirection-id Redirect       December 2017

   table that the respective 'redirect-to-indirection-id' resulted in an
   invalid redirection action.

7.  Security Considerations

   A system using 'redirect-to-indirection-id' extended community can
   cause during the redirect mitigation of a DDoS attack result in
   overflow of traffic received by the mitigation infrastructure.

8.  Acknowledgements

   This document received valuable comments and input from IDR working
   group including Adam Simpson, Mustapha Aissaoui, Jan Mertens, Robert
   Raszuk, Jeff Haas, Susan Hares and Lucy Yong.

9.  Contributor Addresses

   Below is a list of other contributing authors in alphabetical order:

Van de Velde, et al.      Expires June 23, 2018                 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft      Flowspec Indirection-id Redirect       December 2017

   Arjun Sreekantiah
   Cisco Systems
   170 W. Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email: asreekan@cisco.com

   Nan Wu
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Bld., No. 156 Beiquing Rd
   Beijing  100095
   China

   Email: eric.wu@huawei.com

   Shunwan Zhuang
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Bld., No. 156 Beiquing Rd
   Beijing  100095
   China

   Email: zhuangshunwan@huawei.com

   Wim Henderickx
   Nokia
   Antwerp
   BE

   Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com

                                 Figure 3

10.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests a new type and sub-type for the redirect-to-
   indirection-id Extended community from the "Transitive Extended
   community" registry.  The Type name shall be "Redirect-to-
   indirection-id Extended Community" and the Sub-type name shall be
   'Flow-spec Redirect to 32-bit Path-id'.

   In addition, this document requests IANA to create a new registry for
   redirect-to-indirection-id Extended Community INDIRECTION-IDs as
   follows:

Van de Velde, et al.      Expires June 23, 2018                [Page 10]
Internet-Draft      Flowspec Indirection-id Redirect       December 2017

   Under "Transitive Extended Community:"

   Registry: "Redirect Extended Community indirection_id"

   Reference: [RFC-To-Be]

   Registration Procedure(s): First Come, First Served

   Registry: "Redirect Extended Community indirection_id"

           Value    Code                              Reference

           0        Localised ID                      [RFC-To-Be]
           1        Node ID                           [RFC-To-Be]
     2        Binding ID                        [RFC-To-Be]
           3        Tunnel ID                         [RFC-To-Be]

                                 Figure 4

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [1]        Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997,
              <http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/html/rfc2119.html>.

   [2]        Marques, P., Sheth, N., Raszuk, R., Greene, B., Mauch, J.,
              and D. McPherson, "Dissemination of Flow Specification
              Rules", RFC 5575, DOI 10.17487/RFC5575, August 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5575>.

11.2.  Informative References

   [3]        Uttaro, J., Filsfils, C., Alcaide, J., and P. Mohapatra,
              "Revised Validation Procedure for BGP Flow
              Specifications", January 2014.

   [4]        Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Aries, E., Ginsburg, D., and D.
              Afanasiev, "Segment Routing Centralized Egress Peer
              Engineering", October 2015.

   [5]        Sreekantiah, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Sivabalan, S.,
              Mattes, P., and S. Lin, "Segment Routing Traffic
              Engineering Policy using BGP", October 2015.

Van de Velde, et al.      Expires June 23, 2018                [Page 11]
Internet-Draft      Flowspec Indirection-id Redirect       December 2017

   [6]        Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S.,
              Shakir, R., Bashandy, A., Horneffer, M., Henderickx, W.,
              Tantsura, J., Crabbe, E., Milojevic, I., and S. Ytti,
              "Segment Routing Architecture", December 2015.

   [7]        Sivabalan, S., Medved, M., Filsfils, C., Litkowski, S.,
              Raszuk, R., Bashandy, A., Lopez, V., Tantsura, J.,
              Henderickx, W., Hardwick, J., Milojevic, I., and S. Ytti,
              "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing", December 2015.

Authors' Addresses

   Gunter Van de Velde (editor)
   Nokia
   Antwerp
   BE

   Email: gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com

   Keyur Patel
   Arrcus
   USA

   Email: keyur@arrcus.com

   Zhenbin Li
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Bld., No. 156 Beiquing Rd
   Beijing  100095
   China

   Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com

Van de Velde, et al.      Expires June 23, 2018                [Page 12]