Segment Routing Conflict Resolution
draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution-02

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (spring WG)
Last updated 2017-03-29 (latest revision 2016-10-26)
Replaces draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd Martin Vigoureux
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Networking Working Group                                     L. Ginsberg
Internet-Draft                                                 P. Psenak
Intended status: Standards Track                              S. Previdi
Expires: April 29, 2017                                    Cisco Systems
                                                                M. Pilka
                                                        October 26, 2016

                  Segment Routing Conflict Resolution
              draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution-02.txt

Abstract

   In support of Segment Routing (SR) routing protocols advertise a
   variety of identifiers used to define the segments which direct
   forwarding of packets.  In cases where the information advertised by
   a given protocol instance is either internally inconsistent or
   conflicts with advertisements from another protocol instance a means
   of achieving consistent forwarding behavior in the network is
   required.  This document defines the policies used to resolve these
   occurrences.

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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 29, 2017.

Ginsberg, et al.         Expires April 29, 2017                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft           sr-conflict-resolution             October 2016

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  SR Global Block Inconsistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  SR-MPLS Segment Identifier Conflicts  . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  SID Preference  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Conflict Types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.2.1.  Prefix Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.2.2.  SID Conflict  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.3.  Processing conflicting entries  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       3.3.1.  Policy: Ignore conflicting entries  . . . . . . . . .   9
       3.3.2.  Policy: Preference Algorithm/Quarantine . . . . . . .  10
       3.3.3.  Policy: Preference algorithm/ignore overlap only  . .  10
       3.3.4.  Preference Algorithm  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       3.3.5.  Example Behavior - Single Topology/Algorithm  . . . .  11
       3.3.6.  Example Behavior - Multiple Topologies  . . . . . . .  12
       3.3.7.  Evaluation of Policy Alternatives . . . . . . . . . .  13
       3.3.8.  Guaranteeing Database Consistency . . . . . . . . . .  14
   4.  Scope of SR-MPLS SID Conflicts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   6.  IANA Consideration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     8.2.  Informational References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16

1.  Introduction

   Segment Routing (SR) as defined in [SR-ARCH] utilizes forwarding
Show full document text