IPv6 SPRING Use Cases
draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases-10

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (spring WG)
Last updated 2017-04-28 (latest revision 2017-04-13)
Replaces draft-martin-spring-segment-routing-ipv6-use-cases
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Informational
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication (wg milestone: Apr 2016 - Requirements for mod... )
Document shepherd Bruno Decraene
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2017-04-24)
IESG IESG state In Last Call (ends 2017-05-04)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD Alvaro Retana
Send notices to "Bruno Decraene" <bruno.decraene@orange.com>, aretana@cisco.com
IANA IANA review state IANA OK - No Actions Needed
IANA action state None
Spring                                                     J. Brzozowski
Internet-Draft                                                  J. Leddy
Intended status: Informational                                   Comcast
Expires: October 15, 2017                                    C. Filsfils
                                                        R. Maglione, Ed.
                                                             M. Townsley
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                          April 13, 2017

                         IPv6 SPRING Use Cases
                  draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases-10

Abstract

   The objective of this document is to illustrate some use cases that
   need to be taken into account by the Source Packet Routing in
   Networking (SPRING) architecture in the context of an IPv6
   environment.

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 October 15, 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
   (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

Brzozowski, et al.      Expires October 15, 2017                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft       IPv6 Segment Routing Use Cases           April 2017

   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.  IPv6 SPRING use cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  SPRING in the Home Network  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  SPRING in the Access Network  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.3.  SPRING in the Data Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.4.  SPRING in the Content Delivery Networks . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.5.  SPRING in the Core networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   3.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     7.1.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     7.2.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

1.  Introduction

   Source Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) architecture leverages
   the source routing paradigm.  An ingress node steers a packet through
   a controlled set of instructions, called segments, by prepending the
   packet with SPRING header.  The SPRING architecture is described in
   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing].

   In today's networks, source routing is typically accomplished by
   encapsulating IP packets in MPLS LSPs that are signaled via RSVP-TE.
   Therefore, there are scenarios where it may be possible to run IPv6
   on top of MPLS, and as such, the MPLS Segment Routing architecture
   described in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] could be
   leveraged to provide spring capabilities in an IPv6/MPLS environment.

   However, there are other cases and/or specific network segments (such
   as for example the Home Network, the Data Center, etc.) where MPLS
   may not be available or deployable for lack of support on network
   elements or for an operator's design choice.  In such scenarios a
   non-MPLS based solution would be preferred by the network operators
   of such infrastructures.

   In addition there are cases where the operators could have made the
Show full document text