Resiliency use cases in SPRING networks
draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-12

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (spring WG)
Last updated 2017-12-19
Replaces draft-francois-spring-resiliency-use-case
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Informational
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Stephane Litkowski
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2017-02-14)
IESG IESG state RFC Ed Queue
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Responsible AD Alvaro Retana
Send notices to "Stephane Litkowski" <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com
IANA IANA review state Version Changed - Review Needed
IANA action state No IC
RFC Editor RFC Editor state EDIT
Network Working Group                                   C. Filsfils, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                           S. Previdi, Ed.
Intended status: Informational                       Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: June 22, 2018                                       B. Decraene
                                                                  Orange
                                                               R. Shakir
                                                                  Google
                                                       December 19, 2017

                Resiliency use cases in SPRING networks
               draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-12

Abstract

   This document identifies and describes the requirements for a set of
   use cases related to network resiliency on Segment Routing (SPRING)
   networks.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT" and "MAY" in
   this document are used to define requirements for protocol and
   architecture design.

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 22, 2018.

Copyright Notice

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

Filsfils, et al.          Expires June 22, 2018                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft         SPRING Resiliency use-cases         December 2017

   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.  Path Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Management-free Local Protection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Management-free Bypass Protection . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Management-free Shortest Path Based Protection  . . . . .   6
   4.  Managed Local Protection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  Managed Bypass Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  Managed Shortest Path Protection  . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Loop Avoidance  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Co-existence of multiple resilience techniques in the same
       infrastructure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   9.  Manageability Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   10. Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   11. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

1.  Introduction

   This document reviews various use cases for the protection of
   services in a SPRING network.  The terminology used hereafter is in
   line with [RFC5286] and [RFC5714].

   The resiliency use cases described in this document can be applied
   not only to traffic that is forwarded according to the SPRING
   architecture but also to traffic that originally is forwarded using
   other paradigms such as LDP signalling or pure IP traffic (IP routed
   traffic).

   Three key alternatives are described: path protection, local
   protection without operator management and local protection with
   operator management.

Filsfils, et al.          Expires June 22, 2018                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft         SPRING Resiliency use-cases         December 2017

   Path protection lets the ingress node be in charge of the failure
   recovery, as discussed in Section 2.
Show full document text