Resiliency use cases in SPRING networks
draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-08

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (spring WG)
Last updated 2017-04-20 (latest revision 2016-10-28)
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 In Last Call (ends 2017-05-04)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD Alvaro Retana
Send notices to "Stephane Litkowski" <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>, aretana@cisco.com
IANA IANA review state IANA - Review Needed
IANA action state None
Network Working Group                                   C. Filsfils, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                           S. Previdi, Ed.
Intended status: Informational                       Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: May 1, 2017                                         B. Decraene
                                                                  Orange
                                                               R. Shakir
                                                                  Google
                                                        October 28, 2016

                Resiliency use cases in SPRING networks
               draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-08

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", "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 May 1, 2017.

Copyright Notice

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

Filsfils, et al.           Expires May 1, 2017                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft         SPRING Resiliency use-cases          October 2016

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

1.  Introduction

   SPRING aims at providing a network architecture supporting services
   with tight Service Level Agreements (SLA) guarantees
   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing].  This document reviews various use
   cases for the protection of services in a SPRING network.

   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).
Show full document text